What style of government do you favor the most?

inatic76,

why are cubans trying to come here then?? why was there a guy who crawled into a cdn airplane wheel cavity and died if it was so good over ther?
isn't it true that if u try and escape they will throw u in jail or worse shoot you down?

Why is it that they don't have clean water to bathe in or soap to use unless their left overs from the hotels??

why do many people eat out of hotel dumpsters?

Why can't people speak ill of Castro?

I was a roomate with a girl who went to cuba to visit her boyfriend, he lived san fuegos cuba, his mom made cuban cigars and tried to go into the tourist area and sell thrm, he had no clean water no soap no nothing, they had to put bars up around there house because people are desperate over there to steal for money...

Castro is the best thing that happened them??? Please, he's no better then the guy before him, if hes was I highly doubt people would be trying to escape the OPPRESSION over there..

sure he's nice to the visitor's that come but he treats the citizens like yesterdays garbage...

Pull your head out of ass...

Originally posted by KayEm
I think I pretty much summed that up when I showed the huge gap in livability standards between people such as Bill Gates and the at the very bottom (the homeless).

Example #1

Ok, so everyone has the same amount of money, lets say $10, all are equal, all is fair. (Using your logic)

A popular rock band plays a concert, and charge $2/person. 1000 people show up, they now have $2000 more dollars, and 1000 people have $8 instead of $10.

Is this unfair?

How should we "re"equalize it?

Should we (by force) take the rock bands money and give it back to the 1000 people that paid to see the concert?
-If yes, why would the rock band even continue to have concerts; what would be their incentive? (excluding charity/goodwill)

Example #2

Billy opens a pizza company, works hard and finds numerous buyers. Soon Billy can't keep up with demand, and hires 4 people to work for him. Billy gets a profit of $3 out of every sale. His employees get $2 out of every sale, and the other amount from the sales cover the rent, heat, electric, supplies, ect.

One week, they sold 100 pizzas. Billy has $300 more dollars than the week earlier, his employees (combined) have $200 (or $50 each) more dollars than the week before.

The neighbor, John, stayed at home sleeping, every day that week, he earned $0 more dollars than the week before.

Is it fair that Billy earned $300 more dollars than John did?

Is it unfair that Billy earned $100 more than his employees (combined)?
-If yes, what would make it fair?

If any socialist/communist could answer these questions for me, it would be appreciated. I only want to try to understand your rationale.

Originally posted by enlightenment

Originally posted by KayEm
I think I pretty much summed that up when I showed the huge gap in livability standards between people such as Bill Gates and the at the very bottom (the homeless).

Example #1

Ok, so everyone has the same amount of money, lets say $10, all are equal, all is fair. (Using your logic)

A popular rock band plays a concert, and charge $2/person. 1000 people show up, they now have $2000 more dollars, and 1000 people have $8 instead of $10.

Is this unfair?

How should we "re"equalize it?

Should we (by force) take the rock bands money and give it back to the 1000 people that paid to see the concert?
-If yes, why would the rock band even continue to have concerts; what would be their incentive? (excluding charity/goodwill)

Example #2

Billy opens a pizza company, works hard and finds numerous buyers. Soon Billy can't keep up with demand, and hires 4 people to work for him. Billy gets a profit of $3 out of every sale. His employees get $2 out of every sale, and the other amount from the sales cover the rent, heat, electric, supplies, ect.

One week, they sold 100 pizzas. Billy has $300 more dollars than the week earlier, his employees (combined) have $200 (or $50 each) more dollars than the week before.

The neighbor, John, stayed at home sleeping, every day that week, he earned $0 more dollars than the week before.

Is it fair that Billy earned $300 more dollars than John did?

Is it unfair that Billy earned $100 more than his employees (combined)?
-If yes, what would make it fair?

If any socialist/communist could answer these questions for me, it would be appreciated. I only want to try to understand your rationale.

Are you saying money is the only incentive for people to do things?
And I agree with the original poster, what is more important a "rock star", "actor", who make huge amounts of cash, or the guy who cleans your streets so you don't get sick from the garbage, or the guy who works underground to dig out the coal so you can have electricity, or the guy who
slaves at the conveyor belt so you can have canned pease??
We could get rid of actors today and we would be fine, but get rid of those underpaid workers and things would get pretty �rappy pretty quicke.
Anybody from London here remember the garbage strike in 1976??

[edit on 7-7-2004 by ANOK]

Originally posted by TrueLies
inatic76,

why are cubans trying to come here then?? why was there a guy who crawled into a cdn airplane wheel cavity and died if it was so good over ther?
isn't it true that if u try and escape they will throw u in jail or worse shoot you down?

Why is it that they don't have clean water to bathe in or soap to use unless their left overs from the hotels??

why do many people eat out of hotel dumpsters?

Why can't people speak ill of Castro?

I was a roomate with a girl who went to cuba to visit her boyfriend, he lived san fuegos cuba, his mom made cuban cigars and tried to go into the tourist area and sell thrm, he had no clean water no soap no nothing, they had to put bars up around there house because people are desperate over there to steal for money...

Castro is the best thing that happened them??? Please, he's no better then the guy before him, if hes was I highly doubt people would be trying to escape the OPPRESSION over there..

sure he's nice to the visitor's that come but he treats the citizens like yesterdays garbage...

Pull your head out of ass...

So Cubans are the only ones who are trying to get into America? Is that it? Have you read the accounts of millions of Haitians who have also sailed across the Atlantic but have been denied by the Coast Guard. No special attention should be given to Cubans because they are seeking "Political freedom," or because Miami's political offices are all held by Cubans.

As far as Castro, he cannot be blamed at all for the state of Cuba today. That is all thanks to the United States and the sanctions and embargo's that they have placed on the tiny island.

As you probably don't know, Cuba was completely American owned due to the Spanish American War. As a matter of fact, The United States passed on the oppurtunity to make Cuba a commonwealth as it did other islands.

America controlled 80-90 percent of Cuba's mines and oil refineries, and 40 percent of the sugar industry.

But once Castro got into power, he set up a nationwide system of education, of housing and he distrubuted millions of acres of lands to landless peasants.

It was because Castro cut off all ties to America (Bautista was American backed) that American corporations, such as United Fruit Company, decided not to loan money to Cuba because Cuba all of a sudden was worthless to them.

The USA cut down on sugar buying from Cuba which the Cuban economy depended on and the Soviet Union had to immediately step in and buy all 700 tons of sugar to save Cuba.

Get out of here with that Cuban political nonsense.

socialist maybe like what they have in europe but they pay taxes out the kazoo. hell in england i heard your taxed on how may windows you have in your house (tommies feel free to correct me on this is im wrong) socalizm europen style with out the taxes would be ok for me.

Ivan,

In many European socialisms the government pays for healthcare and education, thus it ends up costing you less in the long run. Basically it's just a difference in who your paying, the government or your HMO.

I'll be the first to say that the governments should also be looking for other ways to make money, like government owned corporations so that taxes do not become oppressive

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
hell in england i heard your taxed on how may windows you have in your house (tommies feel free to correct me on this is im wrong)

Window Tax? well, it used to exist but it was scrapped a while ago. It applied when buying or selling a house I think. Now we just a stamp duty.

Originally posted by ANOK
Are you saying money is the only incentive for people to do things?

No, but it is a big incentive. (Assuming you have a job) Why do you go to work? For the fun of it; or is the main reason to earn some cash?

And I agree with the original poster, what is more important a "rock star", "actor", who make huge amounts of cash...We could get rid of actors today and we would be fine, but get rid of those underpaid workers and things would get pretty �rappy pretty quicke.

Do you watch tv, movies, or listen to (popular) music?
If yes, then you are contradicting yourself, because you, and many others demand (economic/market terminology) such movies, tv shows, and songs; helping actors and singers earn so much money.

Also, not to belittle those garbagemen, but those types of jobs are unskilled jobs. Jobs that need little/no training, jobs almost anyone could do. Although these are often menial tasks, there is always a need for them. Their wage will ultimately be determined on the basis of supply v. demand.

Originally posted by The Astral City
Ivan,

In many European socialisms the government pays for healthcare and education, thus it ends up costing you less in the long run. Basically it's just a difference in who your paying, the government or your HMO.

How does it cost less in the long run? Explain this one please.

I'll be the first to say that the governments should also be looking for other ways to make money, like government owned corporations so that taxes do not become oppressive

So you can trust you politicians to run a business, as well as your government? You are asking for a monster of inefficiency. You thought the line at the government post office was long...

Originally posted by enlightenment

Originally posted by ANOK
Are you saying money is the only incentive for people to do things?

No, but it is a big incentive. (Assuming you have a job) Why do you go to work? For the fun of it; or is the main reason to earn some cash?

And I agree with the original poster, what is more important a "rock star", "actor", who make huge amounts of cash...We could get rid of actors today and we would be fine, but get rid of those underpaid workers and things would get pretty �rappy pretty quicke.

Do you watch tv, movies, or listen to (popular) music?
If yes, then you are contradicting yourself, because you, and many others demand (economic/market terminology) such movies, tv shows, and songs; helping actors and singers earn so much money.

Also, not to belittle those garbagemen, but those types of jobs are unskilled jobs. Jobs that need little/no training, jobs almost anyone could do. Although these are often menial tasks, there is always a need for them. Their wage will ultimately be determined on the basis of supply v. demand.

members.aol.com...
flag.blackened.net...
www.struggle.ws...
www.struggle.ws...

[edit on 8-7-2004 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

members.aol.com...
flag.blackened.net...
www.struggle.ws...
www.struggle.ws...

[edit on 8-7-2004 by ANOK]

So you can't answer my questions yourself? Or even at all?

My basic premise is economics, all other things depend on a flow from that.
Some things by their very nature are collectively owned, ie. air, water. The condition of the environment needs to be maintained reasonably well. I believe the government should be utilized to create the infrastructure necessary to advance the economy (roads, primary & some secondary education, water/sewer, reasonable attempts to keep the market place clean). Im not however in favor of large or excessive numbers of social programs. Minimize social and corporate welfare. I believe if any action of an of-age adult has no objective consequences to other people, it should be legal (drugs, prostitution, gambling, suicide). For many of those activities instead of spending tax dollars depriving people of personal freedoms, they should be taxed and regulated. They would create businesses, jobs, tax revenues and free up police to work against murder, rape, robbery and terrorism (including rape of the environment and theft of resources). The government should try to get out of the morality business. I would retain some social laws such as child labor and unduly onerous working conditions and hours. It would be a government with perhaps a minimum number of safety nets. It would NOT be a pretty and nice corporate clone world which everyone today seems so enthralled with today, but it would be the kind of economy that has produced rapid technological development. Individual advancement would rely on being savy and intelligent. As an example look at how England and France were on the cutting edge of intellectual/technological advancements (1700-1800s), but that gradually shifted to the US and other places as european economies became too parentry. They started overloading themselves with taxes and social programs and government interference in the economy. The govenment is not a parent, or even a big brother, but an equal in the arena of human advancement. In otherwords dump all those pompous, holier-than-thou congress persons, grandly expressing their high moral standards while using your tax dollars and the tax dollars of your children and grand children. You might be able to finance a minimum healthcare system that emphasized preventative care and pre-natal care, but did not include a lot of extreme and expensive measures. One of the MOST important functions of government is to make sure there is good clinical information pro and con about many things and then leaves the final decision up to the individual. It sounds harsh, but some of the finest and most outstanding people arise from sort of tough childhoods. We should try to provide for children, but we almost more importantly have to expect much from them. My best tag would be 'Ecological Libertarianism'

1. Guard the Environment ferociously
2. Expand personal freedoms extensively
3. Minimize government programs that leave individuals and corporations expecting to lean too heavily on government
4. Keep taxes low
5. Celebrate and encourage math, science, creative inventive technology
6. Exchange and dispense unbiased information and ideas.
7. Support infrastructure that assists the economy and general living standards.
8. Provide for a defense that is not for pompous shows, but is ruthless tenacious and vicious and ONLY used when the nationstate is objectively at risk. (NOT sloppy and wasteful) Fights are about existence and NOT ideologies.

(You now here a refrain of "If I were King of the For-e-e-e-est")
Poking fun at myself.

[edit on 8-7-2004 by slank]

Originally posted by muppet

By comparison, and I'm no expert on US legal/constitutional stuff, I read Bush was able to tear up the constitution, with an Act hardly anyone read first, and most people didn't even notice?

Sorry, Dubya doesn't get to claim that one!

That was brought to you by everyone's good buddies, the US Congress.

Presidents only get to make Executive Decisions.

Of course in ten years you won't be able to find ANYONE who will admit responsibility.

[edit on 7/8/2004 by Montana]

[edit on 7/8/2004 by Montana]

Originally posted by Montana
Sorry, Dubya doesn't get to claim that one!
That was brought to you by everyone's good buddies, the US Congress.
[edit on 7/8/2004 by Montana]

Ah..yeah. sorry.you're right. lucky for bush though. eh?

Originally posted by muppet
Ah..yeah. sorry.you're right.

lucky for bush though. eh?

Yep, the U.S. Constitution has the balance of power designed into it -- Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the Supreme Court tells Congress if a law is unconstitutional (which starts the law-making process all over again) or if a President is enforcing a law unethically (in which case, he/she has to find another way to enforce the law(s) in question).

The 50 States have governments that use this same model, just on a smaller scale. (And a few name changes -- instead of 'Congress' its called a 'Legislature', and instead of 'President' its called the 'Governor'. The 50 States still call their supreme courts the 'Supreme Court', however )

So, on regular intervals, U.S. citizens have to elect their representatives to U.S. Congress, their representatives to the State Legislature, the President, and their State Governor. (And this doesn't count local elections, like City Mayor, City Council members, sheriff, etc.! ) That's a lot of elections! Court judges are appointed by the executive branch (President or Governor) and approved by the legislative branch (Congress or Legislature).

The U.S. Government has certain rights reserved to it (such as coining money, dealing with foreign countries, or declaring war on another country) and certain obligations (such as protecting the 50 States from outside threats). The 50 States have certain rights reserved to them (such as issuing most licenses, such as a driver's license or marriage license, education, and internal policing) and certain obligations (such as, they have to allow U.S. citizens from other States free entry into and out of their States, and recognize other States' and the U.S. Government's other licenses and certificates). Also, there are powers that both the U.S. Government and the 50 States have.

The U.S. Constitution and the 50 State Constitutions all have a Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the government, which are all also very similar to each other.

From that point on it gets more complicated, but there's the U.S. model for a democratic republic. We live in very cyncial times, but the truth is that the system works, and works well. Some complain that it's not perfect -- so, what's the surprise? Nothing involving human beings is, or ever will be, perfect.

There are actually two models for democracy that exist -- the US model and the UK model. Most democratic countries use one of the two models. Both work well, and have their advantages and disadvantages. (Maybe one of our British ATS members could give a brief summary of how the UK model works? ) But, like Winston Churchhill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government known to man... until you consider the alternatives."


[edit on 7/8/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Originally posted by enlightenment
.

Also, not to belittle those garbagemen, but those types of jobs are unskilled jobs. Jobs that need little/no training, jobs almost anyone could do. Although these are often menial tasks, there is always a need for them. Their wage will ultimately be determined on the basis of supply v. demand.

What would you do WITHOUT garbagemen, Enlightenment ?

This is the point. We keep treating those who do what the sheep consider to be "menial" "low-status" jobs like #, maybe one day...and I would be one of the first to stand up and cheer, believe me...they'll all quit because of the way they are treated.

What would happen then ? I don't think I need to fill in the blanks here.

The point is that our societies priorities are bass-ackwards.

We'll pay a bunch of spoiled teenagers (think Mary Kate & Ashley Olsen- the monkey faced brats) gazillions...and for WHAT, exactly ?????, while we pay nurses and teachers frigging peanuts !!!!

And yes, I fully understand how this works, and for this reason, I will not watch these two mini-Divas on any television program nor will I rent their insipid videos.

That includes others of their ilk who are blonde but have nothing talentwise to contribute to the arts as a whole, Miss Spears and Jessica Simpson and other FAR overrated "artistes" of their generation.

To a REAL artist, I would never in a million YEARS deny proper compensation. As I know that REAL artists basically starve (hence the term 'Starving Artist'), and work their asses off to produce something that the public will buy.

But I draw the line at people like the Gates who make more money for relatively little work and make gazillions, most of which they will NEVER be able to spend. This is just pure insanity.

Originally posted by KayEm
But I draw the line at people like the Gates who make more money for relatively little work and make gazillions, most of which they will NEVER be able to spend. This is just pure insanity.

You're assuming that Bill Gates never had to work hard for his money. Bill Gates may be retired now, because he's made a fortune, but what did he do to gain that fortune? He didn't win the lottery, or find it buried in an abandoned yard or anything. He earned it. In Microsoft's early days, when it was "just another company", Gates was known to work 80+ hour work weeks, and went many years without any vacation whatsoever (such is life when you're running your own business). Should Bill Gates be punished for developing a series of products that millions of people voluntarily buy and use every day?