[phlanx]

Your post assumes that the only way to share is through government intervention, and that is why you are so accepting of government intervention in your lives.

We see sharing and charity as something to do because we WANT to, not because government FORCES us to. And as a result, as I have pointed out before, we are the most charitable nation in the world in terms of personal giving to charities and charitable causes.

As Tom has said, where is the virtue in being FORCED to be charitable.

I'll take it further. Where is the virtue in being forced to give charity to a cause I don't support?

That isn't "charity" or "sharing". It's a tax, pure and simple. It is government TAKING my money to give it to causes I would not choose to support on my own. In what way does it differ from outright theft?

Elliot

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 authorities 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 this country to a situation where doors open and they canhelp themselves, and before you say it, I accept that afew will abuse this system, of which I am happy to accept as a consequence - so what would you do mate?

[ETWolverine]

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?

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 interference 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 completely 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 doesn't 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 can't quite kick fully yet, but I wouldn't 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 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 wouldn't be able to afford to do so, and now they are back in employment and paying taxes again

Isn't 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 doesn't 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 aren't using the system to achieve 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 can't 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 hasn't 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, there 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 didn't 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, doesn't 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]

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 doesn't 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

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 Fluorescent 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.

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

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.

I still smoke a few a day, one habit I can't quite kick fully yet, but I wouldn't dream of smoking around people or environments where peoples choice is taken away by me

Freedom of choice works both ways

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

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

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.

I know friends of mine who have lost jobs and been offered grants to retrain, without which they wouldn't be able to afford to do so, and now they are back in employment and paying taxes again

Isn't this government intervention?

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.

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?

Then we are in agreement.

Elliot, just because something doesn't work properly, there is no need to scrap it - there is always a need for improvement

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

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

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

What you argue against is how the percentage aren't using the system to achieve 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?

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.

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 can't 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

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.

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

I would prefer that to the government doing it.

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

This hasn't happened that is why governments have to intervene

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?

Would you say so far these are fair comments?

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 Fluorescent 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 dependent on foreign fuel and one way to do that is too force people to choice the low energy alternative

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.

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

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.

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

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

Again, in a perfect world nobody would pollute another person, however, those that don't smoke don't 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 that's a different story :)

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.

Again, I think your argument here is purely anti governemntal control not because they shouldn't 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 should be, and if these organisations want to stride for higher than that is the competition that I think should occur?

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.

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 should get it for free, there are lots of jobs that can be done by these people that would benefit the community, and if they don't 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

n 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.

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 :)

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.

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 should be the case

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.

Just as I believe Global Warming has created numerous new fields of oppurtunity, regardless of how's 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

Then we are in agreement.

YEP :)

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

I believe any man made system has flaws, it is how they are resolved that makes the 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 solely Social System is the answer either, a mix of the two covers everybody

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

Can't believe we are still agreeing :)

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.

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

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

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 wouldn't 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

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.

Agree on the watchdogs, however, they are the officials 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

I would prefer that to the government doing it.

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

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.

Don't 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 don't 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 this type of control, but we don't so we do need 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.

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 wouldn't and shouldn't 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 still 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 original recipe of coke, I can still get it from the market :)

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.

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

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?

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 didn't have before

Eutopia allows honesty without reprisal, Earth doesn't

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

Your getting there -Yep this was sarcasm

[ETWolverine]

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

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.

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 dependent on foreign fuel and one way to do that is too force people to choice the low energy alternative

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 fluorescent 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 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

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.

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

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.

Again, in a perfect world nobody would pollute another person, however, those that don't smoke don't 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.

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.

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 that's a different story :)

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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 should be, and if these organisations want to stride for higher than that is the competition that I think should occur?

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.

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 should get it for free, there are lots of jobs that can be done by these people that would benefit the community, and if they don't 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

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, government 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.

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 :)

:rolleyes:

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 should be the case

Agreed.

Just as I believe Global Warming has created numerous new fields of oppurtunity, regardless of how's 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

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

I believe any man made system has flaws, it is how they are resolved that makes the 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 solely Social System is the answer either, a mix of the two covers everybody

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

Can't believe we are still agreeing :)

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

Continued...

[ETWolverine]

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

I have to disagree. When during the Clinton Administration welfare was decreased and made more stringent, cutting off lots of people from the welfare roles completely, the result was not an increase in crime. In fact, during that period we went through one of the largest DECREASES in crime nationwide in our history. We also increased the civilian workforce significantly. It was one of the very few things that I give Clinton credit for.

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 wouldn't want to be in a public place with smoking everywhere, so this control provides a fair field of play for everyone

Not for the smoker who wants to smoke inside the bar while having his drink, or in the restaurant while having his meal. It's not fair to him at all.

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

Has it? I disagree. I spend a huge part of my professional life as a banker dealing with government regulatory compliance. That takes up about 80% of my time these days, time that I could be spending making the loans the economy needs to get back on its feet.

Furthermore, it is the same government control via bank regulation that caused the financial crisis in the first place. By forcing banks to make roughly 60% of their loans as "Community Reinvestment Act" credits, they were forcing us to make bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back... and we weren't allowed to turn them down.

As a general rule, and due to the Law of Unintended Consequences, most government regulations end up making more problems than they solve. I believe that if we live "peaceful lives" it is DESPITE the government, not because of it.

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

What happens when the elected official who ran on a certain platform of ideas gets to government and instead does the complete opposite of what he promissed, and then "jerrymanders" himself into a permanent position?

What happens when elected government officials are in office for 35, 40, or 45 years as some of ours are, despite the fact that their positions are highly unpopular?

What happens when someone runs for the Presidency on a moderate platform, but is in fact a radical of one form or another, and there are majorities in both houses of government to support him? And he has decided to "remake" the country as quickly as he can while he has that majority.

They have the control, and there is nothing you or I can do to get them out of that position of control.

The Constitution was SUPPOSED to include provisions that limit the government's power so that if a politician does get his position for 45 years, he can't do too much damage. Or if the president does get supermajority support from Congress, they are limited in what they can do to change the fundamentals of the nation.

But Congress and government as a whole ignore those Constitutional limitations.

Agree on the watchdogs, however, they are the officials 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

Yes, it is what happens... but it fails miserably.

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

No. I believe that it would be better for there to be a SELF GOVERNING COUNSEL set up by the industry rather than have the government do it.

Don't 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 don't 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 this type of control, but we don't so we do need it

When I went shopping for baby products, I did my own research. I bought consumer report books. I looked at the products myself. I didn't need the government to tell me what to buy or which products were safest. Especially when they get it wrong so often.

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 wouldn't and shouldn't 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 still 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

Actually, I think it was Doctor Peper. Coke was specifically for stomach ailments.

However... do you see people drinking Doctor Pepper today to cure colds and fix cancer? People figured out pretty quickly... without the government having to tell them... that Dr. Pepper wasn't a viable medical product. The company changed and made a better product as a snack-drink... not because the government demanded it but because the MARKET demanded it.

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

And I continue to believe that it is unnecessary and does more harm than good.

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

No we can't. The original Coca Cola recipe had cocaine in it. The last vestiges of cocain were removed from Coca Cola in 1928 due to government pressure. The small amount that was still in the formula at tha point wa too little to be considered illegal, but the government pressured the Coca Cola company to get rid of the stuff in 1928. (In 1929 the Market crashed and the Great Depression began. Coincidence? Hmmmm!) So no, you cannot get original receipe from the market... unless it is the black market and you add the cocaine yourself.

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

Those certain types make all the difference, though.

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 didn't have before

Eutopia allows honesty without reprisal, Earth doesn't

There's a reason that I'll never get elected to office. I tell it like it is, even if people think it's nuts or wrong or mean or offensive. Most politicians are able to lie like a rug in order to get elected. I can't do that. That's what makes me so difficult to deal with in this arena.

Your getting there -Yep this was sarcasm

One of us is... :cool:

Elliot

[paraclete]

I



No we can't. The original Coca Cola recipe had cocaine in it. The last vestiges of cocain were removed from Coca Cola in 1928 due to government pressure. The small amount that was still in the formula at tha point wa too little to be considered illegal, but the government pressured the Coca Cola company to get rid of the stuff in 1928. (In 1929 the Market crashed and the Great Depression began. Coincidence? hmmmm!) So no, you cannot get original receipe from the market... unless it is the black market and you add the cocaine yourself.


Elliot

You know Elliot all you really proved is the 29 crash was caused by people being on drugs or withdrawal symptoms and interestingly here we are and what caused the 08 crash do you think, bankers being on drugs perhaps/ or the withdrawal of large amounts of cocaine from the market, oops I forgot that hasn't happened yet. So I have to ask; are you all on drugs over there ? Because it looks like it from here

[phlanx]

Elliot,

In a capitalised society, this is true

The basic model will be less expensive that the luxury item

The basic model will have less features than a luxury model

You have to sell a basic model to make the luxury product known

And finally, You will always sell the basic model as people will not be able to afford the luxury item straightaway

This is the structure that makes every man and women get up in the morning and go to work

If we said, you know what I have enough and I happy with what I have the econmy would come crashing down

However, there is one pursuit of man that will never change, greed and power

In the pursuit of profit companies in the past have brought products to the market that were known to be dangerous to the consumer - The Ford Memo comes to mind about the pay off vs recall cost for exploding gas tanks

Regulations must be put into place if the system of the economy is such that purchase of a basic model is paramount to the sale of the luxury

The working man must feel safe in making the purchase of a basic model, even though he is a working man, but at the moment he cannot afford anything but the basic model

He wants to be assured that basic model car is still safe to drive, the supermarket is safe to enter and walk around and boxes will not fall on him as he walks down, the food he buys he needs to feel safe to eat and that it is not going to make him and his family sick, he needs to feel safe paying for the goods and making sure his details are not stolen and used against his wishes

All these safety issues have arisen from companies that have been wholeheartedly dodgy with supplying a product which they knew would cause concerns

How can you argue against the principle of regulations?

[phlanx]

You know Elliot all you really proved is the 29 crash was caused by people being on drugs or withdrawal symptoms and interestingly here we are and what caused the 08 crash do you think, bankers being on drugs perhaps/ or the withdrawal of large amounts of cocaine from the market, oops I forgot that hasn't happened yet. So I have to ask; are you all on drugs over there ? because it looks like it from here

Side issue for you clete,

In the UK in the 80s we had terrible football violence

Most of which started to decline in the late 80s to almost gone in the early 90s

Now the police and governments would have you believe it was there measures in place that sorted the problem

I don't condone violence, but several of my friends would enjoy a good scrap on a Saturday with the game

And there is a striking time parallel between the decline of the violence and the imergence of ectasy

The stories I have been told, is the tradiional gangs of lads that would fight each other started to forget about the fight as they wanted to get home, showered changed and out for some ectasy and some loving - with the very people they had been fighting 6 months earlier

So maybe the introduction of drugs to the banking sector might be an idea affter all :)

[paraclete]

So maybe the introduction of drugs to the banking sector might be an idea affter all :)

I think you missed the point they already have the drugs and what we have now is the result of the drug culture. It's good your football hooligans are now on drugs rather than that panther piss you drink in blighty that made them fight or perhaps it's just a new generation with an I don't care attitude. They might have learned it from us - no worries

[phlanx]

Morning Clete

"Panther Piss" You can tell you lot down under are british - you take the mick like a brit :)

I think we have learnt one thing from oz... Its sunny in your neck of the woods :)

[phlanx]

I have to disagree. When during the Clinton Administration welfare was decreased and made more stringent, cutting off lots of people from the welfare roles completely, the result was not an increase in crime. In fact, during that period we went through one of the largest DECREASES in crime nationwide in our history. We also increased the civillian workforce significantly. It was one of the very few things that I give Clinton credit for.




Not for the smoker who wants to smoke inside the bar while having his drink, or in the restaurant while having his meal. It's not fair to him at all.



Has it? I disagree. I spend a huge part of my professional life as a banker dealing with government regulatory compliance. That takes up about 80% of my time these days, time that I could be spending making the loans the economy needs to get back on its feet.

Furthermore, it is the same government control via bank regulation that caused the financial crisis in the first place. By forcing banks to make roughly 60% of their loans as "Community Reinvestment Act" credits, they were forcing us to make bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back... and we weren't allowed to turn them down.

As a general rule, and due to the Law of Unintended Consequences, most government regulations end up making more problems than they solve. I believe that if we live "peaceful lives" it is DESPITE the government, not because of it.



What happens when the elected official who ran on a certain platform of ideas gets to government and instead does the complete opposite of what he promissed, and then "jerrymanders" himself into a permanent position?

What happens when elected government officials are in office for 35, 40, or 45 years as some of ours are, despite the fact that their positions are highly unpopular?

What happens when someone runs for the Presidency on a moderate platform, but is in fact a radical of one form or another, and there are majorities in both houses of government to support him? And he has decided to "remake" the country as quickly as he can while he has that majority.

They have the control, and there is nothing you or I can do to get them out of that position of control.

The Constitution was SUPPOSED to include provisions that limit the government's power so that if a politician does get his position for 45 years, he can't do too much damage. Or if the president does get supermajority support from Congress, they are limited in what they can do to change the fundamentals of the nation.

But Congress and government as a whole ignore those Constitutional limitations.




Yes, it is what happens... but it fails miserably.





No. I believe that it would be better for there to be a SELF GOVERNING COUNSEL set up by the industry rather than have the government do it.






When I went shopping for baby products, I did my own research. I bought consumer report books. I looked at the products myself. I didn't need the government to tell me what to buy or which products were safest. Especially when they get it wrong so often.



Actually, I think it was Doctor Peper. Coke was specifically for stomach ailments.

However... do you see people drinking Doctor Pepper today to cure colds and fix cancer? People figured out pretty quickly... without the government having to tell them... that Dr. Pepper wasn't a viable medical product. The company changed and made a better product as a snack-drink... not because the government demanded it but because the MARKET demanded it.



And I continue to believe that it is unneccesary and does more harm than good.



No we can't. The original Coca Cola recipe had cocaine in it. The last vestiges of cocain were removed from Coca Cola in 1928 due to government pressure. The small amount that was still in the formula at tha point wa too little to be considered illegal, but the government pressured the Coca Cola company to get rid of the stuff in 1928. (In 1929 the Market crashed and the Great Depression began. Coincidence? hmmmm!) So no, you cannot get original receipe from the market... unless it is the black market and you add the cocaine yourself.





Those certain types make all the difference, though.




There's a reason that I'll never get elected to office. I tell it like it is, even if people think it's nuts or wrong or mean or offensive. Most politicians are able to lie like a rug in order to get elected. I can't do that. That's what makes me so difficult to deal with in this arena.




One of us is...:cool:

Elliot

Elliot

I have one thing to say, if you cannot see that freedom of choice comes at a price, then you really need to examine what you are saying

You state,

I can smoke anywhere that is my freedom, however by doing so I am taking somebody else's freedom - that is not freedom of choice for all now is it!

[phlanx]

Morning Elliot

You state, that as a consumer in a free country, you can have available drinks that are labelled as cures, and it isn't until the consensus arrives that the market will now it is a fake

And you think that have a regulation in place called Trade Descriptions is a bad thing as it stops this from happening

I have to say, that is living in the past, it is because of the general state of play of the past that such regulations arose to stop people going blind, dumb, or even die from a drinking something that is labeled good for you!

When I called you draconian before, I think I got it right

[ETWolverine]

Morning Elliot

You state, that as a consumer in a free country, you can have available drinks that are labelled as cures, and it isnt until the concensus arrives that the market will now it is a fake

And you think that have a regulation in place called Trade Descriptions is a bad thing as it stops this from happening

I have to say, that is living in the past, it is because of the general state of play of the past that such regulations arose to stop people going blind, dumb, or even die from a drinking something that is labeled good for you!!

When I called you draconian before, I think I got it right

I believe that the government should require truthful labeling of products so that the people can make an educated choice of whether to use the product or not. The product should have all the ingredients listed on the lable and instructions for proper use. That is really all people need in order to make educated decisions about the products they buy.

But the government should NOT prevent any product from being sold, produced, manufactured, or used. Nor should they tax it because it is something the government happens not to like. That is NOT their function.

So there you go... government regulation that makes sense without eliminating or degrading the free market. People can buy and sell anything they want, as long as they label it with all the ingredients and proper instructions for use.

You probably have a problem with that because people aren't educated enough to make decisions of that type by themselves, even if they know the ingredients.

Which brings us back to the question of education and changes that should be made in the education system.

Elliot

[phlanx]

I believe that the government should require truthful labeling of products so that the people can make an educated choice of whether to use the product or not. The product should have all the ingredients listed on the lable and instructions for proper use. That is really all people need in order to make educated decisions about the products they buy.

So you agree that regulations of how and what should be on a label should be giverned by regulation, so that not only are the individual ingredients dangerous to the consumer, but the consumer can make a choice of what they are buying safe in the knowledge that the information being suplied is the best available - SO you do agree regulations should exist

But the government should NOT prevent any product from being sold, produced, manufactured, or used. Nor should they tax it because it is something the government happens not to like. That is NOT their function.

Ooh, so close :) I agree with you on the principle that probabition doesn't work, however, I disagree with you on when the consensus of the global nation require less energy being used, and the best way to do this is to provide these new products and ease of market share, sure you can argue the market will decide eventually, but there are certain issues that require change to occur quicker than the market can demand

So there you go... government regulation that makes sense without eliminating or degrading the free market. People can buy and sell anything they want, as long as they label it with all the ingredients and proper instructions for use.

You have somewhat of a point here - I always think they people who moan about doing something without reading up first are doomed to their own stupidty

However, there are limitations to what is acceptable and unacceptable - selling bogus products os one of them - either the product does what it says or it doesn't, either legal or illegal

You probably have a problem with that because people aren't educated enough to make decisions of that type by themselves, even if they know the ingredients.

Back to the Stepford Wife Scenario - people are different, some people I know are high intellectual, hold professor status, but can't do simple maths - there is a level of respect that society should have for its citizens so all people can make a safe choice

Which brings us back to the question of education and changes that should be made in the education system.

I still don't think you get the prinicple of freedom of choice - IT APPLIES TO ALL PEOPLE, and not one that creates a situtaion of one person taking that free choice away from another