this is carrying religious freedom a little too far, a Baptist Church is burning versions of the Bible other than the KJV. This is a radical move that achieves nothing but make Christians look like fascists and extremists.

YouTube - N.C. Church Plans Bible Burning

How is it that a land that prides itsself on freedom and political correctness can tolerate fascism in its midst in the name of religion?

phlanx

Elliot

An dishonest person is honest about being dishonest

Tell me, what would you do in this situation

A neighbour dies leaving their son an orphan with no other family to help

Would you

A, Expect people to be charitable and give him a home and food
B, Let them starve as it is survival of the fittest
C, Leave for the authorites to handle as this is what your tax is for

I appreciate that nobody likes being taxed, especially the cheque I had to right last month, but I would want to have a system in place that is there to care and help people who need it

I want to see the level of the poor rise in thsi country to a situation where doors open and they canhelp themselves, and before you say it, I accept that afew will abuse this sytem, of which I am happy to accept as a consequence - so what would you do mate?

ETWolverine

You have managed to find the one case where government SHOULD step in... in cases where the person in question cannot help themselves and there is nobody else to do it.

Now... what percentage of government programs ACTUALLY help only those who cannot help themselves? Compare that to the percentage of cases where the government steps in to "help" those who are fully capable of handling their own affairs and simply choose not to.

If the government limited its interferance to cases like the one you put forward... one who is too young, too sick, or mentally incapable of taking care of themselves... I would have no issue. Problem is that government NEVER limits itself.

Take a look at the nanny state laws... brohibitions on trans fats, tobbacco use, use of incandescent lightbulbs, etc. The government is trying to "take care" of us the same way they are trying to take care of that child orphan you speak of. And I, for one, resent being treated like a child.

Why don't you?

As for giving poor people the ability to rise above their current levels... let me ask you this. Which is more helpful in teaching a person to "bootstrap" themselves:

1) taking care of his every need, wiping his nose and a$$ for him, giving him free food, clothing and shelter, etc., thus making him reliant on the government for all his needs

or

2) teaching him to take care of his own needs so that he can become independent.

My family fostered a young orphan, my foster brother. The first thing he did upon turning 18 was get out of the orphanage and get his own apartment. The second was complete his advanced education. The third was to open his own business, a dental practice. He is now a very successful man.

He didn't rely on the government for one minute more than he could get away with legally, because he had seen what happened to his peers who became completly reliant on the government for their every need. Most of them never got past that reliance on government.

So yes, there are a VERY FEW limited cases where the government should indeed step in where the person is unable to take care of themselves and where there is nobody else to do it.

But that should be the EXCEPTION, not the rule, as it has become. In the USA at least, a large portion of the populace relies on the government for their survival because they never learned how to be self-reliant, despite being fully capable of doing so. That is what the welfare/nanny state begets. THAT is a problem.

If the mother bird never throws the chick out of the nest, the bird never learns to fly or feed itself, and it eventually dies. The government "mama bird" isn't throwing any of the welfare "chicks" out of the nest, and more chicks are hatching every day.

On another note, there are plenty of not-for-profit orphanages in the USA that are not government-run. They are often BETTER-RUN than their government counterparts. As I mentioned before, my family has a bit of experience in this area. There is no need to rely on the government to provide what the private sector can provide.

Elliot

galveston

As to the OP.

If YOU own the book and want to burn it, that is entirely up to you. Freedom.

If the GOVERNMENT wants to burn your book, that is SURPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.

phlanx

Elliot

There are more cases I can bring up, and lets not discuss the effectiveness of the government just yet

But lets address yours first,

Lightbulbs etc, just because something has been invented doesnt mean you should be able to buy it at the local supermarket

Energy use effects all of the people and animals on this planet (not discussing global wamring but just the manufacture of it), if we can save energy by using alternative methods then we should, democracy or should I say majority want to have energy saving products, not just in the US but every democratic country, so when the people vote then we should have it, this is cultural influence upon the states just as it is on most countries effecting each others laws

I do think if George Washington and the rest of the band were together today they would agree that energy saving products are better for use than high end, and would have had it written into the document

I still smoke a few a day, one habit I cant quite kick fully yet, but I wouldnt dream of smoking around people or environments where peoples choice is taken away by me

Freedom of choice works both ways

In your scenario of of nanystate, of course I would like someone to be taught, however how do you achieve this?

I know friends of mine who have lost jobs and been offered grants to retrain, without which they wouldnt be able to afford to do so, and now they are back in employment and paying taxes again

Isnt this government intervention?

I believe help should be offered to those that need it, where the system fails and a small percentage are having their bots wiped for them, then surely the system should be tightened up and improved to force those people to work?

Elliot, just because something doesnt work properly, there is no need to scrap it - there is always a need for improvement

Good on your foster brother - always good to hear, for me, whenever I see kids asking for work I always feel happy that at least there are good people coming through and it is not all gloom as shown through the media

I think what we have is getto a point where we can say this

I think we should help those to find work, to help people over a difficult time, it is how they respond to that help that is the key to this argument

If they take the assistance and find work, solve their problems, and become model citizens, then I think in both our eyes that is what we want to happen

What you argue against is how the percentage arent using the system to acheive and the system allowing them to get away with it

So then, it is I think fair to say the system needs to be tightened up rather than scrapped and we go back a hundred years in social devolopment?

I do share this with you, just like good managers and directors of companies, they should know what it is like to sweep the floor and clean the toilets, and then when they ask someone to do it, there cant be any complaints on either side

Where we differ is that I expect the government like good directors to direct the action, and this includes providing in law minimum standards of what ever is the subject

Sometimes that might be setting up a self governing council for a particular industry and letting them have self rule, or setting in law such as disposal of toxic waste and what the law requires companies to do

You consider that everybody will be law abiding, honest, and mindful of their fellowman

This hasnt happened that is why governments have to intervene

Would you say so far these are fair comments?

galveston

Phlanx,

I want to address just one point you made about light bulbs.

Energy efficient is good, but what happens when government gets into the act is that it stifles progress.

One kind of bulb is approved and so, no newer bulbs are developed.

Like now, we are on the verge of LED bulbs for your house, but if govt. says neons, then we will never get LED's.

The principle is the same no matter what the product or process.

phlanx

Salvo Galveston

I can appreciate your thoughts, just as your constittion was written with the principles of checks and balances

The argument is based on energy requirements

I think most the western world has power issues and the future needs to be addressed because black outs are a serious threat to stabilty of a nation

This is the argument for the bulb, and I think most people would say it is a fair one and should be implemented

Your argument however, states that even this argument cannot be made as the controllers would assume too much power and make decisions based on no argument

Where is the check and balance in your statement, if the government, sorry WHEN the government does something stupid, their is an outcry, the media will be hopping all over it and in a democratic state you have the right to vote them out at the next election

If this happens the next adminstartion will be mindful of doing things without first presenting a sound argument in favour, this is called progress

If politians didnt have to be re-elected, then they would be stating such measures, without even giving the pros and cons

Therefore our systems allows for checks and balances

What you are referring to with your thesis, doesnt allow for change in any shape, no arguments can be made for or against what could be potentially good for the majority of the people

galveston

I see what you are saying.

But the fact remains that when some program is set up by Congress or President (by executive order) then it is turned over to bureaucrats and becomes set in stone.

Government should leave as many things alone as possible.

Look at the Supreme Court decision on CO2. It is truly STUPID and it gives way too much power to EPA to control our lives.

ETWolverine

If the majority wants "energy saving products" then they will buy them on their own. They shouldn't be MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Let the market determine what people want. If the majority truly want LEDs or Flourescent bulbs, they'll buy them and the incandescent bulb makers will either start making LEDs and flourescents or they'll go out of business.

The only reason for government to regulate and mandate something is if the majority DOESN'T want it but the government does. Which I suspect is the case. Let the market decide what the people truly want, not the government.


Absolutely wrong. What they would have said is "make both available and let the people decide for themselves which ones they want". If a product is truly better, the people will realize it and buy it. If it isn't truly better, the people will reject it themselves.

Yes it does... but the government is eliminating the free choice... it no longer works both ways.

Well, one way would be to revamp the education system in this country and eliminate the monopoly that the UFT, AFT and NEA have over education... open up more charter schools and allow school vouchers so that everyone can get the education they want/need, instead of forcing them into a failed school system that isn't educating them.

Second, you stop wiping their noses and @sses for them. You stop giving them EVERYTHING. You place time and dollar limits on welfare programs. You eventually cut them off and tell them to get a job and stop leeching off society. If a person is physically capable of a job (ie: he's not crippled beyond the ability to work, he's of the age of majority, and he has no mental illness or developmental illness) then he should be forced to get a job.

In short, the way you teach people to do for themselves is to slowly start forcing them to do for themselves.

It's no different from teaching your own children to become independent... slowly, over time, you grant them their independence and stop supporting them for everything in their lives.

Yes it is. And for a SHORT TIME, I have no problem with that. But making such a grant ongoing and never-ending would be counter-productive. Such grants should have limitations... and clearly they did, because your friends are now contributing members of society again. I have no problem with such a program. What I have a problem with is "evergreen" welfare programs that have no limitations that never give one an incentive to stop living on welfare.

BTW, such a program as the one you mention would fall under the government's mandate to "create and maintain a favorable economic environment". Re-education and re-training programs that create new employment opportunities fall into that category.

Then we are in agreement.

Does that apply to the USA's health care system as well?

Correct. That's what unemployment insurance is supposed to be for... enough money to help you get by for a short period of time until you can find a new job.

Again, I agree. If the government system was there to help the people who really need it, and cut off those who DIDN'T really need it, I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. If welfare were trimmed down to the bare bones, I could live with it. But it ISN'T being trimmed down... it is, in fact, being EXPANDED.

Problem is that government isn't in the "directing" business. It's in the CONTROL business.

Besides, consumers, at least in my experience, have a much better idea of what products work and don't work than the government does. Especially if it's a technical product that the government generally doesn't understand (like medicines). DOCTORS and PATIENTS know their meds, the government is pretty much clueless. Asking the government to be the watchdog over products that they don't really understand... that's also counter-productive.

I would prefer that to the government doing it.

People don't HAVE to be law abiding, honest and mindful of their fellow man. THE PRODUCT or SERVICE will either be a good product or service, or it won't. The people can choose for themselves based on their experience with the product or service. Honesty has nothing to do with it.

The guy selling the drug might be a snake-oil salesman. He might be a complete shyster. He might lying through his teeth about how good the product is. But once people get ahold of the product, they will know very quickly whether the product works or not. If it doesn't live up to the hype, the snake-oil salesman will go out of business. If it does live up to what he says it does, who cares whether he's a snake-oil salesman or not.

The MARKET will decide. We don't need the government to do it. The government shouldn't be there to decide anything more than basic safety of the product, and that in as minimalistic a way as possible. The EFFICACY of the product can be determined by the public's reaction to the product.

Besides, knowing what you know about government, wouldn't you say that government trying to ensure the honesty and mindfulness of people selling stuff is sort of like the fox guarding the henhouse? Do you really want the most distrustful, dishonest group of people in existence to be the arbiters of trust and honesty?

They are indeed fair arguments. I agree with certain points, and disagree with others. See above.

Elliot

phlanx

ETWolverine;2058237]If the majority wants "energy saving products" then they will buy them on their own. They shouldn't be MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Let the market determine what people want. If the majority truly want LEDs or Flourescent bulbs, they'll buy them and the incandescent bulb makers will either start making LEDs and flourescents or they'll go out of business.

Salvo, In eutophia your argument makes sense, most people buy products out of habit, something your marketing people have recognised for decades, so getting people to change through choice is difficult

There are some issues in this world that need society to be pushed into - energy saving products I believe is one of them, as the use of energy effects the markets more than anything else, this is particular so in the US, and I would have thought you would want to be less dependant on foreign fuel and one way to do that is too force people to choice the low energy alternative

I believe that one person talking to another, reason can be found, but talking to a crowd of people and the reason goes out of the window. Just as I said above, your energy use influences every other countries and vice versa, being globally I think it is the right of the pointed elected officials to make some judgements that effect all of us


Wow, the concept that eluded man till the 1930s with Edward Berneys. To be fair to you it was a dumb suggestion on my part as the answer to it is how you see the founders. SO please excuse the dumbness here


Again, in a perfect world nobody would pollute another person, however, those that dont smoke dont always give two hoots about anothers person freddom of choice and as such it is taken away, you see this action as tough on the individual, I see it as common sense.

Smoking is bad for you I think nobody can deny that, but I still have the freedom of coice to smoke, and the nonsmokers have the freedom of choice not to inhale it in public places, (even though they are still inhaling chemical gasses when stuck in traffic with the aircon on, but thats a different story


Again, I think your argument here is purely anti governemntal control not because they shouldnt do it, but purely they are delivered a good enough service.

Do you think that they way any government strides for a minimum standard while a business goes for the masimum standard possible is the difference between state and private eductaion?

Regardless, you should be able to recognise that providing educational care is paramount in a country that reqards qualification, and saying that I would agree with you that private run schools do seem to provide the better education

So would you say it is better for your taxes to be paid to private organisations instead of the paying for its own council to run it, while at the same time stating what the minimum shoudl be, and if these organisations want to stride for higher than that is the competition that I think should occur?

Agree, except for one point, taking away the benefits would mean the person could starve or commit crimes for food. However, do I accept that the long term unemployed shoudl get it for free, there are lots of jobs that can be done by these people that would benefit the community, and if they dont like getting paid very little for a normal weeks work, then they could get a proper job and get paid better for the same amount of hours. Then and only then if they refuse to do it, there should money should be taken away for one week, afterwhich they can reaply and join the work program at the start of every Monday, and every failure to turn up is a non payment

Agree, there is only so many times you can tell your kids to stop running before they learn the hard way - like we all did

Agree, there should be limitiations and consequences to their actions, tighten up the system would be good - of course here in the UK/EU that would require numerous law changes and one big one in particular - The Human Rights Act, but I think we can agree that this shoudl be the case

Just as I believe Global Warming has created numerous new fields of oppurtunity, regardless of hows or whys, this is one of the responsibitlies a government has - to make sure that continued growth occurs to please the capitalists, and to ensure that employment is ongoing to please the workforce


YEP


I believe any man made system has flaws, it is how they are resolved that makes teh difference, there are good and bad points to everybodies health care system, it is what each government does that makes the difference for the better or worst, capitalist ideas alone cannot be the answer, nor do I believe a soley Social System is the answer either, a mix of the two covers everybody


Cant believe we are still agreeing

As I said above, cutting off people would just lead to an increase of crime, and then you would moaning about increased insurance payments on top of increased taxes for the extra police force required. There should be penalties but certainly not a straight forward cut off

Do you equate governing to mean control? In the context of the words there is a huge difference, man cannot be trusted to rule himself in a society that has 7bn people - we would be waging war with our neighbours every five seconds, so to keep the peace a system of Govern must be in place

So it really comes down to the fact again, you as a person can make educated informed choices about your life, however, not everyone can, and as such I would like to have somesort of control of those people for making decisions in their lives that would effect mine

One example - smoking again, if I was a non smoker I wouldnt want to be in a public place with smoking everywhere, so this control provides a fair field of play for everyone

However, your fears are that any type of control is damaging to the welfare of yourself and as such you oppose it at every corner, not realising that the very control you oppose has entitled you to a relatively peaceful life

As I have said before, there must be checks and balances, and what our systems allow for is a high degree of transparancy, allowing every voter to know what their elected officials are doing, and as such, the checks and balances keeps the level of control under constant scrutiny

Agree on the watchdogs, however, they are the officals appointed by the people and should be the ones to make the final say, provided they reveive recommendations by the people it will effect, so in your instance, a panel of doctors will recommend to the government

This I think largely is what happens, but you must have the final say with the government, or else the cornerstone of democracy has been taken away from you and you no longer have freedom of choice

So you agree that a government that has transparancy has a need to protect its citizens from what could be potentialy dangerous situations, Cool

Dont know about you but when we buy our kids toys I know from the markings that it has been produced to the highest standards available or known, what I dont want is to see a repeat of teddy bears that have a spike as a backbone which could injury my kid. Surely you can see the sense of having standards and regulations imposed on companies to ensure the dodgy companies are not supplying such products

This is simply down to pure honesty, if companies were honest, and nota single person was dishonest then again you would be eutopia and there would be no need for thsi type of control, but we dont so we do need it

Okay, as I said above, if we were talking about washing up liquid and the priduct failed to live up to its hype then sure no problem, the company wouldnt and shouldnt last

However, I believe it was your country that invented the Colonels Own Remedies, one bottle for all illnesses - manufactured poorly, ill convceieved concoction that eventually does more harm than good - I think today it is called Coca Cola - Do you think this company would be out of bsuiness if they stil produced the same product as when it first started or do you think people would know it was bad for them and still drink it anyway, mainly for its addictions

People need to be protected from themselves, again this is a form of control I like to see

The freedom of choice has not be taken away from though, as if I want to have the orginal recipe of coke, I can still get it from the market

See above, we are kinda agreeing, except several points of control

It is funny how a poltician would like to say the truth, the people would love him to say the truth, but when he does the social group of people slay for it.

Politics is about checks and balances, which also includes procastination to obtain something you didnt have before

Eutopia allows honesty without reprisal, Earth doesnt

Your getting there -Yep this was sarcasm

ETWolverine

I disagree... and there is a whole advertising industry out there to prove my point. It's their jobs to CONVINCE people to buy new products.

Yet you use energy saving products all the time without having to be forced to do so. So do lots of Americans. Nobody had to force us to do it. I use flourescent lights in my kitchen and bathroom (where they make the most sense). Nobody had to force me to do it, it just made sense financially.

I don't think that people need to be pushed to do anything. I think that people are quite capable of making up their own minds.

Besides, which is a better incentive... saving lots of money and increasing your bottom line, or government force? I choose the money, and so will most Americans. Are Brits different?

I disagree. And as I said, force is a poor motivator when compared to saving money and increasing the bottom line. If a product is truly a money saver, time saver or energy saver, people will come, and they'll come in droves.


Not dumb at all. But Bernays was of a very different opinion... he felt, as you do, that people act on a "herd instinct" and are therefore dangerous, and need to be nudged to act in certain ways. It is a very liberal and Orwellian way of looking at mankind. The Founders had a very different opinion. They believed that man was smart enough to make decisions that are in their own individual self interest, and that such self interest creates goods, services, products and markets that are beneficial for everyone in society.

Yes, we do see this differently. Nevertheless, if it were truly "common sense" people would do it without having to be forced to do so by the government. Therefore, it isn't commons sense... it is the desires of one group of individuals being arbitrarily subordinated to those of another group. Common sense doesn't have to be forced by the government, it happens of its own volition. If it ISN'T happening of its own volition, then it isn't COMMON sense, it's individual opinion.

If the government is regulating it, then there is no freedom of choice. There's just a government mandate.

My argument is that it isn't the government's province to provide that service. Furthermore, if they are to do so, it is CERTAINLY not their province to create a monopoly, in violation of their responsibilities under the Constitution to provide a free economic environment.

No. I think that a government-enforced monopoly on education has resulted in complacency and mediocrity in the education system. When the government-run public school system is the only game in town, and people don't have an option of going to a private school, and when the schools don't have to show any evidence of their success, the result is that they become less successful at their jobs, but retain a student body anyway because they have a captive audience.

However, if the government-run public schools were forced to compete with the much more effective private schools or be shut down, their standards would either improve, or they would be shut down. The result would be a more competitive education system that produces a better student across the board.

This is simply an argument in favor of competition in education. Competition breeds better services and lower pricing. In the charter school experiments done in the USA, having public schools compete with charter schools resulted in improvements in quality of education in both the charter schools and the public schools. All I'm suggesting is that we exapand the charter school experiment because it has been so successful everywhere it has been tried.

What I am saying is that the school voucher system should be implemented so that parents can send children to the schools of their choice instead of being forced by the government to send their kids to poorly-run public schools. They should be allowed to send their kids to charter schools, private schools or public schools via a government education voucher paid for through their taxes. Let the parents choose how their school-tax dollars are used.

I have a problem with the government make-work programs. They tend not to be productive... they don't actually produce a product, good or service. It is productivity that creates new jobs. Therefore, govenrment make-work programs are just an excuse for making a guy break a sweat before giving him the money that you would be giving him anyway. That is problematic from an ECONOMIC standpoint.

I'd prefer that there be a 2-year limitation (perhaps with one 6-month extension) on benefits. 2 1/2 years should be enough time for 99% of people to find a proper job if they want to.







Agreed.

Agreed. That is one of the government's main functions, as I have been saying all along.


Since a purely capitalist (no government intervention whatsoever) system has never been tried, we'll never know.



That's cause I'm always right, and this time you are too.

continued...