Keep buying crap made in China suckers

[Ben...]

well said Ben but I think Ward meant the whole "social package" like in Scandinavia where health care is just a small part... but I may be wrong
Social health care alone is in even in the most conservative EU countries where the taxes are low, if you take it away, the government buildings will be burnt down the same day.... it's the most precious thing for the people. It's more important than military because you need health every day. I wouldn't imagine my life without social healthcare... I've been pretty sick all my life and have had many very expensive operations... If my family would have had to pay for all that then we'd be living on the streets right now.
I've said it before, health is one of the few things where capitalism should stay the fuck out. It's totally against Hippocrates. If you want big business then start stuffing implants inside of tits.

Yeah, I just wanted to comment on that aspect of social welfare because I think it's the most important. I could go into the education aspect but I don't really want to.

[Jayster]

I don't get the point:think:
Morality was created first, then came spirituality which was used as a

Without spirituality to tell you whats wrong how can you have morality?
If it was purely based upon individual thought there would be a lack of morality, perhaps some social norms or mores but not morality.

government are products of society.

I would disagree, in the days of cavemen didn't the biggest/strongest rule(dictatorship). Who would object to dragging your squaw around by their hair?

then came spirituality which was used as a manipulation device but used elements of morality so it would seem a ok for the sheep,

I agree there have been massive abuses of power and corruption within all organized religions. The manipulation device would be guilt because the accepted norms of society are not in line with true morality!

, then came government which was based on elements of morality so that the society would work better and it also had elements of manipulation so someone in power would benefit from it more than the others.

Government based on morality??? I must have missed this one! Elements of manipulation absolutely help someone in power to benefit above those under them. However the very act of being manipulative is immoral.

Wow if our conflicting views didn't just form a circular logic example I don't know what would!

Anyway cheers, let's get back to OPIE's thread ...

[Endrik]

And if all of you guys seem to believe we can have morality without spirituality, then why can we not have society without government?:think:

I don't get the point:think:
Morality, spirituality and government are products of society. Morality was created first, then came spirituality which was used as a manipulation device but used elements of morality so it would seem a ok for the sheep, then came government which was based on elements of morality so that the society would work better and it also had elements of manipulation so someone in power would benefit from it more than the others.

[85 San Dimas]

Did you see that doc on Walmart? The really are ass wipes,they call the shots and if you can not make it cheap enough fuck you. Made in the U.S.A us to mean something!

I'm new to the thread and absolutely won't shop at Wal-Mart (or GC, the OTHER Wal-Mart).

I will say thought that i read an article back in the 80's that Toyota treated thier suppliers the same way.

[Endrik]

For the health care aspect, people who have incredibly sick or injured don't get turned down because some slimy insurance company found a "discrepancy" in their application. People's health comes before money. I've heard many arguments that people don't want to pay for others' treatment but I say what if it was a relative of yours or a close friend that didn't have insurance? What would you rather see: 1) Them get treated at the bill of the government and it costs little or nothing for them. OR 2) Watch them pay thousands of dollars for medical service at an inflated cost or not get treated at all because they couldn't afford insurance.

well said Ben but I think Ward meant the whole "social package" like in Scandinavia where health care is just a small part... but I may be wrong
Social health care alone is in even in the most conservative EU countries where the taxes are low, if you take it away, the government buildings will be burnt down the same day.... it's the most precious thing for the people. It's more important than military because you need health every day. I wouldn't imagine my life without social healthcare... I've been pretty sick all my life and have had many very expensive operations... If my family would have had to pay for all that then we'd be living on the streets right now.
I've said it before, health is one of the few things where capitalism should stay the fuck out. It's totally against Hippocrates. If you want big business then start stuffing implants inside of tits.

[Ben...]

GoR - could you please explain why?

For the health care aspect, people who have incredibly sick or injured don't get turned down because some slimy insurance company found a "discrepancy" in their application. People's health comes before money. I've heard many arguments that people don't want to pay for others' treatment but I say what if it was a relative of yours or a close friend that didn't have insurance? What would you rather see: 1) Them get treated at the bill of the government and it costs little or nothing for them. OR 2) Watch them pay thousands of dollars for medical service at an inflated cost or not get treated at all because they couldn't afford insurance.

[Jayster]

Someone made the comment that the market system is ultimately survival of the fittest, or law of the jungle. If developments in science tell us that is how nature works on a fundamental level, then is not the market economy simply a reflection of reality? Perhaps inequalities are inherent not only in economies or human dealings but nature as well.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying here, however I'd like to add(if this is a bout the stock market).

The federal government admits to manipulating the stock market(look into the PPT).


And if all of you guys seem to believe we can have morality without spirituality, then why can we not have society without government?:think:

Also anyone who is saying we need to limit the earning potential of ceo's and laborers - do you also believe we should limit the earning potential of guitar players or bands. Perhaps Slayer should be limited to 120,000$ dollars a year(split 4 ways naturally(and no endorsement deals for KFK, because that would put him over his earning potential)).

[rjohnstone]

KO and Maddow are idiots.
Olberman is ok to watch from an entertainment value perspective. Of course he actually thinks he's funny.
Sportscaster turned political expert.... not.

Maddow is flat out annoying.

Both are ardent Obama supporters, so I don't expect anything to come out of their mouth that is close to resembling impartiality.

Same applies to anything coming from Faux news about the GOP.

[Flatpicker]

No, even MSNBC and CNN were on the bash the UAW train.
Matt

You may want to recheck that info.
Both KO and Maddow spoke for the UAW during this mess.
Can't speak for CNN here, I can't stand their internet feeds.

[Endrik]

Interesting points you have made. When I look at the Renaissance/ Enlightenment period, I see a focus shifting from authoritarian structures, ie. Monarchies/The Church, to an emphasis on humanistic ideas; the human spirit, the power of Man's mind to understand his universe and the importance of the individual. Which are all fundamental to the market economy.

Power structures at that time being the church and state saw the potential of the rise of these humanistic ideals as damaging to their hold on power, and they were wise to be afraid! If humanity was to lose its special place in the center of the universe and God's eyes, they feared chaos and anarchy because of their belief that morality and ethical behavior was rooted in a belief and ultimate fear of God. Men cannot be left to their own sinful desires!

Check out writings by Spinoza and Leibniz for a good battle of these 17th century ideas.

Someone made the comment that the market system is ultimately survival of the fittest, or law of the jungle. If developments in science tell us that is how nature works on a fundamental level, then is not the market economy simply a reflection of reality? Perhaps inequalities are inherent not only in economies or human dealings but nature as well.

That nature is cruel and unfair was just as abhorrent to those trying to maintain the power structures of the church, as it would mean that God is not really in control of his creation, and "God is Good" would lose its meaning wouldn't it?

I agree that economy can reflect the nature of human beings. And humans are different within different cultures and therefore the economies are also different.

Science, logic, thoughts about human nature etc. helped tremendously to develop Enlightenment movement and the way we think and act in today's world. The fact that humans weren't all that good and can be greedy bastards was one of the main themes.

Those who were deeply into science... Galilei, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton etc. made the foundation for the many big Enlightenment philosophers. Logic was the key. It was even a big trend to make science experiments at home... I mean almost everyone did it.

Behind Enlightenment movement were persons who wanted freedom, liberty. They were true liberals.
They hated dictatorship, the power of the church, heavy censorship, horrible conditions for humans, lack of rights, the way aristocrats were robbing people, social conservatism(church or other powers dictating how you should live).
Many of them of corse lived a hedonistic/bohemian life, wild parties, a lot of sex, orgies etc. Libertines as they were being called.. but that morphed into Liberal category.
Anyway those liberals accepted the fact that they are not perfect and can do mistakes (human nature) and hated all the preaching conservatives who made the same mistakes but kept it in secret but outside acted like they are the most moral persons on the earth. Hence why there were so many pamphlets around that time.
The same group of liberals wanted freedom of speech, freedom of religion, removing the censorship, human rights, stopping the heavy taxing by landlords/aristocrats, even the right to carry weapons was one of the ideas.
Everything that's on the US constitution is because of the liberal Enlightenment movement.

During that time more and more people started to read and of course most of the good stuff was illegal. People started to question the authority, they felt cold about the church and the king. Big cultural changes started to happen.
It's described pretty well in Roger Chartier's book "The Cultural Origins Of The French Revolution".

A couple of years before The Revolution there was even a free market in France but that order was made in a very wrong time when the crop was horrible and the prices went sky high and that was one of the reasons why the people got really pissed of.

The founding fathers were big fans of Enlightenment philosophies, specially Jefferson who hang out with local intellectuals in France.

Europe was drastically changing but there were those who didn't want the changes... more conservative people or just heavy church mongers weren't happy. A lot of those who weren't happy were the minority church wise. Wether they were Calvinist nutjobs in Catholic country or Catholics in Lutheran country etc. They were unhappy because the state churches (no matter what kind) went softer and softer. They wanted strict rules.
There were many bloody battles between both sides.
Europe was in deep shit during that time, a lot of social battles and whatnot.
The conservative minority headed to the new world...including the future USA.

Now the funny thing is that Jefferson and Co. made the constitution based on the ideas who wanted changes in Europe while most of the settlers escaped from those changes.

And when USA was born, it had probably the best and most progressive Constitution on the earth. Funny is that the European countries where all the drastic changes started.... were socially changed but officially all those ideas went into constitutions a lot later. So even in 19th century many Euro countries looked very unprogressive on the paper but actually they lived liked it's on the US constitution and vice versa. But Europe was still fucked up in many ways. We finally got what we wanted during the second part of 20th century.

So that's why the US is different. They almost have the same freedoms as EU countries but are socially a lot more conservative than the old world is. I mean no one outside US really believes that US is a truly secular country. And it's hard to understand what are the motives of the political parties... Conservatives want a lot of economic freedom but many of them are not such a big fans of personal/social freedoms. That's kinda confusing as doing business is also a man's personal freedom. And the way Liberals are lumped into the same category as socialists or communists is also confusing as Asia/Europe/Oceania has many Right wing Liberal parties. Economic freedom was originally a Liberal idea.
That's why outsiders may have a hard time understanding how the culture and politics work in US. It's just too different but somehow they built such a powerful and influental country. Conflict always creates something good culturally, and since US has had a huge conflict since the beginning it's no wonder such culturally wonderful things have come out of it and have influenced the whole world.

[FlyingSkull]

Last time they needed European ideas was when USA was created. The founding fathers took all the ideas for the constitution from French and British Enlightenment writers, which ironically were were very liberal and progressive ideas while most of the people who went to America from Europe were ultra conservative. That is shown with the conflict between the people today in US.

Interesting points you have made. When I look at the Renaissance/ Enlightenment period, I see a focus shifting from authoritarian structures, ie. Monarchies/The Church, to an emphasis on humanistic ideas; the human spirit, the power of Man's mind to understand his universe and the importance of the individual. Which are all fundamental to the market economy.

Power structures at that time being the church and state saw the potential of the rise of these humanistic ideals as damaging to their hold on power, and they were wise to be afraid! If humanity was to lose its special place in the center of the universe and God's eyes, they feared chaos and anarchy because of their belief that morality and ethical behavior was rooted in a belief and ultimate fear of God. Men cannot be left to their own sinful desires!

Check out writings by Spinoza and Leibniz for a good battle of these 17th century ideas.

Someone made the comment that the market system is ultimately survival of the fittest, or law of the jungle. If developments in science tell us that is how nature works on a fundamental level, then is not the market economy simply a reflection of reality? Perhaps inequalities are inherent not only in economies or human dealings but nature as well.

That nature is cruel and unfair was just as abhorrent to those trying to maintain the power structures of the church, as it would mean that God is not really in control of his creation, and "God is Good" would lose its meaning wouldn't it?

[Jayster]

I feel sorry for all the people that have been completely brainwashed by libertarians and anti-communist propaganda for decades on end. You want government-run social welfare, trust me, you want it.

GoR - could you please explain why?

[atomic charvel guy]

Anyone ever see "Bulworth"? To quote him, "do you think these pigs are gonna regulate themselves"-lol lol lol

[Endrik]

I feel sorry for all the people that have been completely brainwashed by libertarians and anti-communist propaganda for decades on end. You want government-run social welfare, trust me, you want it.

That may be complicated. Look how long it took welfare European countries to find the best system, after all the wars, poverty and crap, people changed and demanded that we would never go through that shit again. I think it had a lot to do with the mindset of the people to get things going.

Today the people in wealthy welfare countries wouldn't imagine any other order... I bet there would be new revolution(s) if it would be taken away. And EU politicians are more afraid of their people than US politicians are about theirs, nice example is the southern region (Spain, France etc.) where whenever a politician fucks up, there will be a huge riot.

And they feel pretty fucking relieved right now durning the global economy crisis because they, in welfare countries like Denmark or France are holding together better than most, while more conservative Eastern European countries are in a deep shit... including my lil' homeland.

And one of the reasons why many Eastern EU countries don't have systems like in Nordic or West/South countries is because of the different mindset. But things seem to slowly develop into the more progressive EU way.

Now Americans are totally different. Way different culture and mindset. Scandinavian and West EU ideas are pretty unacceptable to many and even if that would go through I'm not sure how long the whole society would adapt to it. It takes a long time to develop a new working system. And in America that something new has to be different than it's in EU. Because America works in a different way and the people are different.

Our motto is "work to live" theirs is mostly "live to work".
We are a lot lazier, a lot less materialistic, we are less motivated by money, we are more social creatures who care more about sex, booze, hanging out with friends etc. than about being productive and having 50 inch flatscreens in every room.

I guess US has to come up with something on their own because the two continents have grown apart a lot. Our ideas may not work.
Last time they needed European ideas was when USA was created. The founding fathers took all the ideas for the constitution from French and British Enlightenment writers, which ironically were were very liberal and progressive ideas while most of the people who went to America from Europe were ultra conservative. That is shown with the conflict between the people today in US.

[442w30]

Please explain what is screwed up about income taxes. Is it that very wealthy people and large corporations have so many loopholes? I have my own issues with income taxes but don't believe they are fundamentally screwed up.

That's what I think is fundamentally screwed up. If you are rich enough, you an get out of (a bunch of your assigned part) it. Poor enough, you pay nothing in.

Flat Tax - the current system represents what's wrong with the system.

The current skewed method is there because the poorest will not pay out of ignorance or inability, the richest will shirk a lark percentage through lawyers, lobbyists and the loopholes they find/create. In the end I "guess" the system works as designed - disingenuous, but works as designed.