Left or right? Liberal or socialistic?

[DarkAsmodeous]

"Seat belts are and should be a personal choice as smoking, unhealthy eating habits and lack of exercise."

"I think civil unions should become an amendment. Marriage is between a man and a women to produce a family."

Just look at the conflicting basises for these statements.

Also, Seniosh has at least provided a basis or arguement for why he's made his claims, calling something lies doesn't constitute a reffutation, or even a worthwhile statement.

If you want to participate in civil discourse, please do it civily, and support your statements.

[Zurke]

Originally posted by DarkAsmodeous
"Seat belts are and should be a personal choice as smoking, unhealthy eating habits and lack of exercise."

"I think civil unions should become an amendment. Marriage is between a man and a women to produce a family."

Just look at the conflicting basises for these statements.

Also, Seniosh has at least provided a basis or arguement for why he's made his claims, calling something lies doesn't constitute a reffutation, or even a worthwhile statement.

If you want to participate in civil discourse, please do it civily, and support your statements.

I apologize if I sounded uncivil. I was only speaking frankly. If anyone is insulted they need not feel so.

I also see no conflict in my statements. Civil unions are a choice. While Union and marriage are spelled different they are similar. Just as two people of the same sex are similar to a man and a woman. Why is it so important to take what a man and a woman have together and turn it upside down?

Should a person be able to marry as many partners as they choose? What is marriage?

As far as the "lies" go. I listened to the Clinton make a few speeches on the subject. He talked about jobs and how great it would be for our country. Bush has said less but still continues to sign agreements. Jobs in this country have not been created due to free trade and we have lost billions in revenue. Free trade has not been good for this country. My conclusion is that it has been a "lie". I should have laid it out as plainly previously but I guess I thought the proof was in the pudding.

Again, I apologize to Seniosh if he was in anyway mamed. I meant no harm.

[Seniosh]

Ahh, the problem is that the U.S. doesn't have free trade, and neither does the rest of the world. American jobs have been hurt because our companies have grown complacent, and are not flexible enough to compete with leaner, more efficient companies from other countries.

Take manufacturing, for instance. Ford will use 15 different chassis to make 15 different cars. A company like Toyota, however, will use a mere 7 chassis, and simply mount a different body structure, to make the same number of different models. Thus, Toyota has to have half the number of manufacturing lines, and is more streamlined and efficient.

That is why jobs are being lost in the commercial sector, because our companies can't keep up.

Then, of course, there's outsourcing, which really isn't even a question of free trade, it's a question of wages, and who's willing to do the work. Of course, if the millions of people who are out of a tech support job can't get another job, it's not much of a use that the jobs are "freed up". But, if that same person could work at something which is much more productive, such as redesigning our manufacturing companies, the U.S. as a whole will benefit much more.

As for Civil Unions vs. Marriage, my verdict here is reminiscent of the decision of Brown vs. Board of Education. Separate but equal is an inherently false statement. Having two separate systems, one for gay couples, and one for straight couples, implies inequality, by stating that the two are not equivalent. Marriage is not about a man and a woman, it is about a bond between two people, which is being legally recognized. The issue is that a bond between two men (or two women) should be seen as holding no less value than a bond between a man and a woman. In a society where we are all equal under the eyes of the law, what is the justification for having civil unions separate from marriage, other than an arbitrary definition of "between a man and a woman", which is frequently brought up but never defended. Why should marriage be solely between a man and a woman? Including gay and lesbian couples in marriage would in no way corrupt or overturn it, and i have yet to hear a reason why that would be so.

And being able to marry as many partners as they chose? Why not. Give me one good reason why polygamy should not be an option, without trying to point to people who were forced into it, which is what happened in the few notorious cases out in Utah. What if you love two people? you could either marry none, marry one and have an affair, or marry both, Everybody wins!

And i know you weren't really being that uncivil, but still, thanks to DA for watching my back!

[DarkAsmodeous]

No harm done.

Well, if clinton or bush supported free trade, I'd have to say that the proof was in the pudding, but documents like NAFTA don't support free trade, they're hundreds of pages of trade restriction. As Ron Paul has said, all you need for free trade is as single piece of paper, with a single sentance: "Trade freely".

None of the policies of past administrations can very well be shown as arguements against "free" anything, government is by definition force and restriction, with dire consequences. Should someone be able to marry as many people as they want? If they want to. What is marriage? Whatever folks want it to be, it's nothing more than a social institution, I see no reason for government to be as involved as it is in free choices of others.

As far as free trade sucking jobs, its important to understand what exchange really is. Money isn't anything on its own, its a goods and labor substitute, traditionaly handled by the market, now handled by the government, money isn't wealth. Wealth is value. When people agree to something freely, they each assert that they attain more wealth than they give up, according to their values. As a result, wealth is created. Now, for a company to be successful in a world where free trade rules the market, it has to meet a need in a way that enough people find more valuable than their next best alternative. Now, what this number of people is depends on their expected gain and sales. As a market matures, the expected gains and sales for a number of similar institutions is almost identical, driving up prices and driving down proffits. Then, only inovation or a change in the value of a resource through other inovation can revitalize that market through new, risk taking, expectations. When these inovations occur, as must happen for hte market to thrive, and will happen as people seek more wealth, new opportunities for work and innovation are then created. The more people you have trading freely, the more accurate and up to date the information on these resources and gain is with regards to how much people value them, and inovation is that much more possible, and people are given the picture necessary to renovate and make their markets more efficient as the information of the market is not obfuscated by force. That's ecconomics, not rhetoric.

[Bigboss]

Social Capitalism....combining diffrent parts of Socialism and Capitalism together...many modern economies already seem to be evolving this way Ex:Capitalistic soceities with Socialist health care. I also favor democratic world government(none of that Rockefeller stuff that people think of when they hear "world government").

[DarkAsmodeous]

Read F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom to understand why you cannot contain the machinery of force and communitarian values to any one sector.

[Bigboss]

Whos to say people cannot cooperate and find what works best though? Collectivism,Individualism....I reject both I believe people should be ambitious and do what they can for themselves...whilst also helping others...perhaps this balence is unrealistic but isnt a soceity where its every man for himself? Or a soceity where everyone shares the same values? Both "utopias" of the free market indvidualist and the state market collectivist seem unrealistic to me...moderation between the two though however Is what I believe in...it sounds to me that book assumes that even the slightest bit of socialism will spoil the capitalist soceity...however what if it is used to capitalistic benifit? Socialized health care if done right means more healthy people to do buisness and to feed the market....

[DarkAsmodeous]

You're assuming that voluntary cooperation falls under the realm of communitarian values. It doesn't. Reaffirming individualism is to reaffirm every man's right act peacefuly as he wishes, and no man's right to forcefuly/violently impress upon another. That does not carry the Randian concept of pure selfishness. I'm not a randian, and I don't believe in capitalism for randian reasons. Men cooperating and considering one another, developing peaceful social instutions to meet community needs, I support all of this as the behavior of free men.

I don't assume that a little bit of socialism ruins the capitalist society, I merely assume a little organized violence ruins the peaceful society.

The book however deals with ecconomic reprecussions to a point, but mainly focuses on the inevitibility of organized force, once given powers over free men, growing and expanding, and eventualy, repressing. Hayek was no fool, don't judge a book based on its conclusion, do so based on its reasoning, and I'll be the first to admit that I am not the most equipped to paraphrase it. Only check it out if you want to though.

Also, it is because of my belief tha healthcare is an important thing that should be available to those who value it, that I reject universal healthcare, because even the ethics of the process aside, it can do little but harm the healthcare system in the long run. I don't deny the problem, only your solution.

[Alasdair]

Originally posted by DarkAsmodeous
... Also, it is because of my belief tha healthcare is an important thing that should be available to those who value it, that I reject universal healthcare, because even the ethics of the process aside, it can do little but harm the healthcare system in the long run. I don't deny the problem, only your solution.

That makes no sense. Poor people 'value' health care too... The US health care system is the shining example other countries look at when they want to see how not to manage a countries health system.

Originally posted by Bigboss
... I also favor democratic world government(none of that Rockefeller stuff that people think of when they hear "world government").

World government is a stupid idea. Your government is only good because it compares favorably to other governments. Remove all the better governments and there is no incentive for your government to improve, and there is no way for you to tell how free you really are because you just removed all the measuring posts.

[DarkAsmodeous]

I never insinuated that poor people do not value health-care, you want to hear my arguement as that because you can't imagine someone who does value all men being opposed to universal healthcare. Ethical issues aside, and they are many, Universal Healthcare can only amount to a half-assed obtrusive system preventing the development of a solid, accountable, sustainable healthcare system. The US is a great example of government regulation and tax incentives propping up a dying insurance model, and preventing alternative models from developing based on the huge amount of regulation. Ever tried to open a medical charity? Or a for proffit focusing on community needs? They aren't there to help you.

And yes, world government is a rediculous idea, and for some of the same reasons as Alsadair put out, but rather than having a range of tyrants or well meaning political leaders, have none, and allow men to compete, cooperate, and develop based on the constructions of free men. That's not some anarchist rant, men cannot be free without insitutions restricting them from violating the liberty of another, and without their liberty being protected, so a government in its proper capacity is a necessity.