Political Crossfire Forums

[kohadril]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The failing of said teleological reasoning are as follows.

1. Though building hospitals pumping money into heathcare (the cause) will be for the motive of acheiving the intended better health for all sweeds (the effect). There is no nessisary causal link between the cause and effect. Thus without the ability of foresight (which as we all know is impossible) the cause can fail to achieve the wanted effect and instead cause a diffrent prehaps unwated effect (examples that spring ot mind from britian, are massive budget deficits, and a mentality that your health is a socital responcibility).
Yes. Which is why it is important to remind ourselves that universal healthcare is not itself an end, but a means to an end of higher quality of life. If the program fails to provide benefits toward that end, or causes harms to other components of quality of life that are greater than those benefits, then it ought to be rejected. Sweden has not found this to be the case.

I still don't think such a system would be beneficial to the United States, but I'm not prepared to agree with you that the efficacy of Sweden's system is somehow irrelevant.

Quote: 2. As with 1. the effect acheived can cause futher injustice
Only in the absence of a real cost-benefit calculus.

Quote: 3. Teleological reasoning can attempt to justify actions that are inherently unjustifiably, in this case subverting indidivual free will, by forcing him to contribute to what is and should be a charitiable cause.
What inherently unjustifiable action can be justified by arguing that Sweden's healthcare system improves the quality of life of the people who live there? If you can prove that it doesn't, fine. That doesn't mean I'm somehow buying into the ethos you're criticizing, though. If we cannot even allow a balance to be struck, or consider the cost of private choice against the benefit of public health; if we're not even allowed to do that cost-benefit analysis without appearing to fall into a teleological quagmire, how ought we decide? Should we just ignore empirics? Flip a coin.

Quote: As you've said, the means to an end, falls down on the above counts.
I'd rather live in a world where the ends justify the means than a world where the means justify the ends, but that's an absolutist statement. Utilitarian consequentialism s*cks, but deontology is completely absurd.

[CursedLemon]

Ozzone wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Republicans make me chuckle.

They're so very against socialism when their fiscal policies are the SOURCE of the need for such socialist programs.

You people always yap about "treat the source, not the symptoms". Well guess what? Wal-Mart is the source.

You mean a store that provides low cost goods to people on low incomes? Where should they shop?

Quote: The failing auto industry is the source.

Yep, if it wasn't for all those high wages and massive pensions pushed by the unions, the auto industry here could actually compete with the Japanese and Koreans and sell more cars.

Quote: Illegal immigration is the source.

Which is exactly why we want to get rid of illegals.

Quote: And conservative fiscal policies ENCOURAGE things like these.

Nope. Conservative fiscal policies believe a company like Wal-Mart should be left alone (and see how much it's grown). It's liberal policies that are killing the auto industry and allowing illegal immigration to become a serious problem.

Quote: So I don't want to hear another Republican rant about "finding real solutions" to these problems when their precious tr00 capitalism is what creates the need for socialism.

Nope. What creates the need for socialism is socialists playing their violins and convincing hard working people that it's right to take their money away and give it to people that want a safety net.

As long as some people know they can sit on their asses and pump out babies and collect government handouts, they will continue to do so and stay below the poverty line.

Way to pull the ideology-argument out from behind your ear, but it's not going to work here.

Wal-Mart is "low prices" for people on DECENT incomes. Once Wal-Mart takes over the world, and everybody gets a job at Wal-Mart for $8 an hour with no benefits, then we'll see just how "low" those prices are.

And actually, the auto industry is failing because the American auto companies are making stupid vehicles. It's as simple as that. Not because the workers want what they deserve, which is, I don't know...retirement packages after working there for 30 years, and GOOD wages. Not "yay, now I can shop at Wal-Mart for paper plates and bath towels" wages.

How is it the "libruhl's" fault that illegal immigration is running wild when conservatives enjoy the idea of slave labor, so they don't have to worry about the well-being of their employees, they can just stuff their pockets with the profits gained from paying their workers absolute crap instead of offering Americans the jobs at decent wages? Last I checked, liberals want illegal immigrants out.

And what did I JUST say?

WELFARE NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED

I'm pretty sure I just said that. But, of course, fiscal conservatives have only the welfare issue to take a stab at socialism. Hey, guess who was in office for six years? That's right, a Republican majority. I suppose they really didn't have a problem with the way welfare was run.

[Kumar]

If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

[bigstick61]

Quote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

Well, the left may agree with this for the most part, and maybe even some moderates and neoconservatives, to a limited extent. But traditional conservatives such as myself, and libertarian conservatives, will never agree with this. There are few social affairs which the government should regulate, and even fewer economic affairs.

Quote: Way to pull the ideology-argument out from behind your ear, but it's not going to work here.

Wal-Mart is "low prices" for people on DECENT incomes. Once Wal-Mart takes over the world, and everybody gets a job at Wal-Mart for $8 an hour with no benefits, then we'll see just how "low" those prices are.

And actually, the auto industry is failing because the American auto companies are making stupid vehicles. It's as simple as that. Not because the workers want what they deserve, which is, I don't know...retirement packages after working there for 30 years, and GOOD wages. Not "yay, now I can shop at Wal-Mart for paper plates and bath towels" wages.

How is it the "libruhl's" fault that illegal immigration is running wild when conservatives enjoy the idea of slave labor, so they don't have to worry about the well-being of their employees, they can just stuff their pockets with the profits gained from paying their workers absolute crap instead of offering Americans the jobs at decent wages? Last I checked, liberals want illegal immigrants out.

And what did I JUST say?

WELFARE NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED

I'm pretty sure I just said that. But, of course, fiscal conservatives have only the welfare issue to take a stab at socialism. Hey, guess who was in office for six years? That's right, a Republican majority. I suppose they really didn't have a problem with the way welfare was run.

Hey, you know what, Wal Mart is a great place to shop for people on low income such as myself. I get paid $7.50/hour with no benefits and I get a $300 check monthly from the Navy, plus small allowances. The reason why I can afford to live on this is in small part due to a bit of charity from my family (I do pay rent to live at my parent's house, it's just lower than the typical rent in my area), I don't drive, and I rarely buy stuff I don't need, and put my money in the bank or invest it instead. BTW, I also make interest payments for loans I took out to pay for school. I also refused to join the Union, not that the Union where I work does much anyways.

The auto industry in the US is failing in large part due to Unions and government regulations. Unions demand more money for employees than it is worth to pay them, and the company can do little about it, as the Unions are protected by the government. Things like government protection of Unions, mandated benefits, and minimum wages are what drive US companies to look to illegals and to look overseas for employees, as opposed to US workers, especially Union workers. It makes it difficult for smaller companies to compete with large corporations, as the latter can usually afford to pay for these things, within reason, hence why many actually push for higher minimum wage, because it will drive out some of the competition. There should be minimum government regulation of economic affairs, no minimum wage, no mandated benefits, and no government protection of Unions. This will help to alleviate many problems in this country.

Insofar as illegals are concerned, it has actually beeen mainly conservatives who have pushed for keeping them out and removing those already here, and cutting off government benefits to them. The liberals tend to support keeping them here, allowing them to recieve government benefits, and are generally not too concerned about them coming here illegally, or with their failure to assimilate. Many neoconservatives, being somewhat to the left of conservatives, tend to favor a certain degree of globalization, and hence support things like reasonably open borders, amnesty for illegals, and such, but these are not genuine conservatives.

[eynon]

kohadril wrote: Here's a point to think about: America already is a "social democracy." All democracies, every single one of them in the world, are "social democracies." Any funcitoning state with social programs that are designed to ameliorate the failures of the market is, at least in part, socialist.

The question isn't whether we choose social democracy, capitalist democracy, or libertarianism or socialism. The question is where, on the spectrum between absolute libertarianism and complete socialism, do we choose to strike our balance? Face it: MedicAid is socialist. So are TANF and Social Security. In a fashion, so is the existence of the United States military; we aren't asked whether we would like to pay for protection by the Army, we are taxed, without our individual consent, to help provide funding for a public good (national security).

If by "social democracy" we mean states more socialist than ourselves and have Democratic governments, then the term "social democracy" doesn't have a terribly clear meaning. We exclude ourselves from that group then only by definition, which is kind of intellectually unsatisfying.

Rather than ask "why aren't we a social democracy," perhaps we ought to ask about particular policies of countries we regard that way. A better discussion might be: "why don't we have universal healthcare in the United States." Or, "why don't we nationalize telecommunications?" That way, we're actually discussing discrete and definable ideas. I find it hard to justify or refute "social democracy" as an abstraction.

Even though we may deny it, everybody recognizes that some things are better provided by the government, and some things are better provided by the market. So let's not artificially divide ourselves based on the assumption that we're talking about absolutes.

nice post......... :-D

nice to see thoughtful new people round here.......

[cap'n queasy]

Kumar wrote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

Goverment would be better off learning how to regulate it's own incompetence first.

[gavnook]

Kumar wrote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate neither economic nor social affairs.

[pyrophasma]

gavnook wrote: Kumar wrote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate neither economic nor social affairs.

Can I get an amen, brother?

[Kumar]

cap'n queasy wrote: Kumar wrote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

Goverment would be better off learning how to regulate it's own incompetence first.
That is the job of the citizenry. In most cases, governments can improve social health with reasonable effectiveness.

[Kumar]

bigstick61 wrote:
Well, the left may agree with this for the most part, and maybe even some moderates and neoconservatives, to a limited extent. But traditional conservatives such as myself, and libertarian conservatives, will never agree with this. There are few social affairs which the government should regulate, and even fewer economic affairs.
I disagree. The government should regulate these matters within reason in order to advance the interests of greater social and national strength.

[veritas lux mea]

pyrophasma wrote: gavnook wrote: Kumar wrote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate neither economic nor social affairs.

Can I get an amen, brother?

Amen.

In any case, both the Left and the Right do agree that both social and economic affairs should be regulated; what they disagree on is the particular nuances of the regulation itself.

Democratic socialism (the Left) and Fascism (the Right) are both authoritarian and statist in nature. One is more oriented toward the welfare state and the other toward the warfare state, but both would encorporate these policies into their regimes.

[veritas lux mea]

cap'n queasy wrote: Kumar wrote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

Goverment would be better off learning how to regulate it's own incompetence first.

This is not possible, given the nature of the state. It is an organization which is not subject to competition, as it maintains for itself a monopoly of force and final decision making authority in the area which in governs, nor the need to avoid losses, as it aquires its funding through coercion and can further externalize costs by printing new fiat "money".

Paper constitutions are of course useless, as are 'checks and balances' within the state, as both instances represent machinations which operate within the state machinery on almost all levels. Thus the state is charged with interperating the 'contract' which is supposed to limit its power and various factions within the state will in the end always align with each other contra the subject population.

[Kumar]

veritas lux mea wrote:
Democratic socialism (the Left) and Fascism (the Right) are both authoritarian and statist in nature. One is more oriented toward the welfare state and the other toward the warfare state, but both would encorporate these policies into their regimes.
Not necessarily. Franco's Spain opted out of warfare once power was consolidated.

[veritas lux mea]

Kumar wrote: veritas lux mea wrote:
Democratic socialism (the Left) and Fascism (the Right) are both authoritarian and statist in nature. One is more oriented toward the welfare state and the other toward the warfare state, but both would encorporate these policies into their regimes.
Not necessarily. Franco's Spain opted out of warfare once power was consolidated.

Of course there are exceptions; but the general trend is there; it is within the nature of a nationalist, military dictatorship to engage in aggressive war. In the case of a weak regime internationally surrounded by stronger military powers we may find the leaders being prudent and remaing relatively peaceful. But if they could they would, all other things being equal.

[Kumar]

veritas lux mea wrote: Kumar wrote: veritas lux mea wrote:
Democratic socialism (the Left) and Fascism (the Right) are both authoritarian and statist in nature. One is more oriented toward the welfare state and the other toward the warfare state, but both would encorporate these policies into their regimes.
Not necessarily. Franco's Spain opted out of warfare once power was consolidated.

Of course there are exceptions; but the general trend is there; it is within the nature of a nationalist, military dictatorship to engage in aggressive war. In the case of a weak regime internationally surrounded by stronger military powers we may find the leaders being prudent and remaing relatively peaceful. But if they could they would, all other things being equal.
Fascism's primary concern is the dominance of the state over the individual, not foreign conquest. So while foreign military adventures are a possibility, they are by no means a given.

[CursedLemon]

bigstick61 wrote: Quote: If only the left and right could agree that the government must regulate both economic and social affairs.

Well, the left may agree with this for the most part, and maybe even some moderates and neoconservatives, to a limited extent. But traditional conservatives such as myself, and libertarian conservatives, will never agree with this. There are few social affairs which the government should regulate, and even fewer economic affairs.

Quote: Way to pull the ideology-argument out from behind your ear, but it's not going to work here.

Wal-Mart is "low prices" for people on DECENT incomes. Once Wal-Mart takes over the world, and everybody gets a job at Wal-Mart for $8 an hour with no benefits, then we'll see just how "low" those prices are.

And actually, the auto industry is failing because the American auto companies are making stupid vehicles. It's as simple as that. Not because the workers want what they deserve, which is, I don't know...retirement packages after working there for 30 years, and GOOD wages. Not "yay, now I can shop at Wal-Mart for paper plates and bath towels" wages.

How is it the "libruhl's" fault that illegal immigration is running wild when conservatives enjoy the idea of slave labor, so they don't have to worry about the well-being of their employees, they can just stuff their pockets with the profits gained from paying their workers absolute crap instead of offering Americans the jobs at decent wages? Last I checked, liberals want illegal immigrants out.

And what did I JUST say?

WELFARE NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED

I'm pretty sure I just said that. But, of course, fiscal conservatives have only the welfare issue to take a stab at socialism. Hey, guess who was in office for six years? That's right, a Republican majority. I suppose they really didn't have a problem with the way welfare was run.

Hey, you know what, Wal Mart is a great place to shop for people on low income such as myself. I get paid $7.50/hour with no benefits and I get a $300 check monthly from the Navy, plus small allowances. The reason why I can afford to live on this is in small part due to a bit of charity from my family (I do pay rent to live at my parent's house, it's just lower than the typical rent in my area), I don't drive, and I rarely buy stuff I don't need, and put my money in the bank or invest it instead. BTW, I also make interest payments for loans I took out to pay for school. I also refused to join the Union, not that the Union where I work does much anyways.

The auto industry in the US is failing in large part due to Unions and government regulations. Unions demand more money for employees than it is worth to pay them, and the company can do little about it, as the Unions are protected by the government. Things like government protection of Unions, mandated benefits, and minimum wages are what drive US companies to look to illegals and to look overseas for employees, as opposed to US workers, especially Union workers. It makes it difficult for smaller companies to compete with large corporations, as the latter can usually afford to pay for these things, within reason, hence why many actually push for higher minimum wage, because it will drive out some of the competition. There should be minimum government regulation of economic affairs, no minimum wage, no mandated benefits, and no government protection of Unions. This will help to alleviate many problems in this country.

Insofar as illegals are concerned, it has actually beeen mainly conservatives who have pushed for keeping them out and removing those already here, and cutting off government benefits to them. The liberals tend to support keeping them here, allowing them to recieve government benefits, and are generally not too concerned about them coming here illegally, or with their failure to assimilate. Many neoconservatives, being somewhat to the left of conservatives, tend to favor a certain degree of globalization, and hence support things like reasonably open borders, amnesty for illegals, and such, but these are not genuine conservatives.

Well thank you for the reasonable reply, at least.

This is what I mean. When you're earning a low wage because all of the good jobs have been shipped out, Wal-Mart is all you can go for if you want to live at the entry level of "comfortable". There's a million factors that go into it, but capitalist greed is the source of them all.

The auto industry's failure had to start somewhere. In the 70s, car companies weren't healthy because wages were low, it was because American car companies were still heavily competent. Now that the auto industry has shifted focus, and the American companies have lost touch with what car owners want nowadays, the wage problem has suddenly become the issue, when if Ford would just make a car that people want to drive, they'd get right back on the market.

I'm not going to sit here and say that unions aren't a problem. They absolutely are; not in themselves, but the way they completely exploit the big businesses they're involved in. The auto industry is probably the most shining example of this. But the unions were there before, and they weren't the downfall of the companies back then.

If conservative = capitalist, then it doesn't make sense that conservatives would want to close the borders. Just as jobs are being shipped overseas for cheap labor, so do big companies hire immigrants to do the cheap labor HERE. I cannot fathom a reason why a fiscal conservative would want to keep the immigrants out of our country, unless they were suddenly struck by a severe case of xenophobia.

[bigstick61]

Conservatives are capitalists. However, they are also patriots, and as such, want the best for the country, hence many traditional conservatives support a certain degree of protectionism regarding trade, and are against trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA, and such. They also support tarriffs at times. One thing we must remeber is that each nation, just like each individual, is self-interested. Ensuring jobs and industries stay in America, that we remain economically strong, etc. are all national self-interests, which are inarguable.

[perdidochas]

martys_f wrote: I think the "Third Way" is the best direction for this country. Christian fundamentalists ( so called conservatives) are trying to" Talibanize" our country. Thru media , they try to spread the message of hate and discrimination especially against minorities. They do not believe in diversity. Rather, they believe if you are not a christian and follow Jesus , there is something wrong with you.

Hmm, I'm a Christian conservative, and I have no problem with people of other races, religions or nationalities. Most Christian conservatives I know have no problem with diversity. Stop setting up strawmen.


martys_f wrote: I hope Americans can benefit from the social democracy that exist in Europe especially in Sweden and France. So called conservatives are trying to shift the direction of this country thru intimidation . They try to depict in the American psyche that "others" ( Arabs, Mexicans, South Americans .. etc) are a clear and present danger to the so called " American culture".

Can I see some illustrations of this occurring that are not in your vivid imagination?

martys_f wrote: I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries.

I've heard (on NPR no less) about her leadership abilities. There is one major reason that socialized medicine/universal healthcare did not emerge during the Clinton administration--Bill Clinton asked an incompetent leader/administrator, Hilary Rodham Clinton, to head it.

[perdidochas]

ontheyslay wrote: Thrilla wrote: martys_f wrote: I think the "Third Way" is the best direction for this country. Christian fundamentalists ( so called conservatives) are trying to" Talibanize" our country. Thru media , they try to spread the message of hate and discrimination especially against minorities. They do not believe in diversity. Rather, they believe if you are not a christian and follow Jesus , there is something wrong with you.


I hope Americans can benefit from the social democracy that exist in Europe especially in Sweden and France. So called conservatives are trying to shift the direction of this country thru intimidation . They try to depict in the American psyche that "others" ( Arabs, Mexicans, South Americans .. etc) are a clear and present danger to the so called " American culture".

I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries. christian fundamentalist = conservative?.. ummm ok :roll:

why are people trying to change our country into something other than it is.. a constitutional representative republic.

if a person likes the whole social democracy thing... good for them... move to a country that has one...stop messing with the US

It's no secret christian fundamentalists are conservative. To say they are not is a little ridiculous.

However, the opposite is not true necessarily. Not all conservatives (heck not even all Christian conservatives) are Christian fundamentalists. I would venture that MOST conservatives are not Christian fundamentalists.

[perdidochas]

tneedles wrote: Chingu wrote: tneedles wrote: There is very little interest in changing to a "social democracy". And, Hillary....she is definitely not the person to transform. She would govern from the center. Plus, the congressional support is not there.

My wife and I made it to where we are today. It was not easy. But, we did it without any government or parental help. If we can do it, anyone can.

I think your version of the center is pretty far to the left then if you think Hillary would govern from the center. Of course, she'd campaign FOR the center - but I know she wouldn't govern that way. 8:)

She would. Look at her husband....he did not exactly govern from the left. Bill would be the influence in the administration.
There is only one reason that Bill Clinton didn't govern from the left--the 1994 Contract with America crowd. Bill did attempt to govern from the left from 1993 to 1994. The result--the Contract with America, and the Republican takeover of Congress.