 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Christians & politics. Everyone's favorite topic! | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/18/2004 12:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
I think it's funny that we still think there is some distinction between "the government" and "the general public". This isn't soviet Russia. We don't live in Cuba. The general public is the government. They are the same thing.
That’s not entirely true. There is an important difference between “representing the general public” and “being the general public”.
If “the government” is the “general public” then why is there even a government? Why don’t we allow the “general public” to exist without such administrative and legislative restriction? I know that isn't entirely accurate to your point, but it seems that without that Government (regardless of who it represents) defining our social principles, our country (or any country) would have difficulty protecting and providing for specific groups on a large scale.
quote:
Granted, many members of the public/government don't participate or only participate at the biggest elections, but that doesn't mean they're not the government. It just means they're bad and neglectful at government.
Not entirely, it also means that the government doesn’t fully represent an accurate portion of the population. I will concede that it is impossible to represent the ENTIRE population simply because the variables involved (for one, way, way too many differing political ideologies) refute such a possibility. Still, my point deals with the fact that the Christian community, for the most part, has neglected its duty (as defined in scripture) to care for socially oppressed individuals, regardless of fault.
quote:
We've got this idea that Big Brother is looking over our shoulder and making sure we stay within acceptable limits.
That has so little to do with this conversation it is laughable. It seems like you’ve been having this discussion elsewhere with Orwellian conspiracy theorists pleading with hype and distortion.  I'm talking about the most effective way to tend to the needs of our society, not whether our freedoms are being grossly challenged.
quote:
It's halfway true. But we forget the most important part. The part that makes this America. We are Big Brother.
Again, the concept of Big Brother. I’m not Big Brother, and any observable trait of this government that leads people, often erroneously, to suggest otherwise deals with the manipulation of the easily inspired public opinion and not something resembling a police state that would make Communist China seem tame.
quote:
When we say that people are greedy or selfish and we need the government to make sure people aren't neglected or abused by this selfishness, we are speaking nonsense.
Nope. It seems obvious. Where would those social institutions be without governmental support? I’d like to believe that the compassionate nature of humanity would step in to make a difference, but the current state of our country has not supported this theory.
quote:
The government is the people.
Ideally, perhaps, but, truthfully speaking, the government represents the people. As such, the government often works contrary to the wellbeing of the common man simply because the “financial concerns” of certain “shareholders” seem to influence their perception more than social concern. That said, the government isn’t perfect either, but left to their own judgment I doubt the “general public” would do a very good job of serving the altruistic goals of humanity.
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/18/2004 2:31 PM (GMT -6) | | As far as I can remember, the only nationwide law that's not subject to the majority is the Constitution. And we could get rid of income tax. We didn't have it for the first hundred years or so. Private services for the needy are unsuccessful, to a large degree, because the government has a virtual monopoly. If social security were voluntary I bet you there would be plenty of greedy businessmen who would jump on the opportunity to fill the economic niche. Those businessmen would have to provide a good product at a good cost or their business would fail. The government doesn't have this problem. Politicians who think government should abandon social security are laughed at. Instead, when the government provides a bad service at a high cost, the American people put more money into the failing system in hopes of saving it. But who cares about the system? The government has become a business who threatens people with jail unless they buy what's being sold. It's a lot like mafia protection money. Why not allow people to buy or not buy insurance for themselves. It's their money, isn't it? What right does the majority have to take it?
Social institutions would be private if they didn't have government support. The government doesn't force everyone to pay for government food, but somehow people still eat. Why should the government force everyone to pay for government education, health care, or insurance? Sure, people still starve, but not as many. And people would get better education, health care, and insurance if the government took away its unfair market advantage (other businesses can't send you to jail if you don't buy their product). Capitalism is not a zero-sum game.
And I agree, Socialism is great if it's voluntary. I think as Christians we are called to share everything. But we are not called to force everyone else to share. Muscle has become votes, and the bully has become the majority. Might makes right.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/18/2004 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | | I think we probably agree on this more than even I realized.
My main point of contention is that the church—for the most part—neglects its duty to that element of society with practical need. I know it isn’t our job to force the world to accept a life of service, nor would such an act be accepted even with the benefits offered as a result. That was my point: people are selfish. Even when they’re shown relevant needs in society, we are programmed to ignore all in favor of ourselves, such a mindset is rewarded with capitalistic incentive. Blame the media, blame the government (even if it is “us”  ), blame the progression of Capitalism, blame the corporate representatives pouring money down the administration’s throat…it doesn’t change the truth of our response.
It is obvious that those areas like Health Care should not be left to the fickle and selfish demands of the open market. Such an issue doesn't require Christian thinking to showcase its need. We can be as secular as we desire, the problem is still evident. In a perfect society, the issues of humanity would be represented and addressed by those in power, but as it stands, Corporate America (be it through the vein of Insurance or Medicine) operates not for the gain of the majority, but for the financial concerns of its own interests. As such, the needs of the weakest members (children, elderly, etc.) are often overlooked or pawned off in a game of economic demand.
I’d like to believe that parents would choose the well being of their own children over personal debt, but that simply does not bear out. If anything, the Insurance companies should concede free health care for children. Anything short of this is absurd and criminal. No one should be allowed to profit from weakness in such a design. The corruption is obvious. That doesn't even out the playing field, it works to the benefit of the minority at the expense of the majority.
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/19/2004 3:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sometimesisquint
Actually I like the idea of Socialism. It's nifty.
Socialism is poverty for all.
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2739&SearchTerms=,socialism
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/19/2004 3:38 PM (GMT -6) | | A post without sarcasm. Deep breath.
First I'll try to say what it is I believe in. Majority rule is immoral. It's better than most systems, but that doesn't make it good. One person should not rule over another. There are three exceptions I can think of.- 1. Parents have a resposibility to rule over and provide for their children, until the children are adults themselves.
- 2. One person can volutarily forfeit his/her right to make his/her own decisions without coersion or fraud.
- 3. A person who exerts unjust force over another may be restrained (not punished) with force.
Majority rule would be ok if it fit into exception #2. But the way it's done now, citizens are forced to submit to majority rule.
"People are selfish." I agree. That doesn't mean the majority can take their money, not even to provide health care. It belongs to them not the majority.
quote:
It is obvious that those areas like Health Care should not be left to the fickle and selfish demands of the open market.
No, it's not obvious. It's obvious to me that health care should be left to the open market. What about food? Is food less important? Should we make everyone buy foodstamps? What about personal safety? Should we make everyone buy a government issued gun? So why do we make everyone pay for government healthcare? When the market is free (i.e. free from coersion and fraud), the people get better service at lower cost. quote:
I’d like to believe that parents would choose the well being of their own children over personal debt, but that simply does not bear out.
If parents neglect or abuse their children, we (majority or minority, it doesn't matter) can make them stop. Exception #1. quote:
If anything, the Insurance companies should concede free health care for children. Anything short of this is absurd and criminal.
I disagree. Just because someone chooses to sell health care doesn't mean he/she must provide for children in place of their parents. It would be wrong to force them to do so. quote:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to represent everyone sufficiently. Even when "everyone represents themself" the "majority" will still control the decision. Take for instance your Income tax example. I'm sure there ARE people in this country who would like to do away with it, but according to your original point, the MAJORITY still controls the state of affairs. People will always disagree on the best way to spend their own money.
I'm saying that we should give the majority no power. Neither numbers nor might makes right. If someone chooses to give his/her power to another that's fine so long as it's not forced. People can still go ahead and vote for someone else to make the tough decisions for them, but whoever they vote for should have no power over those who did not vote for him/her. quote:
Therefore, it is impossible to represent the interests of EVERY group or individual. There must still be a minority to have a majority. Political absolutes of this nature are not possible.
It is possible if we allow everyone the option of not investing someone else with their freedom. If I don't like the way the government does things, I should not be forced to participate. As it is we have three choices: participate in the system regardless of whether we think what it does is immoral, go to jail, or sell your home and move to another country. We should be given the fourth option of staying without being forced by the majority.
Ok. On a less serious note, the english language really needs some gender inclusive third person pronouns.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 7/20/2004 1:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sometimesisquint
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
Socialism is poverty for all.
Yes, because people are selfish. However, the idea of Socialism hold merit.
Poverty for all holds merit?
How about, capitalism allows surplus, the non-selfish can give abundantly. World evangelism requires capital.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/20/2004 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
A post without sarcasm. Deep breath.
Complete seriousness can be rather dull.
quote:
Majority rule is immoral. It's better than most systems, but that doesn't make it good. One person should not rule over another.
Doesn’t this type of ideology have a danger of leading to anarchism if left unchecked? And really, doesn’t any checking system lead to governance of a type conflicting with what you are offering? I can’t think of a good example of where this was ever put into practical use, but it seems that such would be impossible because of the diverse range of opinion found in any population group. It seems that in many Asian cultures, this attitude is prevalent—similar to the survivalist mentality the early church adopted in forming a mock support-commune. If you know of any Historical modes to this effect let me know.
quote:
• 2. One person can volutarily forfeit his/her right to make his/her own decisions without coersion or fraud.
I think when people decide to live in this country they basically forfeit any right to rule themselves because it clashes with the system of government in place. Like you said, they can always leave. The only groups I can think of that attack such an idea while still holding residence are those fringe-zealotry, white-bread guerrilla types such as the Montana Freemen, etc.
A similar example (in principle) is happening in my current church (most churches for that matter). A group of people are very condemning of the Senior Pastor. When approached about either leaving the church or supporting the leadership, they always respond with, “I grew up here, I shouldn’t have to leave…this is MY church.” If you live in this country, don’t expect to follow a different set of rules and regulations than the rest of the country.
quote:
Majority rule would be ok if it fit into exception #2. But the way it's done now, citizens are forced to submit to majority rule.
Again, I disagree. Citizens revoke their rights for personal leadership when they ascribe to the laws of this country by taking up residence AS a citizen. As such, you’re allowing for the leadership in place to govern. If you don’t like the way the system works, then you’re always free to move to Canada. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not one of those patriots beaming with nationalistic arrogance and shouting, “If you don’t like it, then get out!” I just assume that when people DO indeed reside here, they’re fully aware of the governmental regulations in place…even those representing the “majority rules” philosophy.
Immigrants don’t move here and expect to follow the rules of the countries they left behind. If you live here you forfeit those rights for personal authority.
quote:
"People are selfish." I agree. That doesn't mean the majority can take their money, not even to provide health care. It belongs to them not the majority.
Fine. Nobody should be forced. 
In your perfect scenario, how would this work? The people are taxed for the relative good of the community, in theory anyway. There are many people who would choose to never give their money for anything, yet still live according to the benefits of such an environment. That doesn’t work. If you live in the system you have to put into the system. It isn’t as simple as stating, “I’ll give my money where I want to give my money.” That doesn’t create an effective arrangement for living. Too many problems would occur. This isn’t the open range--anywhere a person lives he is going to have some system of authority to abide under.
quote:
No, it's not obvious. It's obvious to me that health care should be left to the open market. What about food? Is food less important? Should we make everyone buy foodstamps?
No…but the system doesn’t let a parent withhold food from their children so they can do what they want and buy crack with their next paycheck. So, in a sense, the government DOES “force” people to buy food, or at the very least care for the needs of those less fortunate. (I know, I know, exception #1) I don’t see why medical care should be any different. Food doesn’t break the bank. Most communities have adequate programs to help the needy. However, there isn’t an existing system of health care that is similar in this regard.
quote:
What about personal safety? Should we make everyone buy a government issued gun?
No…there is a system of safety regulation in place with the armed-forces/police/etc. I doubt most people want to take this principle to the conclusion you are describing. Perhaps you would, but most sane Americans like the fact that they don’t have to worry about protecting their own family or putting out their own fires. I doubt very much that they would see the government taking money to provide these essentials as the oppression you preach. There are people out there who would prefer to govern themselves to this effect. What happens when their system interferes with the majority system?
quote:
So why do we make everyone pay for government healthcare? When the market is free (i.e. free from coersion and fraud), the people get better service at lower cost.
Sure, in a perfect system. I guess you think the present health care system is “perfect” as well…or at least free from fraudulent practice. That’s a nice thought. Money and power serve the interests of those in authority, not the needs of the community. The corruption present doesn’t allow for an even playing field.
quote:
If parents neglect or abuse their children, we (majority or minority, it doesn't matter) can make them stop. Exception #1.
How, pray tell, are you going to make them stop…with your personal security regulations? By wielding a gun and forcing them to do so? Remember, under your system, the minority doesn’t have to allow for a judicial system to regulate injustice or wrongdoing. The majority cannot force everyone to abide.
quote:
I disagree. Just because someone chooses to sell health care doesn't mean he/she must provide for children in place of their parents. It would be wrong to force them to do so.
My point is that, at the very least, the needs of children shouldn’t be an issue of economic demand. There are certain things more important than personal opinion or authority. Even in instances where the parents are trying to support the needs of their family, the medical system in place often overlooks or provides less than adequate coverage.
quote:
I'm saying that we should give the majority no power. Neither numbers nor might makes right. If someone chooses to give his/her power to another that's fine so long as it's not forced.
Again, citizenship requires espousing the system in place. You cannot be a U.S. citizen and still choose which laws you’ll follow. When you decide to legally become a citizen you DO forfeit a bit of freedom…that which would otherwise lead to anarchy. Part of citizenship is doing so.
quote:
People can still go ahead and vote for someone else to make the tough decisions for them, but whoever they vote for should have no power over those who did not vote for him/her.
That’s an interesting idea. I still don’t think it would work, but still, interesting. Again, what happens when systems collide or conflict? Who settles it? How is that system of justice provided? When the judicial system decides in favor of one side or the other, wouldn’t it still be exercising majority control?
quote:
It is possible if we allow everyone the option of not investing someone else with their freedom. If I don't like the way the government does things, I should not be forced to participate. As it is we have three choices: participate in the system regardless of whether we think what it does is immoral, go to jail, or sell your home and move to another country. We should be given the fourth option of staying without being forced by the majority.
I don’t think it would work…for the reasons presented. Anyone else? A friend of mine said that “for one, your vote would have to be public.” I would imagine, as he did, that such a system carries difficulty in practical enforcement. Rather, how WOULD you enforce it?
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
esperanza
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 7/20/2004 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Maaann, I was all fired up to write this really long post when I saw sometimesisquint had already done it for me.
seriously though, it's nice to have someone else questioning these ideas.
ok, just one observation/question. From what I can tell of these posts, it seems both Sahid and STIS (sorry but I'm lazy) think that privatizing things such as healthcare would be good. Like STIS said, the health care system is fraudulent, and money serves those with power and authority. I think the answer to this is probably privatizing it. If there were several health care systems, they would be in competition for people's business (money) and therefore have to supply good business. (this theory seems to work well, but I would argue the need for some gov't regulation, just not ownership)
So STIS, I take it you're ok with privatizing some things, but you don't advocate a situation of anarchy like Sahid, am I right?
To stay young
To save the world
Break the mirror
- Nanao Sakaki | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/20/2004 11:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Dude. This is gonna take forever. I'll try to make it as short and sweet (yeah right) as possible. I can't promise no sarcasm this time. First of all, if you don't think Stavesacre is the best band (with the possible exception of Zepplin, the Stones, or the Deftones) then you're stupid, and therefore should just agree with what I say, because at least I know what rocks. Your welcome. On to business. quote:
Right. as long a the system is set up by fallible humans, it will be corrupt, but I guess I still persist in believing that a fallible system is better than none at all...
I don't. Taking away freedom that is not yours is immoral. End of story. (Except for my now famous exceptions.) Whether someone does this individually or behind the shield of peace and stability, I don't care. You'd have to establish that a peaceful life without freedom is better that a chaotic life with it. We've talked about asigning relative values to peace and freedom before, but so far you haven't done it. I don't blame you. I wouldn't be surprised if it's an imposible task. In short peace is immoral if it is gained unjustly. Almost anyone would agree (if they hadn't read this thread or brought this statement to its logical conclusion). Moving on. quote:
Doesn’t this type of ideology have a danger of leading to anarchism if left unchecked? And really, doesn’t any checking system lead to governance of a type conflicting with what you are offering?
Yes. Anarchism sounds evil. But I call peace at the expense of injustice evil. Moving on. quote:
I can’t think of a good example of where this was ever put into practical use
Neither can I. Moving on. quote:
I think when people decide to live in this country they basically forfeit any right to rule themselves because it clashes with the system of government in place. Like you said, they can always leave.
I never decided to live in this country. I was born here. Yeah I can move, but it would be forced. Submit or leave. I'm not saying I can't move. I'm saying it's wrong to make me submit or move. Moving on. quote:
If you live in this country, don’t expect to follow a different set of rules and regulations than the rest of the country.
I'm not saying that's not how it is. I'm saying that's what we should change. Moving on. quote:
Citizens revoke their rights for personal leadership when they ascribe to the laws of this country by taking up residence AS a citizen.
I was a citizen of this country before I could... oh seriously. Guess what I would say. Moving on. quote:
If you don’t like the way the system works, then you’re always free to move to Canada.
No you're not. You are given the choice of submit or leave. That's coersion. You're not free to leave unless you are not forced to leave. Moving on. quote:
If you live here you forfeit those rights for personal authority.
I agree. I never said otherwise. I'm saying that is what should be changed. When you respond with that's the way it is, you miss the point. I'm not trying to make people forget that America (to a certain degree) lives under majority rule. I'm arguing that it's immoral, not nonexistent. Moving on. quote:
In your perfect scenario, how would this work? The people are taxed for the relative good of the community, in theory anyway. There are many people who would choose to never give their money for anything, yet still live according to the benefits of such an environment. That doesn’t work. If you live in the system you have to put into the system. It isn’t as simple as stating, “I’ll give my money where I want to give my money.” That doesn’t create an effective arrangement for living. Too many problems would occur.
People would be allowed to submit to a government, not forced. That's all. I think it would work. So there. Change would have to happen slowly though. Moving...under? quote:
I don’t see why medical care should be any different.
Me neither. Moving...around? quote:
Food doesn’t break the bank. Most communities have adequate programs to help the needy. However, there isn’t an existing system of health care that is similar in this regard.
Food doesn't break the bank because it's (mostly) a free market. Let's make health care, and (for the sake of brevity) let's make security a free market too. Moving...in between! quote:
I doubt very much that they would see the government taking money to provide these essentials as the oppression you preach.
Me too. But, tragically, that's not the point. Moving, moving, moving, keep those doggies moving. quote:
There are people out there who would prefer to govern themselves to this effect. What happens when their system interferes with the majority system?
What's the problem? If they're governing themselves and not others, who cares. If they mess with someone else, then force to restrain them is justified. Moving like a butterfly. quote:
I guess you think the present health care system is “perfect” as well…or at least free from fraudulent practice.
I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Moving so as not to gather moss. quote:
How, pray tell, are you going to make them stop…with your personal security regulations? By wielding a gun and forcing them to do so?
Yes. Moving on. quote:
Remember, under your system, the minority doesn’t have to allow for a judicial system to regulate injustice or wrongdoing.
True, but it can. Moving on. quote:
My point is that, at the very least, the needs of children shouldn’t be an issue of economic demand. There are certain things more important than personal opinion or authority.
God allows for choice, even when it costs innocent life. Complain to Him. OK. That wasn't cool. I'm just saying I think God has displayed a different set of priorities than you are presenting. Moving on. quote:
Again, citizenship requires espousing the system in place. You cannot be a U.S. citizen and still choose which laws you’ll follow. When you decide to legally become a citizen you DO forfeit a bit of freedom…that which would otherwise lead to anarchy. Part of citizenship is doing so.
Firstly, I legally became a citizen when I was born. That's how it works for most Americans. Second, anarchy is moral. Forced rule over another isn't. Moving, just moving. quote:
That’s an interesting idea. I still don’t think it would work, but still, interesting. Again, what happens when systems collide or conflict? Who settles it? How is that system of justice provided? When the judicial system decides in favor of one side or the other, wouldn’t it still be exercising majority control?
It isn't provided. If a group voluntarily chooses to set up a judical system, I have no problem with that. I only have a problem when they enforce their rule outside of that group. Judical decisions are returned to individuals. They decide what they will do, and each other individual decides how he or she will respond, unless they choose to let someone else decide how to respond. Moving diagonally quote:
.A friend of mine said that “for one, your vote would have to be public.”
You don't have to vote. The default vote is for yourself. Moving on. quote:
I would imagine, as he did, that such a system carries difficulty in practical enforcement. Rather, how WOULD you enforce it?
It's up to each individual. THE END
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/21/2004 8:11 AM (GMT -6) | | If I gave full answers to everything I wouldn't have slept last night, I mean this morning. Give me your definition of goodness. If it's a balance of many different virtues, then tell me what the balance is. Remember the phone call when my phone died? The vast majority of the time there is one core virtue or goal. When you say stability is important, ask why? Keep asking why. I thought we had gotten to saying that there were more basic beliefs and goals than stability.
Problems people have with my political craziness fall into three categories, so far. - That's not the way things are. I know. I'm saying that's they way they should be.
- That wont work. Work to do what? What is the higher good you think government should work for? If there is more than one good, what is the balance we should strive for?
- Your system is immoral. OK, I haven't heard this much except in passing. But it's what I'm looking for. I'm not looking for something that keeps people safe, happy, employed, or anything. I'm looking for which virtue we should be stiving for. What is right and what is wrong. Not what is safe or plesant or the greatest good for the greatest number. Just right and wrong. Once we get right and wrong, then we can move on to those other questions, with a moral foundation to work with. I'm dealing with what a government's role should be, not whether my system would fill the current role well. If you guys really think my system is the most moral one, then, sure, lets talk about how to best make it acheive these secondary goals, but I didn't think we were there yet.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/21/2004 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | To more fully address esperanza's question:
Here's my system. Complete freedom except for exceptions 1, 2, and 3. Enforcement? Same thing. When one party violates another's freedom, then it is not a violation of the first party's freedom if the second party or any third party restrains the first party as long as that restraint only keeps the first party from violating anyone's freedom. It's important to note that you can't assume that someone will start violating the freedom of others.
I have been hesitant to do this but it's sort of (not completely) like the time of the judges. Sort of. The people eventually wanted a king. God says they were rejecting Him as their king. Does God need a human government to enforce His rules, or is God big enough to take care of it? Sure, He works through people. That still doesn't mean He needs government. He would still have people.
I do think my system would work to achieve the ends that the current system seeks to acheive. Free market works. Technically, this makes no distinction between capitalism and socialism, at least not the way I'm using it. If a socialist system has the support of all it's members, then it is still a free market i.e. free from coersion and fraud.
Specifics: Put a free market into food service; food gets cheaper; fewer people starve. Put a free market into education; good education is cheaper; possibilities open, new freedom is gained. Put a free market into health care; prices go down; the needy and elderly aren't forced to have their tax money spent on inadequate health care, instead... Put a free market into insurance, instead of people being forced to pay into social security, they can trust their money to someone who has actually proven to be a good steward, there is money to pay for good medical service instead of being limited to the bad service that the government provides; more people survive health problems. When a market is free (even if it's socialist) things work better.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/21/2004 12:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
First of all, if you don't think Stavesacre is the best band (with the possible exception of Zepplin, the Stones, or the Deftones) then you're stupid, and therefore should just agree with what I say, because at least I know what rocks.
I bought a Stavesacre album the other day (Speakeasy). Mostly due to the fact that it was in a bargain bin for two bones...but also because of your claim of rockability knowledge.
I didn't care for them. Truly, when someone posts something similar about music I enjoy, I tend to require a point of reference. So, to comply, I offer you a list of some of my faves (in no conceivable order of preference):
- Elliot Smith
- Radiohead
- DMB
- Joseph Arthur
- Counting Crows
- Pedro the Lion
This is not definitive by any means, but at least you can understand why I wouldn't like Mark Salomon and company. Although, I must say that I sometimes enjoy a good audio scrubbing along the lines of Zeppelin.
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
| 55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:17 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|