Originally posted by Leveller
We have an answer. But you rather contradict yourself my friend.
You can walk into a job but it won't pay well. But rather than do that, you're waiting for one with the big bucks aren't you?
Can't say I blame you.......but it means that you aren't exactly a bolshevik.

its not really about the money for me, like i said; i want to do a job that i enjoy. when i left uni i thought i was going brain dead because i wasnt being intellectually challenged - im looking for a job that does just that.

if i wanted big bucks id have studied somthing like law and become a social parasite rather than doing something that was enjoyable but has no particular vocational end product.

Originally posted by bolshevik


so if rightwing patriots have no interest in the welfare of their fellow countrymen what are they actually patriotic about?

be a patriot: vote socialist.

welcome to capitalism comrade. get used to it casue a socialist or a communist have a snowball's chnace in hell of winning any election.

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by TrueLies]

Originally posted by bolshevik

it's not a matter of loving needy people, but acknowledging your moral responsibilty to help them. what you are advocating is a society that accepts the needless deaths of thousands of its citizens out of sheer greed and self interest - and "thats why we love america"?

We did such a good job trying to "help" the needy in this country. Not.
The welfare system that has existed in this country has riuned it. It has created a whole class of poeple who feel the being middle class is owed to them. That they are owed a college education.
In no way should the federal government be our brother's keeper. It's a real short trip for brothers' keeper to Big Brother.

Originally posted by bolshevik


this is exactly what i was talking about. i believe that people have a duty to ensure the everyone enjoys highest standard of living possible, or at the very least that people dont starve while others live in unimaginable opulence. im quite prepared to pay for this out of taxation.
No, I do not have a duty to ensure that everyone has the highest standard of living possible. I know of no system of gov't that would provide for that. And I fail to see why I should bust my butt so that others can be my economic equal without working.
the reason i believe in a system of equality is that i have a social conscience and genuinely want the world to be a better place.
You may think you have a conscience. But, to me, that kind of thinking paves the way for a global economy that will not be to any of our liking. I think in the US we are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not freebies.

Don'ttread, they suffer from the "If everyone is the same, then there will be no suffering" disease.

Truth be told, that system is flawed in that people sometimes have the pesky habit of having a desire for more and some want nothing more than to get by in discusting hell holes.

The government is not here to provide happiness and prosperity, but rather to allow anyone who works the opportunity to obtain it.

That's it. We can not police society and tell women not to have 5 illegitimate kids, or not to smoke crack and lose their jobs, or even to screw their wife and kids by going to jail.

I am not responcible for the countries screw ups, losers, and intellectually challanged.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Don'ttread, they suffer from the "If everyone is the same, then there will be no suffering" disease.

Truth be told, that system is flawed in that people sometimes have the pesky habit of having a desire for more and some want nothing more than to get by in discusting hell holes.

Either all of you are being really cruel or really stupid. He's repeated several times now that he doesn't want everyone to be "equel", and that everyone should be allowed to make something of themselves.

Yet over and over again you keep coming out with this crap. Why?

Very simple, John, while he made it very clear that he was not interested in following the failed systems of the past (but not mentioning the failed and failing similar systems of the present), he said he wants a progressive tax system. We have that now, and it steals more money out of the pockets of those who succeed! That penalizes people for doing the best they can so that those in control of the governmental purse strings can redistribute it. So, the harder you try, the more is taken, while the sorry are rewarded for having low drive.

This crap of "Rightwing" patriots don't care about other people is a bunch of crap, lies, and you know it. You know as well as I do that this nation that won the Cold War uses the capitalistic, free market system, and along with giving to many other needy people at home as well as abroad as private citizens, our government has also helped financially carry the Soviet Union.

How much more progressive taxes is it that you think you want, Bol? You want the tax to be steepened until it breaks the will and drive of those who feed the rest of the world with their personal ambition?

As far as your inability to find a job related to your education, we see the trouble, now. I would really enjoy majoring in Politics and History as I am interested in both, however, I have to be realistic, understanding that the big, bad world doesn't owe my a paycheck and I have to be trained in what the world needs. Another politician is not one of those needs!!

I got to agree with TC 100% here, and I too spent my younger days stopping the spread of the "workers paradise"

I too do not like the governmet taking my money and giving it to those I might not want to give it to. I know people that are drawing checks for being drug addicts, drunks, etc. They laugh about it, while I have worked whatever job I could find, sometimes two or more, to feed my wife and four kids. When did being a worthless drain on society become a handicap?

I am not heartless I have part of my paycheck held out and gave to a local charity, help build homes for the homeless and help teach free self-defense courses at the womens shelter in a near-by city, work through the do-jo helping get kids on the right track, etc.

The difference is I know the help is going to those that DESERVE it. I have no problem with helping someone that is disabled or just down on his luck to get back on his feet, BUT I do have a problem supporting someone to #ing lazy to work and support himself. Let him starve being hungry is a GREAT motivator.


What I would like to know is when YOUR life became someones elses responsabilty?

Originally posted by John Nada
Either all of you are being really cruel or really stupid. He's repeated several times now that he doesn't want everyone to be "equel", and that everyone should be allowed to make something of themselves.

Yet over and over again you keep coming out with this crap. Why?

Thanks for the insight John, but I am going to go with cruel, but not purposefully.

"i believe that people have a duty to ensure the everyone enjoys highest standard of living possible"

This undeniably advocates wealth redistribution so I tend to lump them together with the communists in this catagory alone.

America already has a system where anyone can make something of themselves should they be capable of doing so. It's hard work, which unfortunately some seem to have a natural allergy to.

I have no moral responcibility to them or any of their kind.

Nor is it my JOB to feed every child born to idiot parents.

People can do more good and find more cost effective (many times over) means to help people by getting involved in their community rather than prescribing to a national wealth redistribution system that wastes money and is riddled with errors and injustice.

VOD thinks that all social welfare should be removed! He thinks anyone using a "moral imperative" argument as justification for taking his money needs to SLOW WAY down and realize the problems associated with regulating and financing morality.
He finds the problem lies herein:
The natural cycle of money redistribution has been interupted in America...and VOD completely blames Roosevelt and the powers behind him for the predicament that the country now finds itself in.
Case in point:
Federal legislation created after the depression in the 30's and 40's was only done to keep the masses from storming the gates of the rich. Roosevelt struck a deal with the big industrial owners and banking families to "give a little back". Doing this would allow the Federal Government enough "credit" to dramitically increase its strength under the guise of "serving" the citizens. The payoff was that the companies letting in unions, minorites, obeying child-labor laws and raising the minium wage to a dollar a day would get ALL THEIR MONEY BACK AND THEN SOME. It would be done through "government contracts"! Brilliant. The super rich realized this was a "good" thing because it allowed them to maintain their wealth and priviledge with only a few minor interuptions of their cash flow. Had this not been done, there was no stopping the mob...revolution was in the air, and you have no idea the things a starving man will do.........................
Robbing under the pretense of saving....brilliant.
The way the "free-market" system should work in America is that man should exploit man, a naturally occuring enough phenomen. When the living and working conditions become "bad" enough the poor and oppressed will come to the mansions, kill the occupants, steal the money and obects d' value and then burn the m*****f***er down. This is REAL wealth redistribution. Look at Iraq.
This is the universe's natural balancing procedure. If a man gets rich and gives generously to his workers; healthcare, childcare and retirement...he shouldn't have a problem...however, if he chooses a less "humaintarian" path, then he and his family will surely die...usually publicly and painfully, and the hordes of money he stockpiled will be "redistributed to the citizens".
Its a lovely, lovely thought and VOD THINKS ITS GREAT. It all gets summed up for you in a nice little package...
There's the "moral imperative" argument for the liberals. A sort of "as you give, so shall you get" philosophy that lays it out really simply. (I think)
Y
E
T....
It also allows the conservatives their indivualistic leanings as no one but themselves is responsible for their actions.

A win-win situation...if you ask VOD...which you did, you just didn't know you did.

There is no friend anywhere and llumination is coming - Lao Tse

I can see a little of both sides on this topic, tho i lean more twords self reliance for success.

"Moral duty to aid the less fortunate"
Lets use the term "supporting the less fortunate is the humane thing to do" (whos morals being my issue) YES, making an effort to help those less fortunate IS noble, humane, and shows compassion and humility. Overall this is a good idea. but how to impliment this is in question. Even if the people you try to help squander the help youve freely given them, it is still honorable for a person to lend assistance. You gave them help, its not your fault they wasted it.

I understand those that say, why give if its wasted....or why give if i dont support their cause/ideology/methods...ect....the why is because it makes you a better person (not that i give much, im not that great a person i guess then)

Overall a culture is better when the poorest of them has their living standards raised. the poor in the USA are living a much better life than the poor in say, India.

Because most people are looking out for "their family first" many will not do anything to help others, either because they are too occupied with "them and theirs" or because they just do not care to offer any aid to those they deem "less than deserving"

who decides who's deserving?
The USA has adopted a system wher the gov collects everyones $ and redistributes it to many programs designed to assist people that need it. how else would a concensus to help a given, unpopular segment of society get this help. economic class warefare can be as bad as outright hatred and discrimination. I can see why a supposedly impartial gov would need to redistrubute in this fashion, otherwise the "ive got mine, you get yours" mentality would take over. some charities just would not get ANY support if it was left to the people to decide for themselves.

KJ said that because of a capalistic system, weve gone farther than a socialist/communist one.
Agreed, but to what end? More pollution, corporate greed, abuse of power and class devision? In other posts ive said NEVER TRUST A CORPORATION because all they care about is money!!!!! Making money usually trumps any enviro/safety/social concerns that people have. GREED FOR GREED SAKE IS NOT A SOCIAL GOAL...or at least it should'nt be. This is where i see capitalisms biggest failure. Corporations only give to charity what little they must to get you the buying public to like them more and buy their stuff instead of their competitors. Do you think they as a corporate being really want to spend $$$ they dont have to? Its contrary to business success.

to those that say the divide between the haves and have nots will widen and then balance thru "revolution" of one class against the other is acceptable and appropriate.....YOU ARE GIVING AN OK FOR ME TO COME AND STEAL YOUR THINGS THEN?