Left or right? Liberal or socialistic?

[Catlemur]

I am a Piratic-Leftist.

[jucklesjenk]

I am a Capitalist.

While the idea of socialsim is nice and would be fantastic, it just doesn't work. Simple. There's always people who take advantage of systems and exploit opportunities (rightly, in many ways), such as Stalin and Hitler (whilst you might say "but Hitler was a Nazi!" this is true, but he started off by joining the National German Workers Party (a socialist party) and took advantage of its support from the working class to start off his Nazi regime).

Also, what can't be denied is that the world wouldn't be in the advanced state that it's in today if it weren't for Capitalism. The Industrial Revolution is entirely a result of entrepreneurs who invested in money and big businesses and we got cars, TVs, trains, planes and thousands more.

This, however, doesn't mean that I don't care for people as much as money, just the fact that putting money and business at a high priority is what keeps the world turning. If there were never any capitalists and only socialists, we would still be in the dark ages.

[Zurke]

I am capitalist in the idea that hard work gets you further. To pay the way for someone who chooses to put forward less effort is in my mind counter productive.

I agree that if it were not for the individual efforts of capitalism the world would be far behind of where it is now.

Secondly with socialism there is only so many taxes you can suck from the people and at some point you have to cut back on entitlements and services. Services have proven to be much more expensive when a government entity is controlling the service.

This being said I want to also say that I am a Union member. But to prove my point I pay dues to be a part of my group. No one rides for free within our collective.

All of this is not to say I dont feel we need charity and some programs that help those who are authentically in need.

I live in the USA. My question has always been what is poor? Less than two vehicles or no vehicle at all. No cable television. Cannot afford to go to the cinema.

Or is it a lack of food, clothing and shelter?

In my view anything other than food, clothing and shelter should be something the idividual strives for. Media has created a need for more and this is where we lost our way.

[Siegfried]

Time to stir the pot...

Originally posted by Seniosh
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.

Well how about this: straights don't get married, they get civil unions, same as homosexuals. It strikes me that all qualms with homosexuality arise from religion, seeing as how (American) government is not supposed to involve itself with religion and marriage (almost always) has religious connotations to it, government should not be regulating it in the first place. Likewise though it is a function within our society that two people choose to live together for life, hence civil unions.

Then the Churches can go ahead and fight it out ammongst themselves, and the Episcopals can ordain their gay bishops and Catholics can damn them to hell and the Lutheran's can split their Church in half. Its not the governments problem, its the problem of the Church.

[robertneville777]

Well how about this: straights don't get married, they get civil unions, same as homosexuals. It strikes me that all qualms with homosexuality arise from religion, seeing as how (American) government is not supposed to involve itself with religion and marriage (almost always) has religious connotations to it, government should not be regulating it in the first place. Likewise though it is a function within our society that two people choose to live together for life, hence civil unions.

Then the Churches can go ahead and fight it out ammongst themselves, and the Episcopals can ordain their gay bishops and Catholics can damn them to hell and the Lutheran's can split their Church in half. Its not the governments problem, its the problem of the Church.

Hell yeah man! Could not have stated that any better! Why the hell is the government involved in a "union" that is purely based on religion? Looks like the (US) government has been sticking their nose into our private affairs for quite a while now...

Of course, I say this in all Christian love...

Obama summed up my political stance pretty well...

Something like " they cling to their religion and their guns"

Sums me up pretty well!

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by robertneville777
Of course, I say this in all Christian love...

Obama summed up my political stance pretty well...

Something like " they cling to their religion and their guns"

Sums me up pretty well!

I have nothing against guns or religion. Frankly I think (federal) government noses around my guns more than they should.

My point is that the government has no place to be involved with religious issues, whether they are supporting or opposing gay marriage, it still brings government into direct interference with religion.

[AnImpatientFan]

I consider myself a Liberal.
Although I prefer things to be in order and clean aswell as neat.

[Zurke]

People are inherently lazy. That is not to say that everyone is but look around and count how many people would rather not work than work. I believe everyone will come to the same conclusion.

I do not like to work but I do because I want to further my self worth and my style of life. I get a feeling of accomplishment from performing a form of work and getting paid for it.

Not everyone feels that way. Others may come to the conclusion that they can do little and have little. Whether or not they are happy with the meager amount of wealth is a matter of personal beliefs.

The problem arises when the population of folks who choose to do little want more in life style. They want what the television, radio and magazines say they should have. Some feel it is their right under some delusional idea that they are born to be fed, clothed and paid for by others. Maybe in their minds they have been wronged by their society and their society owes them. In any case short of a serious disability they are plain lazy.

A society built upon entitlements is headed for ultimate failure. This includes communism and socialism. Each has more entitlements than there is money to go around. Each instills a sense of false security that all will be well and individuals need not further their own life because their society will take care of their needs.

What is the point in working harder than others only to have your extra work going to someone else? This reality, starts the domino effect within entitlement based societies. Once it begins it snow balls and you wind up with a lot of taxes with few services and entitlements that look very different from when they started.

Capitalism while not perfect is the fairest society. Liberal news will tell you all the bad that comes from capitalism while dumbing down the failings of entitlements based societies. Entitlements are a game played by politicians for political security. It doesn't matter that they only last for so long because those who believe in them will never realize it does not work. Politicians will blame the 'rich' (please look at you politicians wallet) and keep the game going.

[jucklesjenk]

I completely agree.

I'm not sure if this makes me weird or something but I like working (I'm still at school so I don't have a job, but I live on a farm, which means you have to do physical work every day anyway) because I like coming to the end of the day and seeing that I've achieved something - not necessarily by looking down on others but by looking at what I've done eg. fixing a gate, hay making, painting a fence etc.

I know a lot of people who aren't lazy, but I know many more who are. Also, a lot of people who aren't "lazy" may still be conveniently minded, and will work when they know they have to but ultimately, given the choice, would rather sit at home and watch TV.

Ultimately though, whether you strive to be wealthy or happy is a choice anyone and everyone has, and if these paths cross, all the better, but soceity in general cannot work under the ideal of wanting to be happy and wealthy, but not be doing the work.
This is where capitalism succeeds where communism fails - capitalism works under the simple belief of "the more you put in, the more you get out" which, whatever way you look at it, IS fair, but communism says "everyone is equal".

A mistake many people make is confusing the words "equal" and "fair". "equal" does not mean "fair", because why should someone who works hard and puts in the and effort day in, day out be treated the same as someone who decides to do nothing and go out and blow all their money on drugs and booze?

If everyone gets treated equally, the natural laziness in people means that everyone will do the minimum (as it gives you the same benefits as working), halting progress and destroying soceity, for example no one would bother making food or selling food and everyone would starve, and people wouldn't be able to afford food as they have earned little money and the price of food sky-rockets as there is none. This would happen with every commodity, and you are left with something like mid 20th Century Russia or East Germany.


However, as you pointed out, Zurke, Capitalism is not perfect, as it promotes greed, and you have a lot of money going to very few people if taken extremely, although the general population will still have more than enough to live on.

However it is the lesser of two evils, as Communism / Socialism promotes laziness AND greed: laziness as mentioned above, but greed as the few in charge the take all the money for themselves, eg. Stalin
So, really, communism doesn't exist as it is merely an ideal and it is an ideal that doesn't work, as you end up having a dictator and, ultimately, fascism.

[Zurke]

However it is the lesser of two evils, as Communism / Socialism promotes laziness AND greed: laziness as mentioned above, but greed as the few in charge the take all the money for themselves, eg. Stalin So, really, communism doesn't exist as it is merely an ideal and it is an ideal that doesn't work, as you end up having a dictator and, ultimately, fascism.

In societies who shun capitalism, I agree there are still the wealthy few. Those wealthy are also in the political arena which is kinda of a conflict of interest which should be very obvious to many but is not. The middle class take the burden for the entitlements. Businesses also have higher taxes which calculates to less spending and fewer jobs. Those working have an increased burden because there are less workers to pay the higher taxes.

The snow ball increases in size.