Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

A Question For Right Wingers


Recommended Posts

Craig Read:

The poor quality of your posts is dragging down this forum, IMO. Please follow the guidelines by backing up your posts and refraining from insults.

That a boy Pell. Your question addresses 1. Economic liberalism and 2. Social Conservatism and philosophy.

#1 is contract based and the various complexities of supply and demand which the state nor any central body cannot possibly understand, let alone regulate, operating in a world of solid laws, contracts, right protections and institutional governance structures is the only way to allow society to develop.

What are you saying here ? Be clear. This isn't a sentence.

Otherwise we can return to feudalism.

#2 is premised on different ideals other than individual economic freedom and contractual obligations. Family, social construction, morality, cultural history and social peace are premised on natural rights, family strength, education, historical understanding, some strain of faith [can be secular as well], and a culture of ethics.

Again, it's unclear what you're trying to say.

As Neal said, sluts like Spears or Madonna do nothing to further our society, but only debase it. Likewise Gay Marriage.

What happens with sectoral, segmented rights is that the whole is sacrificed for the minority few.

Historically we can see that this is when society starts to break down.

This snippet includes an insult and an incredible leap from the healthcare issue to gay marriage.

You also seem to through around the tem "morality" a lot. Let me ask you: do you think plagiarism is moral ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Your question is not logical. It presupposes to be Conservative one is against gay marriage or women having final say over what they do with their bodies. Neither issue  is automatically rejected by o

Yeah this is a truly epic thread necro.  I don't think I'd even joined the forum yet...

well the right are free marketeers who believe in advancement of capitalistic greed.

this means allowing companies, and corporate agendas to negotiate profits, competition and markets to dictate and resolve problems instead of government.

now on to advance some individual "right" protections (borrowed above) only to increase me and my wealth

what is needed is small government with certain intervention necessary in the economy but really no interference

so whereas the right is currently completely advanced economic values, is now simply myopic elsewhere

so i would like to try this argument in hope that it sits well:

- individual right is linked to private property is paramount to free market

- right believe in family values

- right believe that individual should not depend on the government for benefits

- right believe that a male-dominated house-hold is linked to free market

- now please can we - safely agree that two male-dominated house-hold linked to free market will indeed construct stronger defense to individual rights to private property to free market ?

the trouble with the right system in any of the values ... like chess if you are placed weakly in the distribution of the values you surely die literally.

but i am incline to believe that the very values that is detestible/ and considered immoral becomes THE contemporary issue and agenda to be argued in sync with economics as the younger people are very accepting of emerging new behaviors

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm no neo-conservative, just a conservative. Well I believe the citizens should have as much economic freedom as possible, as it helps a societies economy, and it will also create interdependance on other people for help. As for the stuff about individual freedom, one thing you have to understand is that laws were originally meant to upheld the common morality of a people in a nation. I believe in life, liberty, and personal resposibility. You are free to do what you want, as long as it does not abuse the health, and life of a person. Homosexuality, was considered morally wrong due to the spread of STD's, and the fact that homosexuals usually dont live past the age of 40. Abortion was considered wrong due to the fact that their was once nothing as sacred as life.

But I guess thats all changed now, we no longer value life, which is a damn shame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe in life, liberty, and personal resposibility. You are free to do what you want, as long as it does not abuse the health, and life of a person. Homosexuality, was considered morally wrong due to the spread of STD's, and the fact that homosexuals usually dont live past the age of 40. Abortion was considered wrong due to the fact that their was once nothing as sacred as life.

But I guess thats all changed now, we no longer value life, which is a damn shame.

I was brought up in a conservative household and although I support homosexual rights there is something in your post that resonates with me. ( Although, I doubt that the stat about homosexuals living past 40 is correct. )

Still, there is something true in many conservative reflections on the decadence of our times, IMO. In the past, say fifty years ago, there were more social restrictions in place and more focus on what is the "right" thing to do. Today the focus of life seems to be on hedonism, self-gratification etc.

There was a thread on pornography in another forum wherein the poster echoed the same sentiments. One wonders where this will all lead. The obvious conclusion is to an empty and meaningless existence.

And how do we turn the tide ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

More grist for the mill...

Finding objective surveys of morality on the web seems to be a difficult task. I found several faith-based surveys, but I hesitate to describe some of their findings as objectively linked to a decline in morality as some societal values have truly changed for the better.

For example, when I was younger interracial dating was still considered a 'no-no'. Now, it is accepted by most.

But you can still find some measures that I think would generally be accepted as proof of a decline in morality.

This survey found that students lie, cheat and steal more than they did ten years ago.

Again... how do we turn the tide ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the right speak of the same values from both sides of the mouth

so the right allows the full reign supreme of practice when it comes to markets allowing freedom and practice of freedom above everything

on the other hand enjoyment of those very private freedom must be sacrifice when it comes to individual values such as say:

1) abortion “... political reality that women do not as yet have self-determination over their bodies and still live mostly in ignorance of their authentic physicality, their possible choices, their eroticism itself. Adrienne Rich U.S. poet. “Motherhood: The Contemporary Emergency and the Quantum Leap,” paper, 2 June 1978, read at Future of Mothering Conference, Columbus, Ohio (published in On Lies, Secrets, and Silence, 1980).” OR

2) homosexuality really “... is a celebration of individual freedom, not of homosexuality. no government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. Rita Mae Brown U.S. feminist writer. Speech, 28 Aug. 1982, at the opening of the Gay Olympics in San Francisco.”

3) lying ... i find that the more one have access to resources, it is harder not to become liars. i can handle lies, it is inaccuracy of the lies i have a problem with :). well, the young ones seem to lack the right and lie concept but this quote fits into this value theme "when we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something, not that it is a pragmatic necessity for us to have it, but that it is a moral imperative that we have it, then is when we join the fashionable madmen, and then is when the thin whine of hysteria is heard, and then is when we are in bad trouble. Joan Didion U.S. essayist. Slouching Towards Bethlehem, "On Morality" (1968)"

i believe that because we are selfish, and take complete interest in our welfare, that we should be able to direct and reform our own interest to practicality rather than dependence on ideals that really do not fit and creates various separation. sometimes i have to appreciate that not wonder the government winds up lagging years behind in current changes.

so if we can consider internally as a nation and then also globally:

1) that we can be civilized to each other

2) that we have not hurt others in excercising individuality and freedom

2) that we can obey and follow laws of the country, so take on self-responsibility

3) that we can live in harmony

4) and that no-one group believe they have control over the other

maybe we can look forward to equal values all-round and to absolute quintessence of enjoyment to private property, and individual freedoms

Link to post
Share on other sites
the right speak of the same values from both sides of the mouth

so the right allows the full reign supreme of practice when it comes to markets allowing freedom and practice of freedom above everything

This is an outright lie. I challenge you to find me one conservative who truthfully believes in economic anarchy and completely free markets, without submission to law or morality. Even Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalist thought, never supported the idea of a completely free market and always accepted that capitalist economics must be regulated by just law and ethics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking as a conservative. Personally I would love for the left-wingers to try "practice what they preach". That being tolerant of other peoples views. Time and time again we hear them crying bigot, homophobe etc. when others disagree with their views. Why is it not right for anyone to disagree with their ideas.

That being said lets answer those questions that have been posed, albeit logically.

There is no real connection or link between how "right-wingers" view the freedom to make money and the freedom of how people choose to live their lives.

The poor can become rich, just look at Oprah. The homosexual community enjoys wealth as much as anybody, just look at hollywood. Money knows no skin color, there are Chinese, Arab and Black billionaires (And no one is saying that all people with money are good people). Money knows no boundaries or borders, all people on any point of the political spectrum aspire to be wealthy. People with ambition and drive are more likely to succeed financially in this world, thats the way it is and should be in a free market system. Also there are limits to how people can make their money, people cannot make a product to harm others and profit. People cannot operate and make a profit in the slave trade here in Canada. These are just some of the many examples of offences that right-wing minded people agree, should be outlawed.

Now as for the debate on homosexuality, this is a different matter altogether. As a conservative, I could care less what people do with their lives, as long as I am not told how I should feel about a particular subject. But when I am being called a homophobe because I do not endorse gay marriage. Well so be it, I could care less. But I ll tell you why I do not endorse it. I have always viewed marriage as between a man and a woman. Why shouldn't I have that view? I do not doubt that a homosexual couple loves each other any less than any other couple, I do not have any problem with them having a legal union. But not all traditional views have to change. We are not an "enlightened society" because all traditions must evolve with time, some are timeless like marriage. I am sure that the term marriage was given and created for the symbol of love between man and woman and should always remain sacred in that respect. I am young and open minded at 26 years of age, but no where does it say I cannot hold strong the values that have been passed down to me through my family and my view of society. Here is the chance for the gay community to start fresh and create their own unique view of the union between that particular group in society. Just don't threaten our view on marriage, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugo, correct, free markets without institutions and laws do not work - in fact cannot work. It is like stating let's have free trade with no accounting or money exchange. It is a fallacy and a wrong headed statement to assume that market economics is somehow the law of the jungle, or that it is uncivilised. Both are incorrect and can only be uttered by someone who has never practiced business. It is sheer ignorance to suppose that those who prefer free commerce are barbaric or immoral. I would weigh the number of immoral managers in business against those populating gov't, and gov't agencies anytime, anywhere. I know which side of the scale will be heaviest.

Sully said:

There is no real connection or link between how "right-wingers" view the freedom to make money and the freedom of how people choose to live their lives

This is true and leads to the moral program espoused by capitalism. Unlike socialism which preaches 'relativism', capitalism contains many themes of ethics, actions, work, respect, responsibility and change that make it a superior moral system. Part of this system is taking care not just of yourself but those who need help. The more connected you are to community, and the more freedom you have the more you will give back to your society. Men like Gates, Allen, Rockefeller, Morgan and Mellon have given away more relevant money, advice and support than any socialist, critical of individualism would admit. If capitalism is without moral flavor how then to explain Mr. Gates and his $1 billion per year endowment ? Shouldn't he be plotting with Jews wearing Green shaded hats the dominion of the world ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is true and leads to the moral program espoused by capitalism. Unlike socialism which preaches 'relativism', capitalism contains many themes of ethics, actions, work, respect, responsibility and change that make it a superior moral system.

I think this is too much of a leap.

Socialism and capitalism are broad bodies of thought about how to run an economy. Both systems could succeed or fail because of, or in spite of a moral populace.

The capitalist system served Bill Gates well, it also serves Paris Hilton. The socialist system serves a hard-working poor family who temporarily falls on hard times as it does a lazy person who doesn't want to work.

Part of this system is taking care not just of yourself but those who need help. The more connected you are to community, and the more freedom you have the more you will give back to your society. Men like Gates, Allen, Rockefeller, Morgan and Mellon have given away more relevant money, advice and support than any socialist, critical of individualism would admit. If capitalism is without moral flavor how then to explain Mr. Gates and his $1 billion per year endowment ?

I would say that charity is no substitute for fair taxes when it comes to building a healthy and productive people. Nor is it a substitute for paying a good wage.

The socialist-capitalist axis which is argued so vehemently on this board is actually quite narrow. It makes one wonder why people get so upset.

The Canadian Alliance officially supports socialized medicine, making it "socialist" by 1920s standards. The NDP favours balanced budgets, and would never seriously consider widespread nationalization of industry as leftists of the past have advocated.

So here we are, apparently on the brink of some kind of centrist consensus yet there seems to be more divisiveness than ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On My Right Observations:

decide by yourselves who are neo-conservatives

you are mostly right when you are languor, and this ties in nicely with timing

- so you are neo-conservative just before dinner

- then you are neo-conservatives right after dinner

- you are neo-conservatives while waiting patiently in anticipation of value added … deserts after dinner

- you are neo-conservatives at leisure

- you are neo-conservatives when you are sick

- you are neo-conservatives when you are concern/distress

- you are neo-conservatives when you die your several deaths … as the politicians do

you are mostly right when you become animated and witted in the mornings

- so you are neo-conservatives when you wake to your own dismal roaring of unlikely music

- you are also neo-conservatives while in the bathroom and can hear the low murmur about “big-umbrella issues” – these issues are on abortion and on being gay

- you are very right in protecting property

- and sovereignty

- and when you post at MLF :)

any other time during the day you are just economic conservatives and free marketeers

in a nutshell you have become an embedded routine scripted in time and play on tradition and will face your challenges as the stream of steadfast unravel emerges.

now we count of you to become change

as a free marketeer i believe in exploitation of resources to source profits and wealth operating of course with constrains such as following rules and law. gates must have seen something in fruits to capitalise on apple.

well instead of being languorously animated can the right represent all the people of presence

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is a moral system - and an organised philosophy. One does not have to read Ayn Rand to believe that, one only has to recognise the moral imperative of contractual unions and obligations. Enlightened self interest, self development, self actualisation allows people to conduct themselves in a socially responsible manner. As Paul Kedrosky said in the NP on the weekend - more or less - capitalism is not some red in the tooth concept of butchery and deceit. That is not how anyone who actually works in the free market would describe it. To succeed you need to create, build, sell, implement and then rebuild products, services and models. By not serving you fail.

Socialism has no such moral imperative. It is a coercive philosophy of take and give and command. It leads to centralisation and regulation and rules. In Canada - a pretty left wing country - the contradictions in gov't regulation for anyone who works in the market are almost endless. Everything from source deductions to double dividend and savings taxation to sur taxes to consumption taxes. Socialism is the 'take away' and buy votes system.

The immorality and immaturity of Socialism can be found in the Charter of Rights which 99 % of Cdns have never read [i would guess] and yet a plurality fully support [how is that for logic], private property is not defended nor even mentioned. Private property is the cornerstone of modern civilisation. The CoR is replete with twaddle about rights, minority entitlements and justice and vague legalese make up the document.

Nationally, 88% say it is a “good thing for Canada,” and 72% say it adequately protects the rights of Canadians. Support for the Charter is strong in all regions, running from a high of 91% in Quebec to a low of 86% in western Canada.

Pity even the West has bought in. What happened to the Mounties out there ?

www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/charter/charter.htm

The Charter's main rights include:

freedom of expression the right to a democratic government

the right to live and to seek employment anywhere in Canada

legal rights of persons accused of crimes

Aboriginal peoples' rights

the right to equality, including the equality of men and women

the right to use either of Canada's official languages

the right of French and English linguistic minorities to an education in their language

the protection of Canada's multicultural heritage.

Nothing about markets, property, democratic institutions, individual responsibility, freedom of choice, nor the ability to ensure that gov't is transparent, accountable and rendered honest.

Just endless twaddle about love. The CoR reads like a bad John Lennon lyric.

Protection of Canada's multicultural heritage ? Interesting. I thought before 1980 Canada was an Anglo-French nation ? What about the 2 solitudes ? Now we have one supposes the 191 solitudes plus of course Gay Rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Socialism has no such moral imperative.

I disagree wholeheartedly. In the Gospels, for example, there are many examples of Jesus denouncing material wealth and advocating on behalf of the poor and needy.

This is exactly what our society did when it developed the social safety net. Prior to that, we had a society where the poor and needy suffered for the sake of a few extra coins in the rich man's pocket.

There are many Christians (such as former NDP leadership candidate and ordained United Church minister Bill Blaikie ) who see socialism as a logical extension of their beliefs. Given our history, and such capitalistic atrocities as the industrial revolution, it's not hard to see why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism rocks!

However, until I am the one setting it up and running it, it sucks.

There are many Christians (such as former NDP leadership candidate and ordained United Church minister Bill Blaikie ) who see socialism as a logical extension of their beliefs.

This leadership guy, he was ready to start swinging spike maul on the railroad once socialism was achieved? Or did he figure that he would then remain in charge of the country? I mean, all are equal. I certainly don't like the idea of another getting off easy while I freeze in the cold, cold rain of Northern Ontario while he hob nobs it with the international elite.

I know I write good. I think well, maybe just as good as him. My Homie does pretty good too when he isn't drunk. He doesn't like the heat in the summer and would prefere to be a Finance Minister. He thinks Socialism would give him a month off in the hot summer to replace a person who doesn't like to work in the winter outside.

And to rid Cretien and his ilk of their million dollar pension cheques so I can watch him flip burgers at Micky D's while my former garbageman gives him a snap order from his shift in the Goverenment Limo. God! This is going to be good!

I also like the idea of getting some of those 'Crown Corporations' under 'real government' Control so we can boost efficiency! Man, we are gonna rock!

Socialism rocks! All of us for PM! (In shifts of course to share the 'heavy load,)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism breeds immoral rot and by extension social liberalism and rights entitlements and dumb documents like the CoR which no one in Canada has read but which apparently 80 % of the mumbling bumbling population supports. Hate the wealthy, soak the rich, make sure that the media states endlessly that all businessmen are crooks, cranks and charlatans. This is why capitalism has a moral foundation - it can't operate without laws, rules and procedures. If you break laws like the Cdn Bernie Ebbers at World Com, or Conrad Black who illegally 'borrowed' 200 mn US from Hollinger, you should have your assets taken, your ass thrown in jail and your career ripped up.

However Socialism can operate nicely with command and control and selective engineering. As you said KK, on Orwell's farm some pigs are more equal than others under socialism. There is no contract or freedom of choice basis to Socialism. It is Canada's health care system writ large. Only a few people pay for universality, and since no freedom of choice exists the status quo, whether it is good, bad or simply awful is what you are stuck with.

The system is not innovative, does not generate jobs nor is it conducive to build up a society that needs to pay for certain welfare programs. More iniquitously it leads to mental rot where well pensioned CBC and Univ. professors demagogue endlessly about morality, love and human rights - these same people have never worked a day in the real world and have no concept of freedom, choice nor of contractual obligations, nor of producing anything of value.

Do we really need more assinine professors teaching Art History collecting fat pensions ? If you made people pay for education at the real rates they should pay, and make them view it as one of the most important investments [like a house] they will ever make, suddenly the market for sub par idiot based courses would disappear. So would the costs involved. The same mental fallacy that pervades education can be applied to all gov't coddled sectors.

The tearful leftists just simply cry 'what about the poor', 'what about the old ?'

What about them ? Liberate the markets, have different price points, watch private institutions target different groups, watch access levels increase. Don't believe me? Then you better run off and natioanlise; food distribution, food retail, eye care, eye retail, computer retail; clothing; electronics distribution; furniture production; light buld production; bedding; bathroom fixtures; corn meal; pencil production; phones [remember the old phones you could have black or black !]; the internet; wireless communications; cell phones;......well you get the idea.

Yes let's all cry for the poor.

Here is something from Ludwig Von Mises, i doubt any liberals know of this man, i would suggest you grab some books by LVM and read them avidly:

The argument advanced for planning is entirely derived from an impermissible interpretation of a metaphor. It has no foundation other than the connotations implied in the term "automatic" which it is customary to apply in a metaphorical sense for the description of the market process. Automatic, says the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means "unconscious, unintelligent, merely mechanical." Automatic, says Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, means "not subject to the control of the will, ... performed without active thought and without conscious intention or direction." What a triumph for the champion of planning to play this trump card!

The truth is that the alternative is not between a dead mechanism or a rigid automatism on one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.

Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Socialism breeds immoral rot and by extension social liberalism and rights entitlements and dumb documents like the CoR which no one in Canada has read but which apparently 80 % of the mumbling bumbling population supports. Hate the wealthy, soak the rich, make sure that the media states endlessly that all businessmen are crooks, cranks and charlatans. This is why capitalism has a moral foundation - it can't operate without laws, rules and procedures.

Capitalism is moral because it can't operate without laws to restrict it ?

Wouldn't capitalism NOT need laws if it was inextricably linked with morality ?

If you break laws like the Cdn Bernie Ebbers at World Com, or Conrad Black who illegally 'borrowed' 200 mn US from Hollinger, you should have your assets taken, your ass thrown in jail and your career ripped up.

These are excellent examples of capitalists who didn't seem to have a moral foundation.

However Socialism can operate nicely with command and control and selective engineering. As you said KK, on Orwell's farm some pigs are more equal than others under socialism. There is no contract or freedom of choice basis to Socialism. It is Canada's health care system writ large. Only a few people pay for universality, and since no freedom of choice exists the status quo, whether it is good, bad or simply awful is what you are stuck with.

You've drifted from talking about morality, but ok...

A market-based healthcare system puts people at a natural basis because ultimately you can't choose to not buy the product. I have shown in another thread that the US's largely market-based system provides roughly half the coverage at roughly twice the per-capita costs.

As for the "so-called" socialism in Canada - the gulf between rich and poor is said to be increasing. Real wages tend to slip lower while the top echelons of society are doing better.

I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, but you must be blind to call this socialism. Even the top tax rates under Eisenhower were much higher than we see today and he was no socialist.

The system is not innovative, does not generate jobs nor is it conducive to build up a society that needs to pay for certain welfare programs. More iniquitously it leads to mental rot where well pensioned CBC and Univ. professors demagogue endlessly about morality, love and human rights - these same people have never worked a day in the real world and have no concept of freedom, choice nor of contractual obligations, nor of producing anything of value.

You're jumping all over the map. What university professors are you talking about ?

They demagogue endlessly about morality, love and human rights ?

I hope they're not engineering professors !

Do we really need more assinine professors teaching Art History collecting fat pensions ? If you made people pay for education at the real rates they should pay, and make them view it as one of the most important investments [like a house] they will ever make, suddenly the market for sub par idiot based courses would disappear. So would the costs involved. The same mental fallacy that pervades education can be applied to all gov't coddled sectors.

University tuitions in Ontario (for one) have already increased far ahead of inflation. I'm not sure why further increases should be a priority.

The tearful leftists just simply cry 'what about the poor', 'what about the old ?'

What about them ? Liberate the markets, have different price points, watch private institutions target different groups, watch access levels increase. Don't believe me? Then you better run off and natioanlise; food distribution, food retail, eye care, eye retail, computer retail; clothing; electronics distribution; furniture production; light buld production; bedding; bathroom fixtures; corn meal; pencil production; phones [remember the old phones you could have black or black !]; the internet; wireless communications; cell phones;......well you get the idea.

Yes let's all cry for the poor.

You have a binary way of looking at the world. It seems to me that you're saying "liberate the markets or nationalize food distribution".

Here is something from Ludwig Von Mises, i doubt any liberals know of this man, i would suggest you grab some books by LVM and read them avidly:

QUOTE 

The argument advanced for planning is entirely derived from an impermissible interpretation of a metaphor. It has no foundation other than the connotations implied in the term "automatic" which it is customary to apply in a metaphorical sense for the description of the market process. Automatic, says the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means "unconscious, unintelligent, merely mechanical." Automatic, says Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, means "not subject to the control of the will, ... performed without active thought and without conscious intention or direction." What a triumph for the champion of planning to play this trump card!

The truth is that the alternative is not between a dead mechanism or a rigid automatism on one hand and conscious planning on the other hand. The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself, or should a benevolent government alone plan for them all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is autonomous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.

Anti-planning ? An interesting stance.

I'm not sure how Wal-Mart, the US Federal Reserve or the military would operate without it, but...

Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercion and compulsion.

You espouse ideas that were tried in the past and resulted in boom-and-bust economics, general misery and - in reaction - the rise of radical left politics.

Learn from the mistakes of the past, Rasputin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardner why do you post if you don't understand the topic ?

You just repost what i say and then state something silly like

Wouldn't capitalism NOT need laws if it was inextricably linked with morality ?

Since 'Blacks' exist in business as well as in gov't what is your problem with laws ? The prime contract between people and their 'King' is ' If you want my money, make me secure.' Without laws and security how do u accomplish this - by dreaming about it ?? I said clearly that the morality of Capitalism is premised on free exchange and contractual relationships, unlike Socialism or Cdn Federalism with its coercion and demands.

Are you suggesting the Fabian-Rousseau-Saint Simon myth that humans are incorruptibly pure in nature and that civilisation bastardises them and therefore no laws are needed, and that by extension socialism is moral because it has no laws ???

Please list all your sources to back up the idea that 1 )laws, regulations and governing structures are not necessary for markets and societies to function properly or 2) socialism does not need laws and regulations to function.

You can also list the moral advantages of socialism.

You can keep in mind important point

To succeed you need to create, build, sell, implement and then rebuild products, services and models. By not serving you fail.

Socialism does not serve, it just eats.

You said "US's largely market-based system provides roughly half the coverage at roughly twice the per-capita costs."

Sorry but the US system has more private care than Canada but it is Managed Care. Do you know what managed care means ? It means that quasi-Gov't groups control health care services. The US' problem in health care is largely 4 fold:

1. The US system is insurance based - ie. not customer centric. Customer centricity is vital in any domain.

2. Managed Care and Price fixing - Tommy Thompson's office fixes prices for health care - hardly a market based system.

3. Technology investments and capital investments. Some are good, some are bad [a bad one is building new wings on your hospital because the guy across town just did and you wish to retain your doctors in your Managed Health Portfolio].

4. Inane lawsuits driving up costs - thanks to Demo Tort lawyers and high insurance premiums driving out clinics and doctors from the market. In Philly 50 % of doctors have stated they will quit the profession [WSJ Jan 28 04].

The US spends 7 % of GDP on private health care. It spends 6.5 % on public. The so called 7 % of Private Care is largely under Gov't control via HMOs. It is NOT a free market health care system though the media mischaracterises it as such. Herzlinger of Harvard has written a few books and many articles on Health Care Reform - she is advocating Market based Health Care - if it already existed i don't think she would be spilling all this ink.

List your sources that the US Health Market is a free market system. That should make comical reading. I need a good laugh.

You said:

As for the "so-called" socialism in Canada - the gulf between rich and poor is said to be increasing. Real wages tend to slip lower while the top echelons of society are doing better.

Where are the sources for this ? From Jack Layton ?

First there are 2 problems with such broad statements. In Canada rich is defined at $70.000 US per annum salary. In the US it is $300.000 US per annum. So is someone in Canada at $70 K rich ? I would submit no. Not with taxes, user fees, cost of living, not to mention rearing a family and saving for education and retirement factored in. How can Canadians declare that a man earning $70 k is rich ? Second, there is no agreement on what constitutes poverty. According to Stats Can 15 % of CDNS are poor, according to the Fraser Inst. and others only 8 % are. I just read a report from the US that states that 2/3 of 'poor' own their own home. Maybe in Canada this is also true. Is that poor ? I would say no. So we don't even agree on what is rich and poor. In any event wage, labor, tax and regulation rigidity in Canada would have more to do with lower wages for some segments of society than the rich supposedly and immorally making money.

In Canada incomes are pretty steady - The Globe says:

Based on data from the 2001 census, the government agency said the median income of Canadian families held relatively steady at $55,016 in 2000 compared with $54,560 a decade earlier after adjusting for inflation.

If you want to liberate the poor, get rid of over-taxation and taxing savings, dividends, and open up the job market through economic reforms. We need more capital, more competition and more investment. Soaking the 'rich' who at $70K per annum can barely send their kids to University is not an intelligent response.

You said

University tuitions in Ontario (for one) have already increased far ahead of inflation. I'm not sure why further increases should be a priority.

Increased ahead of inflation ? So what. They are still below costs. According to Roger Martin Dean of the Rotman school of management Ontario is subsidising Univ. and receiving mediocrity in return. Dean chaired a study of US vs. Cdn school competitiveness and found that outside of Business Schools - which LIBERATED their tuition programs - Cdn schools are failing. This was reported Dec 4 2003 in the Globe. Martin is right, anytime you pay less then the costs of the system you will have mediocrity. As for Professors in general how many teach 'useful' subjects - how many teach soft, esoteric, and meaningless courses ? How many programs, topics and subjects are a waste of time ? When you subsidise education you subsidise a lot of waste - both in supply and demand. This is the same in any domain. Look at Blair in Britain - a little tiny increase in tuition almost brings down his gov't. It boggles the rational mind why people think education should be free.

You also said that capitalism failed in the past. No doubt you quote the depression. List sources identifying that assertion. Even lame brain economists admit that tariffs, lowered money supply, tight credit, and high interests rates caused the depression which occured 2 years AFTER the stock market bubble [not immediately]. The press and education system espouse ignorance by blaming the depression on business, they better look to gov't for its cause. You can read Greenspan's writings from 1961 on the topic. Why do you think he has low interest rates and high money supply right now ?

But then again, reading history and facts is just such a damn bother. Better to forward crap then to think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that I misunderstood what you meant by this:

This is why capitalism has a moral foundation - it can't operate without laws, rules and procedures.

I take it now that you meant this is why capitalism "needs" a moral foundation. Ok.

You said "US's largely market-based system provides roughly half the coverage at roughly twice the per-capita costs."

Sorry but the US system has more private care than Canada but it is Managed Care. Do you know what managed care means ? It means that quasi-Gov't groups control health care services. The US' problem in health care is largely 3 fold:

1. Inane lawsuits driving up costs - thanks to Demo Tort lawyers.

2. Managed Care and Price fixing - Tommy Thompson's office fixes prices for health care - hardly a market based system.

3. Technology investments and capital investments. Some are good, some are bad [a bad one is building new wings on your hospital because the guy across town just did and you wish to retain your doctors in your Managed Health Portfolio].

Show me some statistics on 1 and 3.

As for 2, I don't know who Tommy Thomson is. And price fixing is always a problem with capitalism where there are a few dominant players.

The US spends 7 % of GDP on private health care. It spends 6.5 % on public. The so called 7 % of Private Care is largely under Gov't control via HMOs. It is NOT a free market health care system.

Ok. That's clear now.

You said:

QUOTE 

As for the "so-called" socialism in Canada - the gulf between rich and poor is said to be increasing. Real wages tend to slip lower while the top echelons of society are doing better.

Where are the sources for this ? From Jack Layton ?

I don't always quote sources for obvious facts. Mea Culpa.

Policy Altenatives

You see, by lumping everyone with over 70K in as "rich", the truly wealthy benefit from opposition to middle class tax increases. If there was an "over 200k" bracket, there would be less resistance to a tax increase to that group.

Second, there is no agreement on what constitutes poverty. According to Stats Can 15 % of CDNS are poor, according to the Fraser Inst. and others only 8 % are. I just read a report from the US that states that 2/3 of 'poor' own their own home. Is that poor ? I would say no.

In Canada incomes are pretty steady - The Globe says:

QUOTE 

Based on data from the 2001 census, the government agency said the median income of Canadian families held relatively steady at $55,016 in 2000 compared with $54,560 a decade earlier after adjusting for inflation.

The study from StatsCan doesn't fix a poverty level, but rather looks at the wage gains made by the top 10% or bottom 10% of the population.

Increased ahead of inflation ? So what. They are still below costs. According to Roger Martin Dean of the Rotman school of management Ontario is subsidising Univ. and receiving mediocrity in return. Dean chaired a study of US vs. Cdn school competitiveness and found that outside of Business Schools - which LIBERATED their tuition programs - Cdn schools are failing. This was reported Dec 4 2003 in the Globe. Martin is right, anytime you pay less then the costs of the system you will have mediocrity. As for Professors in general how many teach 'useful' subjects - how many teach soft, esoteric, and meaningless courses ? How many programs, topics and subjects are a waste of time ? When you subsidise education you subsidise a lot of waste - both in supply and demand. This is the same in any domain. Look at Blair in Britain - a little tiny increase in tuition almost brings down his gov't. It boggles the rational mind why people think education should be free.

Some of the finest professionals I have worked with, and some of the most productive people I have known had general degrees.

I believe Stephen Harper has a general BA as well as an MA.

You also said that capitalism failed in the past. No doubt you quote the depression. List sources identifying that assertion. Even lame brain economists admit that tariffs, lowered money supply, tight credit, and high interests rates caused the depression which occured 2 years AFTER the stock market bubble [not immediately]. The press and education system espouse ignorance by blaming the depression on business, they better look to gov't for its cause.

But then again, reading history and facts is just such a damn bother.

Well, I actually talked about the industrial revolution as well.

Please provide some sources explaining how the stock market bubble was not one of the causes of the depression.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 16 years later...
On 1/17/2004 at 1:26 AM, Pellaken said:

I have a logical question I want to ask neo-conservatives.

How can you beleive in the freedom of people to make money freely, but not beleive in the freedom of people to live as they chose (AKA gay marriage, aborition)

Your question is not logical. It presupposes to be Conservative one is against gay marriage or women having final say over what they do with their bodies. Neither issue  is automatically rejected by one who would be Conservative and in fact under traditional Conservatism both could be defined as individual rights that the State should not decide for individuals.

I think you need to revisit the labels people use these days when they call OTHERS conservative, liberal, progressive, racist,  etc.

Too much labeling and assuming what others think or believe without taking the time to ask them.

Edmund Burke is often considered the classic example of a Conservative. If you find out anywhere in his writings he was anti abortion or anti gay let  me know.

As for me if you want a label, I like kosher doughnut ahole. Have a nice day. I love PEI.  Viva Spud Island ( McCain Slave Colony)..

Edited by Rue
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading some posts of this thread and I was wondering how they seemed somehow strange and then I looked at the date when the thread was started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the question is a fallacy.

I don't support Mammon Worship. 

 

but, sexual predators, rapists', misogynists', sexual abuse, psychopaths ~ facilitating the cultivation of these is worse than erroneous. its a federal offense; sexual abuse: indirect counselling of children to make sexual contact. 

Edited by Goorbekind
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that here in Europe nobody really cares about abortion. It just isn't an issue over here. That would only needlessly divide the nationalistic lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2004 at 12:53 AM, Goldie said:

simple  One is to reward the individual for providing a service or skill in the arts or sciences to the benefit of human society as a whole.

 

Do you really believe this?    "Rewarding", "Providing a service", "benefit to society" ?

No, it all starts with raping the environment.  Someone exploits nature - land, resources, other forms of life, that they get for nearly free.  Then they turn around and sell all of that to everyone else, putting many consumers in debt.  In the industrial jungle there are going to be all those supporting industries - services and good manufacturers where people at the very top will do better by exploiting those below, but for their own benefit, not  with society in mind.

"The human society" as you put it, is a damn tumor - an engine turning this planet into a landfill.   It is brainless, greedy and depraved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2004 at 7:07 PM, udawg said:

Just a comment about abortion.

Many people DO believe this. But is it fair to a child, to be born into an environment where they are a) not wanted, or b)unable to be taken care of properly.

Those are the two main reasons for abortion, I would think. Child not wanted, or parent/s unable to care for child.

 

What makes you think a child is not wanted, and not cared for..................if he is adopted?  Giving up the child for ADOPTION is the only humane, and moral  option.

Why don't you let the child decide for himself if it's fair to have been borne, and given the chance to live his life?  After all, he didn't ask nor did he have any say at all why he now exists.  So, how come he's here?  Who made that happen?

What I find so UNNECESSARILY  cruel, and unfair,  is for a woman to end up with an unwanted pregnancy at this time and age, and using abortion as the quick fix to her dilemma.

Edited by betsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...