Right Wing Politics = Social Darwinism, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:12 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by The Transhumanist

And if we did the same thing with money then everyone would have some.

And if we did it with cars, then everyone could drive.

And if we did it with houses, then everyone would have shelter.

This has been tried. Won't bore you with when or where. When you do find this ficticious planet "Utopia" let the rest of us know, 'kay?

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:13 PM by jerico65

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
So my queston to you, right wing posters is what is your solution to poverty?

I say we eat the poor. No more welfare, and we help with hunger in America.

Can't discount it as a idea to fix the problem.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:17 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by The Transhumanist

Keeeee-rist!!! Obama won't raise taxes on small businesses? Healthcare, penalties, increases in taxes only they call them something else when it's healthcare. Hve you ever owned a small business?

www.politico.com...

www.ncpa.org...

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:18 PM by mikerussellus

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
So my queston to you, right wing posters is what is your solution to poverty?

I say we eat the poor. No more welfare, and we help with hunger in America.

Can't discount it as a idea to fix the problem.

That's sick.

I'm on a low-fat diet.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:19 PM by Remixtup

reply to post by The Transhumanist

So the right wing is relegated to social darwinism, while you espouse the virtues of a mix of the venus project and a political platform in Spain in the 1930s that never got off the ground?

can I mix my own philosophy with, say, The Anti-Masonic Party? "1826-1836, or maybe with The Free Soil Party "1848-1854", how about the Whigs? "1834-1856"?

And If I do, Does that put you on the road to extinction if you dont agree with me. Obviously...it does.

Edit to add: obvious troll is obvious. I stand by my statement.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:32 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by Remixtup

Actually it was Spain, and they had a revolution. It was kind of a big deal. They almost won before Franco took over.

My philosophy revolves around a very modern organization. Just because Technocracy never took off doesn't mean it's wrong. The Democrat and Republican parties took off and clearly both of those aren't the answer. My political philosophy encompasses nearly all facets of a society so I think it is unfair to compare me to an outdated anti-mason single platform party that offered no real solutions when the Venus Project and Technocracy are built on post-political solutions based ideology. The fact that a Utopia doesn't exist doesn't mean that one shouldn't strive for one. A resource based economy has never been put into practice so you can't say it could never work.

I also think it is unfair of you to call me a troll just because you disagree with me. I stated before, I intended for this thread to be a rational solutions based discussion and you still have yet to offer one.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:36 PM by Remixtup

reply to post by The Transhumanist

Then why go Right/Left? How is the left furthering this ideal?
edit: im sorry, Spain...post has been corrected

[edit on 10/14/2009 by Remixtup]

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:59 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by The Transhumanist

More recently, I have actually heard people on this site advocating the dismantling of the entire welfare system. The only alternative system for welfare I have heard from the right was giving churches the responsibility of taking care of the needy, and anyone with half a brain would realize this could never work.

While I do not advocate dismantling the entire system, I do advocate a restructuring. The idea the GOP had in 1994 on giving the states block grants to take care of social programs was a good start. The better plan would be for the Federal Government to stay out of it completely and let the states figure out what taxes need to be set at. The states are better suited to figure out how to take care of their neighbors than a bureaucrat over a thousand miles away. The one size fits all mentality that comes with the Federal Government is one of the most inefficient ways to conduct business and is an example of the reason we have the 10th Amendment.

Onto your comments about churches not being able to take care of the job. Many churches already DO a significant part of this. And they normally do it with less waste than you find in a government program.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 09:59 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by Remixtup

Personally, I was ready for a rousing debate on welfare reform.

-cricket-
-cricket-

If the GOP way isn't right, is their side stating that more government jobs are?

Is that it?

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:01 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

When I went to research, saw inconsistent results with the GOP healthcare reform.

Why?

Am I even looking in the right areas?

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:04 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by Remixtup

I'm not advocating going left for the sake of going left. Technocracy is a post political system where technical experts make decisions based on the scientific method and empirical questioning rather than partisan opinion and normative questioning. If i were to place technocracy in a particular camp, I just mean that it generally falls into the left because of it's emphasis on equality and humanism. I'm not an advocate of state socialism as is the common solution to poverty from the left, although I think we could really benefit from some steps in that direction. For example, people on these boards are constantly criticizing socialized medicine in France. How can you? They have the number one health care system in the world.

As was stated previously, there is no way to solve poverty in a capitalist system. Even at full employment you would have millions under the poverty line, tho full employment would be a huge improvement. I think that in the meantime, we can look toward small business and the free market for some social solutions (ie providing more jobs) but ultimately it will have to be a combination of small business expansion and state/federal infrastructure projects to reach full employment.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:07 PM by Swampfox46_1999

reply to post by mikerussellus

Okay, missing a wee bit of information about your post....WHAT are you looking at to find your information?

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:09 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by The Transhumanist

It's a bloddy bell curve fer cripes sake!!!

What kind of society will it be with No entry level positions? Again, what socio-economic structure are you describing here?

I am really confused, and it's not just the pain meds.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:10 PM by The Transhumanist

Onto your comments about churches not being able to take care of the job. Many churches already DO a significant part of this. And they normally do it with less waste than you find in a government program.

I have put in a solid share of volunteer hours this year at a Catholic homeless shelter in downtown Rochester, NY and have seen how donation funded organizations can make a huge difference in peoples lives. They have even gone so far as to break zoning laws to house extra people during the coldest nights of winter and provide meals to many poor and homeless in the community. However, the problem with relying on private donations is that it takes a lot of effort and what boils down to a mini marketing campaign to keep these donations coming through on a regular basis, and during a recession, we just aren't getting enough. The shelter is in danger of closing down, although we aren't going down without a fight. I didn't mean to diminish the incredible work that church based organizations and homeless shelters do for the community, I was merely saying that they can't help enough unless donations were significantly increased or they received federal funding.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:10 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Basically the efficacy of the GOP welfare reform plan. Shifting through the dross has left me confused on stats concerning results.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:12 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by The Transhumanist

I'm guessing donations have decreased because more people have lost their jobs, more people are holding onto their money?

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:13 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by mikerussellus

I'm not sure what your confused about? Entry level jobs would still exist in a Technocracy. But workers wouldn't own their business with direct democracy as in anarcho-syndaclism or libertarian-socialism. Technical experts at the top of the ladder would make the decisions while worker related disputes would be handled with unions or grievance councils.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:19 PM by mikerussellus

reply to post by The Transhumanist

This has been tried and failed. Why reinvent the square wheel?

Ownership drives anyone to work harder. People are naturally selfish. Play into that. Work from that. Personal innovation was the driving force behind American commerce.

Edison didn't start from a government project.
Ford didn't start from a government handout.
Google didn't start from a government grant.

Why . . . . Let me start again.

Please name ONE government agency that has created innovation. Has made money. Has shown a profit. Has been successful without the constant infusion of tax payer funds.

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:27 PM by Remixtup

Technical experts at the top of the ladder

GOVERNMENT

reply posted on 14-10-2009 @ 10:31 PM by The Transhumanist

reply to post by mikerussellus

Please name ONE government agency that has created innovation. Has made money. Has shown a profit. Has been successful without the constant infusion of tax payer funds.

www.china-rmb.com...

Technical experts at the top of the ladder = GOVERNMENT

I wouldn't call politicians technical experts. Take this example. Your sick. Do you A) elect a representative to take your doctors opinion and then make a decision for you based on his own opinion or b) go to the doctor and let him decide whats best for you based on medical facts and hard research.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by The Transhumanist]