Accountable;880470 wrote: I went back a bit and found a post by gmc that I hadn't responded to, but he & I are just too far separated politically. We need a middle guy.
gmc, you ruin my image of a proud Scot standing against injustice. Your socialist views seem to me to be rolling on your back and screaming for the gov't to come change your nappy. I'm certain you see yourself in quite an opposite light. I just don't understand how you can proudly demand that someone else provide basic needs you're perfectly capable of taking care of yourself.
I'm hoping this just got lost in the mix. I'd really like a response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that the difference lies in the lack of a shared background.
In America, whilst your current culture was forming, the problem that most people experienced was isolation. Communities were widespread and small and had to rely on their own ability to survive - if you wanted land you went into the hinterland and staked a claim to the land you thought you could hold and if you were attacked you'd damn'd well better defend yourself.
In the UK we had exactly the opposite problem, there was no land to move into - it was all owned (almost exclusively by the aristocracy), there was very little choice of job - you worked in the town's industry for the sole employer. The fight was against the employers who abused their workers and the conditions under which people had to live.
The background was, therefore, not "it's your problem, sort it" because anyone who objected was crushed - if not by the employer then by the government. The background was fight for your rights to live as human beings and, having fought, we're damn'd if we'll give it up.
Let me give you a few examples :-
In many cases workers were paid, not in coin of the realm but in "tommy notes" that were only redeemable in tommy shops owned by the employer. Not only did this prevent the worker moving elsewhere (even if another employer would have them which mostly they wouldn't - they've moved so they must be trouble makers) but the inflated prices kept the workers in debt to the shop and the force of the law could therefore be used should they upset the powers that be.
My father in law was a miner, he worked in the South Wales coalfields before nationalisation. The workers were considered to be expendable and little was done towards safety. If there was an accident (a frequent occurrence) then it was "get the ponies out first" as they cost more to replace than the workers.
My wife was born in the front room at home. Not because it was felt to be better or because they were too far from a hospital (they could walk to the nearest one) but because this was before national health and the working class could not afford even basic healthcare - that was for the rich, and remember, the money was almost exclusively inherited wealth.
If and when the working class objected to the treatment they received they were put down, by the army if necessary, so they had to fight for every improvement in their condition with no possibility of just walking away to somewhere no-one else wanted.
It is not lying on your back and screaming for the government to change your nappy it is demanding the basic right to life that was refused to us for so long. It is an experience that your culture does not appear to have had to go through - you had your own crosses to bare.
Accountable;880234 wrote:
Everyone is of equal worth. That being said and that being true, why are they taxed unequally? The result is that those who have less money are de facto worth more, which is just as morally wrong and should raise your hackles as much. This is our chance to find another way besides just collecting money from those that have more of it. Let's get out of the box!
Do you accept that a society can be set up in such a way as to make it easy for those with money to make money and hard for those without?
In such a society there will be a large gap between rich and poor. Is it the fault of the poor in such a society that they are poor or of the rich who set the rules? Take Zimbabwe as an example when you answer.
Accountable;880234 wrote: And that comes across as "the only value an affluent person gives to society is the amount of tax (s)he pays."
You've said everyone should enjoy equal benefits. Benefits must be paid for. I want equality across the board, on both the plus and minus sides.
How do you get that - it's an all cows are animals therefore all animals are cows argument.
Accountable;880234 wrote: Have you ever been poor and had an opportunity to contribute to something you're receiving? Serving in a lunchline before you yourself eat? Helping hand out Christmas presents from generous strangers before opening your own? How about being in an accident and passing on medical help so that another might get it first? I have, and it's very empowering. :-6 This kind of empowerment can make a citzen feel like part of a system rather than simply a recipient. It could be just the catalyst needed to inspire someone to pull themselves up a little.
I have been poor and contributed to society and I have been rich and contributed to society - putting effort into helping your fellows is not a function of wealth it is an attitude of mind and you are right, it is empowering whatever situation you are in.
Accountable;880234 wrote: You suggested earlier that there are other ways for people to earn - sorry, assist in paying for - benefits. Maybe we could flesh out that idea a bit.
Do you consider that Mother Theresa contributed nothing to her society? There are myriad ways of contributing and it would be a sad day if they were all translated into a cash equivalent value.
Accountable;880234 wrote:
While you're picking my suggestions apart how about one or two of your own.
Do you really see all of my posts in this thread as knocking your ideas? I find that very disappointing to say the least.
Free or Equal?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
gmc;880797 wrote: You seem to have an exaggerated idea of what people get in this country. It's hardly being coddled-sure if you're ill you get free treatment and that's one worry you don't have but if you can't go back to work due to long term illness and haven't taken out proper insurance on your mortgage you end up losing your house and being homeless (A surprising number of people here think it will be paid for them). then OK other benefits kick in when you're destitute and you won't starve but it's hardly the life of riley. it just keeps the poverty from being abject.
Same with unemployment, if you can't get a job and have a mortgage no one pays your mortgage for you, even the insurance you get only covers you for a year. after that you're stuffed and have to sell or get a job if you can. I have every sympathy for the unemployed but I would not be happy about benefits covering things like mortgage payments beyond a few months at most.
It's funny how even the most rabid right winger feels hard done by when they find they can't keep their house in the suburbs and the lifestyle they were used to if they lose their job through downsizing or through ill health cos they expect the welfare state to kick in. Everybody else thinks tough **** what did you expect. You'll find the greatest hostility to those who abuse the system amongst their neighboursThey seem to have an exaggerated idea of what people get in that country, as well.
Same with unemployment, if you can't get a job and have a mortgage no one pays your mortgage for you, even the insurance you get only covers you for a year. after that you're stuffed and have to sell or get a job if you can. I have every sympathy for the unemployed but I would not be happy about benefits covering things like mortgage payments beyond a few months at most.
It's funny how even the most rabid right winger feels hard done by when they find they can't keep their house in the suburbs and the lifestyle they were used to if they lose their job through downsizing or through ill health cos they expect the welfare state to kick in. Everybody else thinks tough **** what did you expect. You'll find the greatest hostility to those who abuse the system amongst their neighboursThey seem to have an exaggerated idea of what people get in that country, as well.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
gmc;880797 wrote: Why do you think socialised medicine is such a bad thing?Keep in mind that I'm answering only for my opinion and only as it impacts my society.
It creates dependency unnecessarily. Everywhere I look I see more and more acceptance of capable and (arguably) competent people abandoning responsibility to someone else ... or simply abandoning responsibility. Everyone is a victim, and here is one more chance to be irresponsible.
It hurts commerce. A government has to impose price controls - artificial stagnation - on pharmaceutical companies and presumably other medical support. It's the only way known to guarantee low prices. The only thing keeping research and development afloat is the fact that drug companies can charge us extra to make up for the money lost selling to Japan, UK, Canada, etc. Will the gov't be expected to subsidize r&d as well?
It creates dependency unnecessarily. Everywhere I look I see more and more acceptance of capable and (arguably) competent people abandoning responsibility to someone else ... or simply abandoning responsibility. Everyone is a victim, and here is one more chance to be irresponsible.
It hurts commerce. A government has to impose price controls - artificial stagnation - on pharmaceutical companies and presumably other medical support. It's the only way known to guarantee low prices. The only thing keeping research and development afloat is the fact that drug companies can charge us extra to make up for the money lost selling to Japan, UK, Canada, etc. Will the gov't be expected to subsidize r&d as well?
Free or Equal?
Accountable;881157 wrote: They seem to have an exaggerated idea of what people get in that country, as well.
Or they are just pig ignorant. Five minutes conversation usually establishes they don't know what the benefits actually are. There are undoubtedly people playing the system, most do not.
posted by accountable
Keep in mind that I'm answering only for my opinion and only as it impacts my society.
* It creates dependency unnecessarily. Everywhere I look I see more and more acceptance of capable and (arguably) competent people abandoning responsibility to someone else ... or simply abandoning responsibility. Everyone is a victim, and here is one more chance to be irresponsible.
* It hurts commerce. A government has to impose price controls - artificial stagnation - on pharmaceutical companies and presumably other medical support. It's the only way known to guarantee low prices. The only thing keeping research and development afloat is the fact that drug companies can charge us extra to make up for the money lost selling to Japan, UK, Canada, etc. Will the gov't be expected to subsidize r&d as well?
Don't see how free healthcare makes you dependant
It hurts commerce. A government has to impose price controls - artificial stagnation - on pharmaceutical companies and presumably other medical support. It's the only way known to guarantee low prices. The only thing keeping research and development afloat is the fact that drug companies can charge us extra to make up for the money lost selling to Japan, UK, Canada, etc. Will the gov't be expected to subsidize r&d as well?
By that logic there should be very few european drug companies. In actual fact we're world leaders, and no-research is not government funded
http://www.pharmaceutical.org.uk/
About the UK Pharmaceutical Industry
Pharmaceuticals are one of Britain’s leading manufacturing sectors, bringing in a trade surplus of £3.4 billion in 2004. The value of UK pharmaceutical exports in 2005 was £12,2 billion, more than £166,000 per employee. Yet we are low in the league of medicines expenditure: we spend much less than many of our European neighbours on the medicines we use. But our two largest pharmaceutical companies are among the most successful in the world. In a global industry such as pharmaceuticals, it is important to be in the Big League. An analysis of the world’s top 100 medicines reveals that, after the USA, Britain’s pharmaceutical companies’ market share is more than all its European competitors combined. Despite this success, British doctors are still reluctant to prescribe new medicines – clinicians in other countries are far more likely to prescribe medicines that have come on to the market in the past five years.
Or they are just pig ignorant. Five minutes conversation usually establishes they don't know what the benefits actually are. There are undoubtedly people playing the system, most do not.
posted by accountable
Keep in mind that I'm answering only for my opinion and only as it impacts my society.
* It creates dependency unnecessarily. Everywhere I look I see more and more acceptance of capable and (arguably) competent people abandoning responsibility to someone else ... or simply abandoning responsibility. Everyone is a victim, and here is one more chance to be irresponsible.
* It hurts commerce. A government has to impose price controls - artificial stagnation - on pharmaceutical companies and presumably other medical support. It's the only way known to guarantee low prices. The only thing keeping research and development afloat is the fact that drug companies can charge us extra to make up for the money lost selling to Japan, UK, Canada, etc. Will the gov't be expected to subsidize r&d as well?
Don't see how free healthcare makes you dependant
It hurts commerce. A government has to impose price controls - artificial stagnation - on pharmaceutical companies and presumably other medical support. It's the only way known to guarantee low prices. The only thing keeping research and development afloat is the fact that drug companies can charge us extra to make up for the money lost selling to Japan, UK, Canada, etc. Will the gov't be expected to subsidize r&d as well?
By that logic there should be very few european drug companies. In actual fact we're world leaders, and no-research is not government funded
http://www.pharmaceutical.org.uk/
About the UK Pharmaceutical Industry
Pharmaceuticals are one of Britain’s leading manufacturing sectors, bringing in a trade surplus of £3.4 billion in 2004. The value of UK pharmaceutical exports in 2005 was £12,2 billion, more than £166,000 per employee. Yet we are low in the league of medicines expenditure: we spend much less than many of our European neighbours on the medicines we use. But our two largest pharmaceutical companies are among the most successful in the world. In a global industry such as pharmaceuticals, it is important to be in the Big League. An analysis of the world’s top 100 medicines reveals that, after the USA, Britain’s pharmaceutical companies’ market share is more than all its European competitors combined. Despite this success, British doctors are still reluctant to prescribe new medicines – clinicians in other countries are far more likely to prescribe medicines that have come on to the market in the past five years.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
Bryn Mawr;881064 wrote: I think that the difference lies in the lack of a shared background.
In America, whilst your current culture was forming, the problem that most people experienced was isolation. Communities were widespread and small and had to rely on their own ability to survive - if you wanted land you went into the hinterland and staked a claim to the land you thought you could hold and if you were attacked you'd damn'd well better defend yourself.
In the UK we had exactly the opposite problem, there was no land to move into - it was all owned (almost exclusively by the aristocracy), there was very little choice of job - you worked in the town's industry for the sole employer. The fight was against the employers who abused their workers and the conditions under which people had to live.
The background was, therefore, not "it's your problem, sort it" because anyone who objected was crushed - if not by the employer then by the government. The background was fight for your rights to live as human beings and, having fought, we're damn'd if we'll give it up.
Let me give you a few examples :-
In many cases workers were paid, not in coin of the realm but in "tommy notes" that were only redeemable in tommy shops owned by the employer. Not only did this prevent the worker moving elsewhere (even if another employer would have them which mostly they wouldn't - they've moved so they must be trouble makers) but the inflated prices kept the workers in debt to the shop and the force of the law could therefore be used should they upset the powers that be.
My father in law was a miner, he worked in the South Wales coalfields before nationalisation. The workers were considered to be expendable and little was done towards safety. If there was an accident (a frequent occurrence) then it was "get the ponies out first" as they cost more to replace than the workers.
My wife was born in the front room at home. Not because it was felt to be better or because they were too far from a hospital (they could walk to the nearest one) but because this was before national health and the working class could not afford even basic healthcare - that was for the rich, and remember, the money was almost exclusively inherited wealth.
If and when the working class objected to the treatment they received they were put down, by the army if necessary, so they had to fight for every improvement in their condition with no possibility of just walking away to somewhere no-one else wanted.
It is not lying on your back and screaming for the government to change your nappy it is demanding the basic right to life that was refused to us for so long. It is an experience that your culture does not appear to have had to go through - you had your own crosses to bare.That does help put a more realistic sentiment behind the words I'm reading. It lines up with what I observed firsthand while in England.
We had similar situations as your tommy notes. The company built a town near the factory with a company store. You know the rest. Ugly part of our history that produced a classic tune.
Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you
Then the left one will
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Bryn Mawr wrote: Do you accept that a society can be set up in such a way as to make it easy for those with money to make money and hard for those without?
In such a society there will be a large gap between rich and poor. Is it the fault of the poor in such a society that they are poor or of the rich who set the rules? Take Zimbabwe as an example when you answer.Of course it's possible, but it's not inevitable.
Bryn Mawr wrote: How do you get that - it's an all cows are animals therefore all animals are cows argument.My point is that money is not the only contribution that the affluent make, despite the flood of popparazzi pics of Paris Hilton. Our current systems don't distinguish those that contribute to society from those that don't. They take the easy road of separating those with money from those without, and creates a ridiculously false morality that makes the poor of higher virtue (regardless of why they're poor) than the rich (regardless of how they got the money).
In light of the explanation you gave of our differences, realize that we don't have a real class system. It's just easier to use established language. Most of our affluent are self-made. Old money is rare here.
The vast majority of our rich folks create jobs for the very neighborhoods they hail from. They use their money to make others more affluent, empowering them to take care of themselves.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I have been poor and contributed to society and I have been rich and contributed to society - putting effort into helping your fellows is not a function of wealth it is an attitude of mind and you are right, it is empowering whatever situation you are in.Yes, the effort's the thing. Sending a check is empty.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Do you consider that Mother Theresa contributed nothing to her society? There are myriad ways of contributing and it would be a sad day if they were all translated into a cash equivalent value. You know me better than to ask that question so I'll let it go, but cash is the currency of the day. I would likewise never say that the only contribution millionaire Jimmy Carter makes to society is the check he sends to the Internal Revenue Service. But while a Mother Theresa changes lives and is not frowned upon for not paying to support gov't services, a Jimmy Carter is would be put in prison if he didn't pay taxes, regardless of how many lives he saved, changed, or improved.
That's fair? That's equal? I don't think so. I would imagine that an ideal society would find away to fix such an extreme disparity, lifting the Mother Theresas, Jimmy Carters, and yes Warren Buffets while lumping the Paris Hiltons and able-bodied welfare parasites together.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Do you really see all of my posts in this thread as knocking your ideas? I find that very disappointing to say the least.Sorry you got smacked with my vent. You didn't deserve that.
In America, whilst your current culture was forming, the problem that most people experienced was isolation. Communities were widespread and small and had to rely on their own ability to survive - if you wanted land you went into the hinterland and staked a claim to the land you thought you could hold and if you were attacked you'd damn'd well better defend yourself.
In the UK we had exactly the opposite problem, there was no land to move into - it was all owned (almost exclusively by the aristocracy), there was very little choice of job - you worked in the town's industry for the sole employer. The fight was against the employers who abused their workers and the conditions under which people had to live.
The background was, therefore, not "it's your problem, sort it" because anyone who objected was crushed - if not by the employer then by the government. The background was fight for your rights to live as human beings and, having fought, we're damn'd if we'll give it up.
Let me give you a few examples :-
In many cases workers were paid, not in coin of the realm but in "tommy notes" that were only redeemable in tommy shops owned by the employer. Not only did this prevent the worker moving elsewhere (even if another employer would have them which mostly they wouldn't - they've moved so they must be trouble makers) but the inflated prices kept the workers in debt to the shop and the force of the law could therefore be used should they upset the powers that be.
My father in law was a miner, he worked in the South Wales coalfields before nationalisation. The workers were considered to be expendable and little was done towards safety. If there was an accident (a frequent occurrence) then it was "get the ponies out first" as they cost more to replace than the workers.
My wife was born in the front room at home. Not because it was felt to be better or because they were too far from a hospital (they could walk to the nearest one) but because this was before national health and the working class could not afford even basic healthcare - that was for the rich, and remember, the money was almost exclusively inherited wealth.
If and when the working class objected to the treatment they received they were put down, by the army if necessary, so they had to fight for every improvement in their condition with no possibility of just walking away to somewhere no-one else wanted.
It is not lying on your back and screaming for the government to change your nappy it is demanding the basic right to life that was refused to us for so long. It is an experience that your culture does not appear to have had to go through - you had your own crosses to bare.That does help put a more realistic sentiment behind the words I'm reading. It lines up with what I observed firsthand while in England.
We had similar situations as your tommy notes. The company built a town near the factory with a company store. You know the rest. Ugly part of our history that produced a classic tune.
Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin', it was drizzlin' rain
Fightin' and trouble are my middle name
I was raised in the canebrake by an ol' mama lion
Cain't no-a high-toned woman make me walk the line
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
If you see me comin', better step aside
A lotta men didn't, a lotta men died
One fist of iron, the other of steel
If the right one don't a-get you
Then the left one will
You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
Bryn Mawr wrote: Do you accept that a society can be set up in such a way as to make it easy for those with money to make money and hard for those without?
In such a society there will be a large gap between rich and poor. Is it the fault of the poor in such a society that they are poor or of the rich who set the rules? Take Zimbabwe as an example when you answer.Of course it's possible, but it's not inevitable.
Bryn Mawr wrote: How do you get that - it's an all cows are animals therefore all animals are cows argument.My point is that money is not the only contribution that the affluent make, despite the flood of popparazzi pics of Paris Hilton. Our current systems don't distinguish those that contribute to society from those that don't. They take the easy road of separating those with money from those without, and creates a ridiculously false morality that makes the poor of higher virtue (regardless of why they're poor) than the rich (regardless of how they got the money).
In light of the explanation you gave of our differences, realize that we don't have a real class system. It's just easier to use established language. Most of our affluent are self-made. Old money is rare here.
The vast majority of our rich folks create jobs for the very neighborhoods they hail from. They use their money to make others more affluent, empowering them to take care of themselves.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I have been poor and contributed to society and I have been rich and contributed to society - putting effort into helping your fellows is not a function of wealth it is an attitude of mind and you are right, it is empowering whatever situation you are in.Yes, the effort's the thing. Sending a check is empty.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Do you consider that Mother Theresa contributed nothing to her society? There are myriad ways of contributing and it would be a sad day if they were all translated into a cash equivalent value. You know me better than to ask that question so I'll let it go, but cash is the currency of the day. I would likewise never say that the only contribution millionaire Jimmy Carter makes to society is the check he sends to the Internal Revenue Service. But while a Mother Theresa changes lives and is not frowned upon for not paying to support gov't services, a Jimmy Carter is would be put in prison if he didn't pay taxes, regardless of how many lives he saved, changed, or improved.
That's fair? That's equal? I don't think so. I would imagine that an ideal society would find away to fix such an extreme disparity, lifting the Mother Theresas, Jimmy Carters, and yes Warren Buffets while lumping the Paris Hiltons and able-bodied welfare parasites together.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Do you really see all of my posts in this thread as knocking your ideas? I find that very disappointing to say the least.Sorry you got smacked with my vent. You didn't deserve that.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
gmc;881650 wrote: Or they are just pig ignorant. Five minutes conversation usually establishes they don't know what the benefits actually are. There are undoubtedly people playing the system, most do not. Good. It's the same here.
gmc wrote: Don't see how free healthcare makes you dependantHow can it not? If it goes away, most will suffer because they won't be able to afford it on their own. Since most assume it will be around forever, they don't save as much for emergencies as they might otherwise. It follows naturally that even more will suffer because they depended on the free healthcare - were made dependent - than simply because they were poor.
gmc wrote: By that logic there should be very few european drug companies. In actual fact we're world leaders, and no-research is not government funded
http://www.pharmaceutical.org.uk/
About the UK Pharmaceutical IndustryYou link plainly states that the lion's share of their profits come from export. Where do you imagine they are exporting to? Just like the US companies, they are making up their profits your gov't denies them by dipping deeper into our wallets. Those wallets would snap shut if we adopted universal healthcare, which would hurt your industry, possibly causing layoffs or even companies to fail. Are you sure you want us to do that?
gmc wrote: Don't see how free healthcare makes you dependantHow can it not? If it goes away, most will suffer because they won't be able to afford it on their own. Since most assume it will be around forever, they don't save as much for emergencies as they might otherwise. It follows naturally that even more will suffer because they depended on the free healthcare - were made dependent - than simply because they were poor.
gmc wrote: By that logic there should be very few european drug companies. In actual fact we're world leaders, and no-research is not government funded
http://www.pharmaceutical.org.uk/
About the UK Pharmaceutical IndustryYou link plainly states that the lion's share of their profits come from export. Where do you imagine they are exporting to? Just like the US companies, they are making up their profits your gov't denies them by dipping deeper into our wallets. Those wallets would snap shut if we adopted universal healthcare, which would hurt your industry, possibly causing layoffs or even companies to fail. Are you sure you want us to do that?
Free or Equal?
posted by accountable
How can it not? If it goes away, most will suffer because they won't be able to afford it on their own. Since most assume it will be around forever, they don't save as much for emergencies as they might otherwise. It follows naturally that even more will suffer because they depended on the free healthcare - were made dependent - than simply because they were poor.
It's probably something we won't agree on. As Bryn said earlier it is something we view as a basic right and fought to put in place. Our politicians tinker with it at their peril. Any hint that the private sector is going to play a part in the actual provision of services evokes a visceral reaction from the average voter. If we pay for healthcare (and we do pay for them through our taxes) we don't want them going for private profit, especially when most of the doctors in the private sector were trained by the NHS in the first place.
posted by accountable
You link plainly states that the lion's share of their profits come from export. Where do you imagine they are exporting to? Just like the US companies, they are making up their profits your gov't denies them by dipping deeper into our wallets. Those wallets would snap shut if we adopted universal healthcare, which would hurt your industry, possibly causing layoffs or even companies to fail. Are you sure you want us to do that?
It's your choice. At least it would take out the middle man in the form if private care providers (what is it you call them HMO or HSA something like that) that is probably inflating the price of the drugs to build an additional margin of profit for themselves before you get to buy them. That will hardly affect the drug companies profits. Besides would you deny yourselves the best available?
Take the profit margin out of medical care-how much cheaper would it be? better still think of the potential buying power to force down prices for the more common generic drugs. Besides the US is not the only market merely one of the biggest.
Most U.S. Medical Schools Do Not Adequately Limit Gifts, Payments From Pharmaceutical Industry, Report Finds
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109843.php
Happens here as well of course. Rather frowned upon to put it mildly. At least our doctors don't get a mark up on the drugs they prescribe, I suppose yours do if they're charging you for the prescriptions and making a profit on it must be quite tempting.
It really is a cultural thing. I wouldn't trust a private medical practice I'd always be wondering if I was really ill or just being ripped off.
How can it not? If it goes away, most will suffer because they won't be able to afford it on their own. Since most assume it will be around forever, they don't save as much for emergencies as they might otherwise. It follows naturally that even more will suffer because they depended on the free healthcare - were made dependent - than simply because they were poor.
It's probably something we won't agree on. As Bryn said earlier it is something we view as a basic right and fought to put in place. Our politicians tinker with it at their peril. Any hint that the private sector is going to play a part in the actual provision of services evokes a visceral reaction from the average voter. If we pay for healthcare (and we do pay for them through our taxes) we don't want them going for private profit, especially when most of the doctors in the private sector were trained by the NHS in the first place.
posted by accountable
You link plainly states that the lion's share of their profits come from export. Where do you imagine they are exporting to? Just like the US companies, they are making up their profits your gov't denies them by dipping deeper into our wallets. Those wallets would snap shut if we adopted universal healthcare, which would hurt your industry, possibly causing layoffs or even companies to fail. Are you sure you want us to do that?
It's your choice. At least it would take out the middle man in the form if private care providers (what is it you call them HMO or HSA something like that) that is probably inflating the price of the drugs to build an additional margin of profit for themselves before you get to buy them. That will hardly affect the drug companies profits. Besides would you deny yourselves the best available?
Take the profit margin out of medical care-how much cheaper would it be? better still think of the potential buying power to force down prices for the more common generic drugs. Besides the US is not the only market merely one of the biggest.
Most U.S. Medical Schools Do Not Adequately Limit Gifts, Payments From Pharmaceutical Industry, Report Finds
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/109843.php
Happens here as well of course. Rather frowned upon to put it mildly. At least our doctors don't get a mark up on the drugs they prescribe, I suppose yours do if they're charging you for the prescriptions and making a profit on it must be quite tempting.
It really is a cultural thing. I wouldn't trust a private medical practice I'd always be wondering if I was really ill or just being ripped off.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
That's the beauty of being a federation as well as a nation and keeping as much gov't power, services, etc as possible at the state level rather than federal ... choice. If you don't like the way they do things in Oklahoma and can't convince enough voters to go your way, move to Missouri. Same protections and freedoms with a different set of benefits.
Free or Equal?
Accountable;882697 wrote: That's the beauty of being a federation as well as a nation and keeping as much gov't power, services, etc as possible at the state level rather than federal ... choice. If you don't like the way they do things in Oklahoma and can't convince enough voters to go your way, move to Missouri. Same protections and freedoms with a different set of benefits.
What's likely to happen with something like healthcare? Would it be at federal level or would each state make it's own arrangements? If the latter why is it such a big national issue if it's up to each state?
What's likely to happen with something like healthcare? Would it be at federal level or would each state make it's own arrangements? If the latter why is it such a big national issue if it's up to each state?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
gmc;883180 wrote: What's likely to happen with something like healthcare? Would it be at federal level or would each state make it's own arrangements? If the latter why is it such a big national issue if it's up to each state?
You've hit the problem, as I see it. Starting with Lincoln, then Roosevelt, certain presidents violated our Constitution with impunity and took unprecedented power both for the office and for the federal gov't in general. Weak state leadership find it easy to blame local woes on federal programs (or lack thereof) and power-hungry federal congressmen are more than happy to oblige by raising spending, raising taxes, and raising more campaign money.
We look at Europe and think the United States should be able to act and react just as our European cousins less than 1/50th our size. I'm afraid we've largely lost the essence of the United States ... maybe because we call ourselves America. Who knows?
But that aside ... with a nation the size of the US, an ideal society would be able to offer the flexibility (freedom) of choice by allowing each state to govern itself with bare minimal interference (maximum equality). The federal level's responsibilities would be limited to national defense; international diplomacy; and interstate infrastructure, mediation such issues.
You've hit the problem, as I see it. Starting with Lincoln, then Roosevelt, certain presidents violated our Constitution with impunity and took unprecedented power both for the office and for the federal gov't in general. Weak state leadership find it easy to blame local woes on federal programs (or lack thereof) and power-hungry federal congressmen are more than happy to oblige by raising spending, raising taxes, and raising more campaign money.
We look at Europe and think the United States should be able to act and react just as our European cousins less than 1/50th our size. I'm afraid we've largely lost the essence of the United States ... maybe because we call ourselves America. Who knows?
But that aside ... with a nation the size of the US, an ideal society would be able to offer the flexibility (freedom) of choice by allowing each state to govern itself with bare minimal interference (maximum equality). The federal level's responsibilities would be limited to national defense; international diplomacy; and interstate infrastructure, mediation such issues.
Free or Equal?
Accountable;883279 wrote: You've hit the problem, as I see it. Starting with Lincoln, then Roosevelt, certain presidents violated our Constitution with impunity and took unprecedented power both for the office and for the federal gov't in general. Weak state leadership find it easy to blame local woes on federal programs (or lack thereof) and power-hungry federal congressmen are more than happy to oblige by raising spending, raising taxes, and raising more campaign money.
We look at Europe and think the United States should be able to act and react just as our European cousins less than 1/50th our size. I'm afraid we've largely lost the essence of the United States ... maybe because we call ourselves America. Who knows?
But that aside ... with a nation the size of the US, an ideal society would be able to offer the flexibility (freedom) of choice by allowing each state to govern itself with bare minimal interference (maximum equality). The federal level's responsibilities would be limited to national defense; international diplomacy; and interstate infrastructure, mediation such issues.
So why don't they? Some of your states have population and income greater than some european countries. If they could do at state level what stops them just doing it? Why is a a national issue rather than a state one?
We look at Europe and think the United States should be able to act and react just as our European cousins less than 1/50th our size. I'm afraid we've largely lost the essence of the United States ... maybe because we call ourselves America. Who knows?
But that aside ... with a nation the size of the US, an ideal society would be able to offer the flexibility (freedom) of choice by allowing each state to govern itself with bare minimal interference (maximum equality). The federal level's responsibilities would be limited to national defense; international diplomacy; and interstate infrastructure, mediation such issues.
So why don't they? Some of your states have population and income greater than some european countries. If they could do at state level what stops them just doing it? Why is a a national issue rather than a state one?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
gmc;883457 wrote: So why don't they? Some of your states have population and income greater than some european countries. If they could do at state level what stops them just doing it? Why is a a national issue rather than a state one?
I wish I knew! My Texas legislators are against this, but the more intrusive, erm, progressive :yh_sick states are pushing it to go national. It's the standard "we know better than you do" mentality of our left. I think their bigotry against the have-nots doesn't allow for want-nots. Of course everyone wants the government to take care of them. They're just too ignorant to understand.
Honestly, I think it's a consistent thread of denial of responsibility running through almost all of our problems in the US. Push the responsibility as far away as possible; give it to Washington. What people fail to see in their short-sightedness is that to give up responsibility is to give up independence, choice, freedom. It's a package.
I wish I knew! My Texas legislators are against this, but the more intrusive, erm, progressive :yh_sick states are pushing it to go national. It's the standard "we know better than you do" mentality of our left. I think their bigotry against the have-nots doesn't allow for want-nots. Of course everyone wants the government to take care of them. They're just too ignorant to understand.
Honestly, I think it's a consistent thread of denial of responsibility running through almost all of our problems in the US. Push the responsibility as far away as possible; give it to Washington. What people fail to see in their short-sightedness is that to give up responsibility is to give up independence, choice, freedom. It's a package.
Free or Equal?
Thought you might find this of interest
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/
Click on the picture where it says " US activists in their own words"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/
Click on the picture where it says " US activists in their own words"
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
Devolution.
Our ideal society needs to have power devolved down the social tree as far as practically possible. Assuming our society consists of a number of communities (think about county sized) they should as far as possible deal with their own issues. After that we ask what are the basic services this society offers and are they paid for at the county or national level? So
1) Responsibility of family:
Eg: Raising of children
2) Responsibility of county:
Eg: Waste disposal
3) Responsibility of state:
Eg: Defence
Perhaps if we split up the responsibilities between these three levels (any other spring to mind?) we'll come up with an answer to Accountable's question about freedom vs equality...
Our ideal society needs to have power devolved down the social tree as far as practically possible. Assuming our society consists of a number of communities (think about county sized) they should as far as possible deal with their own issues. After that we ask what are the basic services this society offers and are they paid for at the county or national level? So
1) Responsibility of family:
Eg: Raising of children
2) Responsibility of county:
Eg: Waste disposal
3) Responsibility of state:
Eg: Defence
Perhaps if we split up the responsibilities between these three levels (any other spring to mind?) we'll come up with an answer to Accountable's question about freedom vs equality...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;885561 wrote: Devolution.
Our ideal society needs to have power devolved down the social tree as far as practically possible. Assuming our society consists of a number of communities (think about county sized) they should as far as possible deal with their own issues. After that we ask what are the basic services this society offers and are they paid for at the county or national level? So
1) Responsibility of family:
Eg: Raising of children
2) Responsibility of county:
Eg: Waste disposal
3) Responsibility of state:
Eg: Defence
Perhaps if we split up the responsibilities between these three levels (any other spring to mind?) we'll come up with an answer to Accountable's question about freedom vs equality...
The "are" will vary according to where you are so I think we are looking for the "should be" and that will prove to be a very subjective answer.
We'll need to explore the implications of placing each item at each level and that will depend on the type of society we envisage.
We could try to lay down some general guidelines but I do think we need to agree what we want the resultant society to look like.
Our ideal society needs to have power devolved down the social tree as far as practically possible. Assuming our society consists of a number of communities (think about county sized) they should as far as possible deal with their own issues. After that we ask what are the basic services this society offers and are they paid for at the county or national level? So
1) Responsibility of family:
Eg: Raising of children
2) Responsibility of county:
Eg: Waste disposal
3) Responsibility of state:
Eg: Defence
Perhaps if we split up the responsibilities between these three levels (any other spring to mind?) we'll come up with an answer to Accountable's question about freedom vs equality...
The "are" will vary according to where you are so I think we are looking for the "should be" and that will prove to be a very subjective answer.
We'll need to explore the implications of placing each item at each level and that will depend on the type of society we envisage.
We could try to lay down some general guidelines but I do think we need to agree what we want the resultant society to look like.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
Bryn Mawr;885600 wrote: The "are" will vary according to where you are so I think we are looking for the "should be" and that will prove to be a very subjective answer.
We'll need to explore the implications of placing each item at each level and that will depend on the type of society we envisage.
We could try to lay down some general guidelines but I do think we need to agree what we want the resultant society to look like.
I sort of meant it as "should be" so I'll happily go with that. I was thinking that the placing of responsibilities at the various levels could tell us about what our ideal society would end up looking like.
We'll need to explore the implications of placing each item at each level and that will depend on the type of society we envisage.
We could try to lay down some general guidelines but I do think we need to agree what we want the resultant society to look like.
I sort of meant it as "should be" so I'll happily go with that. I was thinking that the placing of responsibilities at the various levels could tell us about what our ideal society would end up looking like.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;885603 wrote: I sort of meant it as "should be" so I'll happily go with that. I was thinking that the placing of responsibilities at the various levels could tell us about what our ideal society would end up looking like.
An excelent starting point but wait for the screams
An excelent starting point but wait for the screams
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
Bryn Mawr;885604 wrote: An excelent starting point but wait for the screams
:wah:
What I found, playing around with a few responsibilities, was that it is often hard to clearly place them in one level. Education is certainly in two and probably in all three levels as currently defined. Law is interesting in that it seems obvious that national and county levels would apply, but we run two national legal systems in this state without (as far as I know) too many difficulties. Too me it emphaisies again how much living in a society is a matter of compromise and contract between all its elements.
:wah:
What I found, playing around with a few responsibilities, was that it is often hard to clearly place them in one level. Education is certainly in two and probably in all three levels as currently defined. Law is interesting in that it seems obvious that national and county levels would apply, but we run two national legal systems in this state without (as far as I know) too many difficulties. Too me it emphaisies again how much living in a society is a matter of compromise and contract between all its elements.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;885561 wrote: Devolution.
Our ideal society needs to have power devolved down the social tree as far as practically possible. Assuming our society consists of a number of communities (think about county sized) they should as far as possible deal with their own issues. After that we ask what are the basic services this society offers and are they paid for at the county or national level? So
1) Responsibility of family:
Eg: Raising of children
2) Responsibility of county:
Eg: Waste disposal
3) Responsibility of state:
Eg: Defence
Perhaps if we split up the responsibilities between these three levels (any other spring to mind?) we'll come up with an answer to Accountable's question about freedom vs equality...
What about religion? You would have to have a secular society otherwise you will have the religious claiming the moral right to tell everybody what they should be doing. Disagreeing would be heresy and you go to hell. Whose law would be superior, god's law or the law as agreed on by the community?
Our ideal society needs to have power devolved down the social tree as far as practically possible. Assuming our society consists of a number of communities (think about county sized) they should as far as possible deal with their own issues. After that we ask what are the basic services this society offers and are they paid for at the county or national level? So
1) Responsibility of family:
Eg: Raising of children
2) Responsibility of county:
Eg: Waste disposal
3) Responsibility of state:
Eg: Defence
Perhaps if we split up the responsibilities between these three levels (any other spring to mind?) we'll come up with an answer to Accountable's question about freedom vs equality...
What about religion? You would have to have a secular society otherwise you will have the religious claiming the moral right to tell everybody what they should be doing. Disagreeing would be heresy and you go to hell. Whose law would be superior, god's law or the law as agreed on by the community?
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;885605 wrote: :wah:
What I found, playing around with a few responsibilities, was that it is often hard to clearly place them in one level. Education is certainly in two and probably in all three levels as currently defined. Law is interesting in that it seems obvious that national and county levels would apply, but we run two national legal systems in this state without (as far as I know) too many difficulties. Too me it emphaisies again how much living in a society is a matter of compromise and contract between all its elements.
I'd say that placing responsibility beyond the major items is going to be a mammoth task. I'd agree that education is in two levels - it's part of the parents responsibility and partly an investment by the nation in its future but I cannot see that law is anything but a national concern - everyone within the society should be answerable to the same rules, rich or poor, north or south (I discount local by-laws as more fitting to where you can walk on the grass or where you can park your car).
What I found, playing around with a few responsibilities, was that it is often hard to clearly place them in one level. Education is certainly in two and probably in all three levels as currently defined. Law is interesting in that it seems obvious that national and county levels would apply, but we run two national legal systems in this state without (as far as I know) too many difficulties. Too me it emphaisies again how much living in a society is a matter of compromise and contract between all its elements.
I'd say that placing responsibility beyond the major items is going to be a mammoth task. I'd agree that education is in two levels - it's part of the parents responsibility and partly an investment by the nation in its future but I cannot see that law is anything but a national concern - everyone within the society should be answerable to the same rules, rich or poor, north or south (I discount local by-laws as more fitting to where you can walk on the grass or where you can park your car).
Free or Equal?
Bryn Mawr;885653 wrote: I'd say that placing responsibility beyond the major items is going to be a mammoth task. I'd agree that education is in two levels - it's part of the parents responsibility and partly an investment by the nation in its future but I cannot see that law is anything but a national concern - everyone within the society should be answerable to the same rules, rich or poor, north or south (I discount local by-laws as more fitting to where you can walk on the grass or where you can park your car).
What about the role of religion in education? Should we allow a parent's religious conviction and desire to bring a child up in the faith get in the way of society's need to educate a child to it's full potential and also prevent division in society?
For instance should the theory of evolution be compulsory for all to learn even of religious parents find it offensive and claim the right to brainwash their children?
What about the role of religion in education? Should we allow a parent's religious conviction and desire to bring a child up in the faith get in the way of society's need to educate a child to it's full potential and also prevent division in society?
For instance should the theory of evolution be compulsory for all to learn even of religious parents find it offensive and claim the right to brainwash their children?
Free or Equal?
gmc;887033 wrote: What about the role of religion in education? Should we allow a parent's religious conviction and desire to bring a child up in the faith get in the way of society's need to educate a child to it's full potential and also prevent division in society?
For instance should the theory of evolution be compulsory for all to learn even of religious parents find it offensive and claim the right to brainwash their children?
To me, the teaching of a specific religion is the remit of the parents whereas the teaching of comparative theology is the remit of the school.
Evolution is part of the Biology syllabus and should be taught to all students taking that subject. If a given religion has an alternative explanation then that is the prerogative of the parents / church to teach as part of their religious training.
For instance should the theory of evolution be compulsory for all to learn even of religious parents find it offensive and claim the right to brainwash their children?
To me, the teaching of a specific religion is the remit of the parents whereas the teaching of comparative theology is the remit of the school.
Evolution is part of the Biology syllabus and should be taught to all students taking that subject. If a given religion has an alternative explanation then that is the prerogative of the parents / church to teach as part of their religious training.
Free or Equal?
Bryn Mawr;887055 wrote: To me, the teaching of a specific religion is the remit of the parents whereas the teaching of comparative theology is the remit of the school.
Evolution is part of the Biology syllabus and should be taught to all students taking that subject. If a given religion has an alternative explanation then that is the prerogative of the parents / church to teach as part of their religious training.
Then your society is a secular one?
Evolution is part of the Biology syllabus and should be taught to all students taking that subject. If a given religion has an alternative explanation then that is the prerogative of the parents / church to teach as part of their religious training.
Then your society is a secular one?
Free or Equal?
gmc;887111 wrote: Then your society is a secular one?
Definitely - separation of State and Church and all that.
Definitely - separation of State and Church and all that.
Free or Equal?
I think a deeper question you are missing here is "what comprises a nation in the first place, or a state, and how do you determine soverignty over that nation?". In other words, why is England "England" or Russia "Russia" what is the defining thing that knits what is generally a large amount of people who live in the same area of land together? America is a different thing as its a nation and state that self-conciously created itself based on the lessons of models from another part of the world, unlike European nations and states whose ethnic and national identities are buried generally in an undefined past.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Free or Equal?
Galbally;887148 wrote: I think a deeper question you are missing here is "what comprises a nation in the first place, or a state, and how do you determine soverignty over that nation?". In other words, why is England "England" or Russia "Russia" what is the defining thing that knits what is generally a large amount of people who live in the same area of land together? America is a different thing as its a nation and state that self-conciously created itself based on the lessons of models from another part of the world, unlike European nations and states whose ethnic and national identities are buried generally in an undefined past.
Great Britain is easy being an Island state but I agree, what gives a state its cohesive force (or otherwise) is a fundamental question if you are trying to form a state from scratch.
Once a state is in existence it will tend to build a national identity / pride or it will split asunder (as per Yugoslavia) as long as there is a reasonable degree of equality across regional and ethnic borders. If freedom is lacking the people with band together to fight for it - if equality is lacking it will split the people apart.
The question of Sovereignty is more awkward - take the Falklands as an example. The vast majority of the current inhabitants look to the UK as their spiritual home and consider themselves to be UK citizens but by what right do we hold sovereignty? I would say by the right of the will of the people but I'm sure others would differ.
I was trying to recall the origin of the quote "democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny". I eventually tracked it down to Lloyd Biggles Jnr in 1961 and I would like to honour his memory and perspicacity.
Great Britain is easy being an Island state but I agree, what gives a state its cohesive force (or otherwise) is a fundamental question if you are trying to form a state from scratch.
Once a state is in existence it will tend to build a national identity / pride or it will split asunder (as per Yugoslavia) as long as there is a reasonable degree of equality across regional and ethnic borders. If freedom is lacking the people with band together to fight for it - if equality is lacking it will split the people apart.
The question of Sovereignty is more awkward - take the Falklands as an example. The vast majority of the current inhabitants look to the UK as their spiritual home and consider themselves to be UK citizens but by what right do we hold sovereignty? I would say by the right of the will of the people but I'm sure others would differ.
I was trying to recall the origin of the quote "democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny". I eventually tracked it down to Lloyd Biggles Jnr in 1961 and I would like to honour his memory and perspicacity.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
Galbally: The thing which has historically defined a state in the past is warfare. chuckle. I'm rather hoping we can skip that bit. I think we also have to consider our bias in favour of systems we know for our society - hence the apparent general preference for a secular one. I think what knits any society together, beyond family, is culture.
Anyone come up with a better system than democracy? Doesn't have to exist yet.
Most I can come up with at present is a system where issues that currently are voted on in Parliament or Congress are listed with a "vote by" date on the home pc that all citizens will have, and we vote or not for or against the issue in question: a virtual Agora. (Pretty sure I've nicked this from some sci-fi story, but can't remember which!)
gmc: Think I like Bryn's solution to the religion issue.
How ideal can our society be? If perfectly so, then we abolish war and need no armed forces, but if reality intrudes for a moment, we need a Ministry of Defence. And that brings us on to the need or otherwise for a Civil Service. Can we replace the Civil Service with a large computer?
I think we also have to consider our bias in favour of systems we know for our society - hence the apparent general preference for a secular one. I think what knits any society together, beyond family, is culture.Anyone come up with a better system than democracy? Doesn't have to exist yet.
Most I can come up with at present is a system where issues that currently are voted on in Parliament or Congress are listed with a "vote by" date on the home pc that all citizens will have, and we vote or not for or against the issue in question: a virtual Agora. (Pretty sure I've nicked this from some sci-fi story, but can't remember which!)
gmc: Think I like Bryn's solution to the religion issue.
How ideal can our society be? If perfectly so, then we abolish war and need no armed forces, but if reality intrudes for a moment, we need a Ministry of Defence. And that brings us on to the need or otherwise for a Civil Service. Can we replace the Civil Service with a large computer?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
Thanks for keeping this alive, guys. Good input.
I've found a new book that contributes greatly to this debate in that it investigates root causes that enabled one society to blossom and overtake another. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond won a Pulitzer prize for it's breakout work.
If I understand it right, and I'm not finished reading it, the most free and equal society is the hunter-gatherer. Anything beyond that pits talent against influence, skill against craft against persuasion. Once that happens freedom and equality begin to be compromised. Since my hunting skills aren't quite up to snuff, I'm for finding as close to the ideal as we can, without sacrificing my air conditioning. 
So, back to it.
Bryn, having all law initiated from the national legislature is fine for the UK, but for a nation so large and diverse as the US it just won't work for any but the most general issues. We have states with physical size, population and GDP greater than that of the entire UK. Any one of our states are comparable or larger than individual European nations. While we're not as culturally diverse as EU, we're too diverse for too much centralization. At what point the balance tips to justify decentralizing control is hard to say, but it needs to be done, imo. Like Clodhopper, I'm all for keeping control at the absolute lowest point possible -- leave it with the individual citizen to the furthest extent possible. I'm sure we disagree on designating "furthest extent possible."
I agree about separation of Church & State, though it seems that without someone to be the wagging finger of morality, we lose a key component of a peaceful society. So some kind of "moral authority" needs to be promoted as an investment, and it shouldn't have to run for election.
I like Clodhopper's idea on voting. I don't think our representatives even need voting power if we all have access. We can choose to give him/her our proxy or not. The idea definitely needs to be fleshed out, but it has merit.
I've found a new book that contributes greatly to this debate in that it investigates root causes that enabled one society to blossom and overtake another. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond won a Pulitzer prize for it's breakout work.
If I understand it right, and I'm not finished reading it, the most free and equal society is the hunter-gatherer.
Anything beyond that pits talent against influence, skill against craft against persuasion. Once that happens freedom and equality begin to be compromised. Since my hunting skills aren't quite up to snuff, I'm for finding as close to the ideal as we can, without sacrificing my air conditioning. So, back to it.
Bryn, having all law initiated from the national legislature is fine for the UK, but for a nation so large and diverse as the US it just won't work for any but the most general issues. We have states with physical size, population and GDP greater than that of the entire UK. Any one of our states are comparable or larger than individual European nations. While we're not as culturally diverse as EU, we're too diverse for too much centralization. At what point the balance tips to justify decentralizing control is hard to say, but it needs to be done, imo. Like Clodhopper, I'm all for keeping control at the absolute lowest point possible -- leave it with the individual citizen to the furthest extent possible. I'm sure we disagree on designating "furthest extent possible."
I agree about separation of Church & State, though it seems that without someone to be the wagging finger of morality, we lose a key component of a peaceful society. So some kind of "moral authority" needs to be promoted as an investment, and it shouldn't have to run for election.
I like Clodhopper's idea on voting. I don't think our representatives even need voting power if we all have access. We can choose to give him/her our proxy or not. The idea definitely needs to be fleshed out, but it has merit.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
Acc: Suggests that the most important issue that the ideal society has to address is one of the most taboo in ours: population control. The hunter gatherer needs a large area in which to feed the family, and when the kids have kids the range must grow. Hence agriculture. Civilisation is as well defined as the Art of living together as any other definition I know.
If we are creating a realistic society may I suggest we can't duck this.
Can we limit families to two kids, and if so, how?
If we are creating a realistic society may I suggest we can't duck this.
Can we limit families to two kids, and if so, how?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;902611 wrote: Acc: Suggests that the most important issue that the ideal society has to address is one of the most taboo in ours: population control. The hunter gatherer needs a large area in which to feed the family, and when the kids have kids the range must grow. Hence agriculture. Civilisation is as well defined as the Art of living together as any other definition I know.
If we are creating a realistic society may I suggest we can't duck this.
Can we limit families to two kids, and if so, how?
:-2 I suggested population control??
Actually, the way Dr Diamond explains it, population increases occurred because of the development of agriculture, not the other way round. Hunter-gatherers couldn't have children very often, about one every 4 years, because Mom & Dad were kept busy keeping the kidlets alive, safe and fed. After the development of farming and the resulting community, families averaged a child about every two years. Oddly enough, life was harder & more stressful for early farmers than for hunter-gatherers & actually reduced life expectancy.
To your point, the question is not can we - because we can, easily - but should we. I vote no. What's your argument?
If we are creating a realistic society may I suggest we can't duck this.
Can we limit families to two kids, and if so, how?
:-2 I suggested population control??
Actually, the way Dr Diamond explains it, population increases occurred because of the development of agriculture, not the other way round. Hunter-gatherers couldn't have children very often, about one every 4 years, because Mom & Dad were kept busy keeping the kidlets alive, safe and fed. After the development of farming and the resulting community, families averaged a child about every two years. Oddly enough, life was harder & more stressful for early farmers than for hunter-gatherers & actually reduced life expectancy.
To your point, the question is not can we - because we can, easily - but should we. I vote no. What's your argument?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
Acc: Hi there. Because I would have thought out ideal society has to be long-term sustainable; and that is not compatible with unlimited growth unless we are saying we have space flight and terraforming, which is perhaps close, but not quite yet; and there is a limit to the population the planet can sustain, certainly without irreversible damage I don't really want to see, certainly not in my "ideal" society.
Anyway.:yh_sleep goodnight.
Hi there. Because I would have thought out ideal society has to be long-term sustainable; and that is not compatible with unlimited growth unless we are saying we have space flight and terraforming, which is perhaps close, but not quite yet; and there is a limit to the population the planet can sustain, certainly without irreversible damage I don't really want to see, certainly not in my "ideal" society.Anyway.:yh_sleep goodnight.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;902681 wrote: Acc: Hi there. Because I would have thought out ideal society has to be long-term sustainable; and that is not compatible with unlimited growth unless we are saying we have space flight and terraforming, which is perhaps close, but not quite yet; and there is a limit to the population the planet can sustain, certainly without irreversible damage I don't really want to see, certainly not in my "ideal" society.
Anyway.:yh_sleep goodnight.
Enjoy your nap. When you get back we can discuss how I disagree with just about every syllable of this post.
Hi there. Because I would have thought out ideal society has to be long-term sustainable; and that is not compatible with unlimited growth unless we are saying we have space flight and terraforming, which is perhaps close, but not quite yet; and there is a limit to the population the planet can sustain, certainly without irreversible damage I don't really want to see, certainly not in my "ideal" society.Anyway.:yh_sleep goodnight.
Enjoy your nap. When you get back we can discuss how I disagree with just about every syllable of this post.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Free or Equal?
(Bright and sparky Clodhopper sits down at the keyboard) :-6
Ok: sock it to me!
Ok: sock it to me!
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
Clodhopper;903080 wrote: (Bright and sparky Clodhopper sits down at the keyboard) :-6
Ok: sock it to me!:wah: Okay then.
Clodhopper;902681 wrote: Acc: Hi there. Because I would have thought out ideal society has to be long-term sustainable; and that is not compatible with unlimited growth unless we are saying we have space flight and terraforming, which is perhaps close, but not quite yet; and there is a limit to the population the planet can sustain, certainly without irreversible damage I don't really want to see, certainly not in my "ideal" society.
Anyway.:yh_sleep goodnight.The ideal society needs good roots. I wouldn't worry about pruning the branches just yet.
As for growth, the planet can take care of alot more people. Just because we've cocked it up with this number of people doesn't mean we couldn't do better with even more.
I shudder to think of an "ideal" society in which every detail was regulated, right down to progeny.
Ok: sock it to me!:wah: Okay then.
Clodhopper;902681 wrote: Acc:
Hi there. Because I would have thought out ideal society has to be long-term sustainable; and that is not compatible with unlimited growth unless we are saying we have space flight and terraforming, which is perhaps close, but not quite yet; and there is a limit to the population the planet can sustain, certainly without irreversible damage I don't really want to see, certainly not in my "ideal" society.Anyway.:yh_sleep goodnight.The ideal society needs good roots. I wouldn't worry about pruning the branches just yet.
As for growth, the planet can take care of alot more people. Just because we've cocked it up with this number of people doesn't mean we couldn't do better with even more.
I shudder to think of an "ideal" society in which every detail was regulated, right down to progeny.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Free or Equal?
*Bump* to welcome Bryn back.