|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 9, 2018 17:29:29 GMT -7
A right is irrevocable, inalienable, and inherently held by all human beings. It is self-evident and universal under the laws of nature. The Freedom of Speech, of Religion, of the Press, and to Peaceably Assemble are rights. No man, woman, or child need ask for permission to exercise them and should not expect to be penalized for doing so. Nor does any government, instituted by any collective body of people, have the right or authority to deny or circumvent such rights, even though it is the nature of all governments to do so. But people are regularly punished or prevented from exercising each and every one of those rights. Nothing about the laws of nature suggest that those things are protected in any way. The only way those rights can be secured is if WE choose to protect them.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 9, 2018 17:39:30 GMT -7
Health care as a right is being treated a bit differently from other rights. It is used a reason to have the government pay most of the costs of health care. The first amendment does not require the government to provide every citizen with a TV station; the second amendment has never been suggested to require the government to supply free weapons to citizens. Actually, some of the proposals to implement health care as a right focus on cutting spending and thereby prevent the utilization of the right which I find amusing. I think that people's desire for rights to social safety nets is are symptoms of a larger problem. I believe that people should have a right to fair compensation. I think that the greatest injustice in our country is that our system does not fairly compensate people for their labor. Capitalism is a pump that moves money to the top. I think that all of the socioeconomic problems people complain about would be greatly mitigated if there was a equanimical division of wealth in this country. It wouldn't be necessary for the government to provide much of a social safety net if people could actually earn living wages. I have ideas about that as well but many people would lose their shit if they though there was any chance of those kinds of policies going through.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 9, 2018 17:54:00 GMT -7
Fair pay for fair work?
Yep - this is a serious issue that has not been properly addressed for many years. Corporations have an attitude problem - and it starts at the top. To fix the whole issue is going to require something that Republicans hate - regulations.
A: No serving executive of any corporation may sit on said corporation's board of directors in any capacity. (Core issue, the BOD serves as a watchdog for the investors of a company. Having an active exec serving on the board is an implicit conflict of interest - fox guarding the hen house.) B: No serving executive of any corporation may sit on the board of directors of any company in competition with that company; or consuming products/services of that company; or supplying products/services to that company. (Core issue is essentially the same. Conflict of interest - across companies.) C: Compensation of executives, and other management should not exceed a reasonable percentage of of the total compensation to all employees of the corporation. (Basically, establish a reasonable balance of compensation from the janitor - all the way to the CEO. Something that still ensures that the 'brass' are getting paid well but, leaving enough room for everyone. This would apply to ALL forms of compensation - no exceptions.)
This is just a start - the rules would have to be very clearly stated and there should be penalties for non-compliance. These would ONLY apply to publicly traded companies since they - being on the market - are subject to reasonable regulation. Private companies tend to have more reasonable management since they don't have to 'play to the market' to drive stocks up and down. Most tend to have better pay balance, based on what little I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 9, 2018 18:13:54 GMT -7
I'd just make a law that no person may earn, in any capacity, more than 10 times the earnings of the lowest paid employed person in the country.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 9, 2018 19:02:21 GMT -7
For reference, the total combined income earned in the U.S. in 2017 was roughly $16,427,300,000,000. I found this information on the web. I did not vet it. www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/ In 2017 the population was estimated at 325,719,178. 22.6% of the population is under the age of 18. 15.6% of the population is over the age of 65. This means that there are 201,294,452 people in the US Between the ages of 18 and 65. If we paid everyone evenly (I am not actually suggesting this) every employed person in the us could earn $81,608 per year or about $39.23 an hour assuming 40 hours a week. This is assuming that every person between 18 and 65 is employed and working full time. In reality there are only 156,880,000 people employed in this country right now and 29,910,000 of those are part time. I couldn't find hard numbers but lets call all full time employees 40 hours a week and all part time employees 20 hours a week. Under these conditions equal hourly pay for all hours worked would be $56 an hour. Of course equal pay for all is not a motivator which is why I advocate for a system where the highest pay is capped at 10 times the lowest pay. I would advocate for the unit of labor time to be set at 1 hour so that part time salaries would not unduly penalize the top earners.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 9, 2018 19:27:05 GMT -7
That is part of my idea as well but, the key is understanding that letting the "fox guard the hen house" is part of the reason things have gotten so out of hand.
This is a side-effect of the government cracking down on the corporate raiders back in the 1980's and 90's (remember the movie "Wall Street"?). Now, you just get named "President, CEO and Chairman of the Board" and you can set the compensation packages for yourself and all of your buddies in the other positions (COO, CIO, CFO etc...).
Don't doubt that this is part of the issue. I worked for a (now defunct) "Houston based" (wink, wink; nudge, nudge) computer company back in the 1990's and that is exactly the kind of crap that was going on.
The law would sorta work but, it's so easy to change the law by buying off politicians and having them repeal or replace it. Regulations setup by the SEC/FTC can be extremely difficult to push away. Especially if they are reasonable regulations that are hard to argue against.
What?!? NOT let the fox guard the hen house!!! That's absurd!
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 9, 2018 19:53:49 GMT -7
I have actually given wage regulation ideas a lot of thought. Considering ways to break the system and ways to plug those holes. It's not complete and there may be a million ways to game the system I never considered, but I guess that's the learning process. It's all too complicated to type out here. It's just a fantasy anyway. Too many things would have to change all at once for it to be a realistic goal. Nice pipe dream though.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 9, 2018 20:04:19 GMT -7
I think that it is inhumane and ghastly to deny a suffering person medical care if you have the means to provide it. HA! What EVIDENCE do you have for that? I mean, it's not like they have an intrinsic right to life and liberty that compels me to respect it. Joking aside...We agree on that, we disagree that universal health care is the best way to achieve this end. This is a cheap tactic of single payer proponents and frankly it's beneath you. But you'd be surprised, though, to learn that there are times when the more humane decision is to walk away from someone suffering and in need of medical care. That's a decision providers also have to make. Sorry but these arguments are incompatible. Not trying to cherry pick, but how can you claim that it's inhumane to deny people health care while arguing there's nothing about having an intrinsic right to life that compels anyone else to respect that right? That being the case why the hell do they deserve health care? Also we call people who don't respect this right sociopaths and then possibly murderers. Also the intrinsic value of a right to life is that it gives you grounds to kill someone in self defense if they should try to murder you. Therefore it does protect your life. Exactly! You are agreeing with me, and failing to abide other people's rights in the individual is called criminality, and in government it's called tyranny. Because people were oppressed and ignorant, the powerful and tyrannical work to prevent a fully self actualized populace. Also arriving at these truths required liberal minded and educated people who were willing to put the interests of fellow citizens at the same level as their own. As the English Monarchy once thought it was appalling, the idea that in America "Any man's son could be the equal of any other man's son!" Oh the ignominy of it all. Western government is the prime example of people getting together to see how to help people succeed instead of keeping them ignorant and subservient. The bill of rights is the foundation of this freedom. Simple, because the UK is becoming tyrannical and depriving citizens of their right to voice legitimate grievance. If the US followed suit you wouldn't have at least 2 of the vaunted "5 horsemen". Hitchens would have gone to jail by now. The only legitimate restriction on free speech is incitement to violence or deliberately causing a panic, this is established western law. It's the right you hold inviolate, and smart people resist when theirs are imposed upon. Right's aren't "owed", they are yours naturally, and it's wrong to deprive you of them (at least without due process). It's about respecting the sovereignty of your fellow man. By what criteria do I say you are owed one thing and not another? It's not that hard. Rights are INTRISIC to the person and what they need to be free. They are derived from establishing the bare minimum for liberty, the absence of any of them is oppression. I don't need to relitigate 200 years of western jurisprudence here. Again, health care doesn't fit here because it's a material need. No one can guarantee that a person will be materially supplied, it's actually cruel to promise such a thing in the real world. Also you again find yourself at cross purposes, wanting both universal health care AND are you serious? If you want universal health care it's unwise to restrain capitalism and people's incentive to earn more. You need the tax base. SOcialism and capitalism can work together in some hybrids, but socialism is the icing on the cake. It won't create a strong economy.
Also if we keep talking about this I'll probably avoid the quote/unquote part and try my best to just answer you in kind.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Oct 9, 2018 21:08:07 GMT -7
I like to use the quote boxes because it makes clear what parts of your post I am responding to. You don't have to use them if it's not your thing. HA! What EVIDENCE do you have for that? I mean, it's not like they have an intrinsic right to life and liberty that compels me to respect it. Joking aside...We agree on that, we disagree that universal health care is the best way to achieve this end. This is a cheap tactic of single payer proponents and frankly it's beneath you. But you'd be surprised, though, to learn that there are times when the more humane decision is to walk away from someone suffering and in need of medical care. That's a decision providers also have to make. I think you mistook my point. I do think that it is inhumane to deny someone health care if the means exist to provide it. I can't prove that I believe that. You'll just have to take my word for it. The point of that statement, though, was that you said, it's abstract, one of those truths that we wouldn't need evidence for because to test the presumption is inhumane and ghastly I was pointing out that in my opinion it is inhumane and ghastly to deny medical care if the means to provide it exist. I do not believe that this fact makes it an intrinsic right, nor does it make anything else an intrinsic right. I do think that we should, in situations where we have the means, grant the right to health care. I cannot think of any scenario where the most humane decision is to walk away from someone suffering and in need of medical care. Perhaps you can clarify this point some more. Sorry but these arguments are incompatible. Not trying to cherry pick, but how can you claim that it's inhumane to deny people health care while arguing there's nothing about having an intrinsic right to life that compels anyone else to respect that right? That being the case why the hell do they deserve health care? Also we call people who don't respect this right sociopaths and then possibly murderers. Humane behavior is not contingent upon intrinsic rights. People are moral creatures who through the mechanisms of evolution have developed a moral sense. It is this sense that compels us to treat each other well. Because people were oppressed and ignorant, the powerful and tyrannical work to prevent a fully self actualized populace. Also arriving at these truths required liberal minded and educated people who were willing to put the interests of fellow citizens at the same level as their own. As the English Monarchy once thought it was appalling, the idea that in America "Any man's son could be the equal of any other man's son!" Oh the ignominy of it all. Western government is the prime example of people getting together to see how to help people succeed instead of keeping them ignorant and subservient. The bill of rights is the foundation of this freedom. Simple, because the UK is becoming tyrannical and depriving citizens of their right to voice legitimate grievance. If the US followed suit you wouldn't have at least 2 of the vaunted "5 horsemen". Hitchens would have gone to jail by now. The only legitimate restriction on free speech is incitement to violence or deliberately causing a panic, this is established western law. It's the right you hold inviolate, and smart people resist when theirs are imposed upon. Exactly! These are rights we decided we felt people should have. Not all people agree. OUR SOCIETY grants these rights. Our society protects and upholds them. Without that societal backing they do not exist. Right's aren't "owed", they are yours naturally, and it's wrong to deprive you of them (at least without due process). It's about respecting the sovereignty of your fellow man. By what criteria do I say you are owed one thing and not another? It's not that hard. Rights are INTRISIC to the person and what they need to be free. They are derived from establishing the bare minimum for liberty, the absence of any of them is oppression. I don't need to relitigate 200 years of western jurisprudence here. Again, health care doesn't fit here because it's a material need. No one can guarantee that a person will be materially supplied, it's actually cruel to promise such a thing in the real world. Ok, maybe owed was a bad choice of words. I was going for the idea that others owe it to you to respect your rights. I'll rephrase. It seems like you are basically saying that a right is something that we feel others ought to respect. If that is the case how can you say someone else is wrong if they feel like they have a right you should respect and you don't? By what criteria do you say this thing must be respected and this other thing not? Also you again find yourself at cross purposes, wanting both universal health care AND are you serious? Income inequality drives the market, it's nothing to be ashamed of. There are places where there is very little income inequality and people are miserable (like Sudan). If you want universal health care it's unwise to restrain capitalism and people's incentive to earn more. You need the tax base. SOcialism and capitalism can work together in some hybrids, but socialism is the icing on the cake. It won't create a strong economy.
Actually if we enshrined fair compensation as a right I believe the majority of social safety nets would be unnecessary. Unfettered capitalism is a broken system. With money comes power. Specifically the power to steal more money from the less fortunate. This creates a spiral that pushes the money higher and higher to the top. The only way to prevent this is to regulate capitalism. My suggested regulation still leaves room for ambition but puts limits on how much you can enrich yourself at the expense of everyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2018 3:22:56 GMT -7
A right is irrevocable, inalienable, and inherently held by all human beings. It is self-evident and universal under the laws of nature. The Freedom of Speech, of Religion, of the Press, and to Peaceably Assemble are rights. No man, woman, or child need ask for permission to exercise them and should not expect to be penalized for doing so. Nor does any government, instituted by any collective body of people, have the right or authority to deny or circumvent such rights, even though it is the nature of all governments to do so. But people are regularly punished or prevented from exercising each and every one of those rights. Nothing about the laws of nature suggest that those things are protected in any way. The only way those rights can be secured is if WE choose to protect them. That's kind of the problem, isn't it? It only works when people have respect for one another - and we don't. We've reached a point where a simple difference of opinion results in name calling (Communist or Nazi, depending who is disagreeing with whom), shouting, accusations of some kind of "ism", and maybe even threats of violence. My freedom of speech permits me to use epithets. But that crosses a line, and I should expect to receive some level of escalation in return*. If, however, I simply disagree with something my government is doing, I should not expect retaliation. I would expect a discussion, but almost never get one. With a lot of help from Social Media, conversations have become pointless ideological battles between two parties unwilling to yield any ground to the other, but which must be won at all costs. * - Unfortunately, I don't actually need to use any epithets. It is simply assumed that I have and continue to use them, and the conversation proceeds under that assumption. Do we have the right to the benefit of the doubt?
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 4, 2018 14:46:12 GMT -7
JAFisher44
The first problem with your various arguments is 'looking a gift horse in the mouth", you are arguing against something that works to your benefit.
Then take a second and consider what a "right" is. No, it's not something solid that you can empirically see and touch. Think of it as a basic need for humans to be considered happy and as free as possible. Just like a chicken in a coop deserves fresh water and a space where other chickens won't poop on it (minimum standard) so throughout the body of western law has it been determined that every man needs to be able to speak his mind, worship (or not) in the manner of his choosing, not be enslaved, etc all the way down.
IF you get your way, and rights should have no more respect than any figment of imagination, think of the world you are creating. The worst aggressions of dictatorships and oppressive regimes around the world, how would you argue against them?
You have said that it's wrong to leave people to suffer if you have the means. Again, "WHY?" If there's nothing innate in that person that should cause me to respect their suffering then there is nothing immoral or wrong about leaving them to die. If there are no rights, then they have no right to expect relief of suffering. You can't have it both ways..
As this applies to healthcare, yes, I have left people to die untreated before. Having the "means" to treat them is only the most superficial question, there's more to it. We left a person to die of untreated heart disease, he wasn't on life support and there was no DNR, we had a cardiac surgeon and the patient wanted treatment, and we did nothing wrong by refusing. There's a whole set of circumstances proponents of single payer can't fathom, even to consider how it will all go wrong.
Finally, you stated that people have 'evolved' to take care of each other or something similar. This is manifestly Untrue. If good behavior is evolutionarily beneficial, then there should be no sociopathy or rudeness/lack of charity because EVOLUTION IS COMPULSORY. For example, There should be no bad human parents anymore than their are for any other species with a similarly altricial offspring.
My other argument is the massive bloodletting that is human history. If you would insist that charity is evolutionarily compelled, then why as a species are humans so geared towards violence and war? You've just taken God away from the first cause and replaced it with genetics. If you really sit and think about it you'll realize it's hogwash. Especially if the aim of evolution is reproduction and there are an infinite number of circumstances where social morality is contrary to that specific aim.
This is why I think Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are dumbasses (the forest gump and bubba of philosophical debates). Every creature on earth up to a certain level of mental development must follow the dictates of genetically influenced behavior.
Not so with smarter animals and higher primates. Captive raised gorillas have a terrible success rate of reintegration into the wild. Why do you suppose that is?
Also humans are no longer subject to natural law in the sense required for the secular humanist "evolved morality" to make any kind of rational sense. Humans in the modern world don't need a community to survive. We aren't sharing grain or building fires in the early paleolithic as hunter-gatherers. You don't even need ARMS to survive in the modern world much less morals. Call it a genetic "compulsion towards social behavior", same difference.
As for the need for socialized medicine, deprived of "rights" I don't see how you can argue for this. But when I can reply I'll get back to the main argument on this score.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Nov 4, 2018 18:05:11 GMT -7
The first problem with your various arguments is 'looking a gift horse in the mouth", you are arguing against something that works to your benefit. Then take a second and consider what a "right" is. No, it's not something solid that you can empirically see and touch. Think of it as a basic need for humans to be considered happy and as free as possible. Just like a chicken in a coop deserves fresh water and a space where other chickens won't poop on it (minimum standard) so throughout the body of western law has it been determined that every man needs to be able to speak his mind, worship (or not) in the manner of his choosing, not be enslaved, etc all the way down. IF you get your way, and rights should have no more respect than any figment of imagination, think of the world you are creating. The worst aggressions of dictatorships and oppressive regimes around the world, how would you argue against them? All of the above does nothing to demonstrate that innate rights exist. Nor does any of that show what having an innate right does. I agree that we have rights. We have the rights that we choose to grant to members of our societies. We have the rights that we choose to protect. Saying that I have a right to life doesn't mean anything unless actions are taken to protect my life. The right to life doesn't help an apostate in Saudi Arabia because that society does not choose to protect the lives of apostates. It doesn't matter if I am arguing against something that would work in my benefit. If it's not real it doesn't benefit me. Innate rights are not real. You have said that it's wrong to leave people to suffer if you have the means. Again, "WHY?" If there's nothing innate in that person that should cause me to respect their suffering then there is nothing immoral or wrong about leaving them to die. If there are no rights, then they have no right to expect relief of suffering. You can't have it both ways.. As this applies to healthcare, yes, I have left people to die untreated before. Having the "means" to treat them is only the most superficial question, there's more to it. We left a person to die of untreated heart disease, he wasn't on life support and there was no DNR, we had a cardiac surgeon and the patient wanted treatment, and we did nothing wrong by refusing. There's a whole set of circumstances proponents of single payer can't fathom, even to consider how it will all go wrong. This example doesn't really have enough detail to be useful. There are many variables that would go into this kind of decision that aren't addressed here. So I can't really make any sort of meaningful response to this. Finally, you stated that people have 'evolved' to take care of each other or something similar. This is manifestly Untrue. If good behavior is evolutionarily beneficial, then there should be no sociopathy or rudeness/lack of charity because EVOLUTION IS COMPULSORY. For example, There should be no bad human parents anymore than their are for any other species with a similarly altricial offspring. No, you are wrong. Traits selected for by natural selection need only be good enough to ensure survival. They don't have to be perfect and rarely are. Also, I didn't say good behavior is compulsory. Having a sense of moral behavior does not mean we have rules hard wired into us. We have behaviorial tendancies that promote cooperative behavior. Senses of fairness, empathy, philantropy, etc. Furthermore, these senses are not absolute. Some have more than others, some have none. This is true of all evolved traits. My other argument is the massive bloodletting that is human history. If you would insist that charity is evolutionarily compelled, then why as a species are humans so geared towards violence and war? You've just taken God away from the first cause and replaced it with genetics. If you really sit and think about it you'll realize it's hogwash. Especially if the aim of evolution is reproduction and there are an infinite number of circumstances where social morality is contrary to that specific aim. This is why I think Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are dumbasses (the forest gump and bubba of philosophical debates). Every creature on earth up to a certain level of mental development must follow the dictates of genetically influenced behavior. We are also tribal. This means that our morality only applies to our in group. Our tribalism is layered and complex. So we may have many groups, some we are fiercely loyal to like our immediate families and some we are only lightly tied to. By putting people into out groups it allows people to exempt others from their moral framework. This is often what allows people to treat other people so terribly. This is why groups spend so much effort dehumanizing the enemy and discourage situations that expose its members to the humanity of the enemy. Not so with smarter animals and higher primates. Captive raised gorillas have a terrible success rate of reintegration into the wild. Why do you suppose that is? I don't know for sure, but my first guess would be that captive raised gorillas haven't learned the social contract of the wild groillas so they break too many rules and never get a chance to integrate. The wild gorillas expect a baby gorilla to take time to learn to behave but this captive raised gorilla isn't a baby so they aren't forgiving of the mistakes. I'd bet that the younger the gorilla is when introduced, the more likely it is to be accepted. Also humans are no longer subject to natural law in the sense required for the secular humanist "evolved morality" to make any kind of rational sense. Humans in the modern world don't need a community to survive. We aren't sharing grain or building fires in the early paleolithic as hunter-gatherers. You don't even need ARMS to survive in the modern world much less morals. Call it a genetic "compulsion towards social behavior", same difference. As for the need for socialized medicine, deprived of "rights" I don't see how you can argue for this. But when I can reply I'll get back to the main argument on this score. Of course humans are subject to natural law. We are intelligent enough and technologically advanced enough that we can survive in most environments on this earth. But that probably will change. AGW, for example, may cause environmental changes that drasically reduce our population. Who knows what survival traits will be selected for if that happens. Your points above are contradictory. You say that we don't need a community to survive but you use an example of a person without arms. That person does indeed need a community to survive. In fact they only survive because of our evolved cooperation. Because we have a sense that we should protect them and allow them to survive even though they would die without our help. You say we aren't sharing grain, but you are wrong. The vast majority of people have never grown any grain. We eat grain grown by other members of our community. The products or services that we produce are not for our own use, but for the use of others. We are surrounded by community. A world community. It is so pervasive that it is actually very difficult to exempt yourself from it. You cannot avoid it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 4:51:07 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Nov 5, 2018 7:51:27 GMT -7
None of what you posted above is in conflict with an evolved sense of morality. All of those things are allowed by putting the victims in the out group and exempting them from the moral framework.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2018 9:13:21 GMT -7
That's brilliant.
See how far that Evolved Sense of Morality gets you in Detroit or Chicago when the sun goes down.
|
|
|
Post by JAFisher44 on Nov 5, 2018 19:19:41 GMT -7
I fail to see your point.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Nov 8, 2018 17:53:31 GMT -7
None of what you posted above is in conflict with an evolved sense of morality. All of those things are allowed by putting the victims in the out group and exempting them from the moral framework. Lol. the last sentence literally puts the lie to your "evolved sense of social morality". Consider that there may be an evolved need and use for sociopathy and cruelty, in which case again there is no "evolved" sense of morality. Putting victims in the "outgroup" since it occurs so frequently must also be a part of our evolved moral framework and so without "innate" rights there's nothing wrong with it. It's just another selective pressure at work. i'm not wrong because it hasn't been shown that the traits you mentioned are genetic or what degree they are spread this way. My point is I don't accept that explanation because the tidbit about gorillas proves it false.Humans can't teach a gorilla how to be a gorilla and when their LEARNED social cues are off they are rejected. You are saying evolved morality is hard wired/compulsory when you argue that these traits are variably expressed due to varying genotypes. (I.e when you said this is true of all evolved traits) My argument is that morality has to be taught, and then excepting the restrictions of abnormal psyche individual people choose how good/philanthropic they want to be. Disregard innate human rights if it suits you, in that case oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia are doing nothing wrong. In fact in evolutionary terms they are merely guaranteeing the survival of their preferred population. Can't fault them for that any more than an infanticidal male lion when he takes over the pride I was right, you can't argue against their abuses if you don't think people have rights. You say there's nothing innate about your right to life that causes people to respect it, that you don't have this right unless someone acts to protect it. Do you see how circular it is? It's only because someone else believes you have that right that they will act and fight for it. SO...you are arguing against something that works to your benefit. Even if it's not "real". The belief in rights protects you even if you don't value it yourself.. My points above are not contradictory, humans are certainly no longer subject to natural selection n the sense that we don't necessarily live under the same selective pressures which caused us to be social animals. That man with no arms needs a community, sure. The point is he isn't in an environment where he can't reproduce without arms. Now expand that to any other set of deleterious genes he might spread which would have been fatal on the primal Serengeti (autism, epilepsy, heart disease). So it may be with antisocial behaviors to the extent that these are inheritable. It's a massive conceit on the part of a secular humanist (Dawkins et al) to presume to know which way evolution is heading (i.e logically towards cooperation, etc) The modern world could be instead be selecting for sociopathy and amoral behavior, instead of cooperation, there's no way of knowing. If we accept that philanthropy, charity, etc are genetically spread traits then the same is probably true of sociopathy and cruelty, and therefore under the right circumstances the social drive in people could be completely inverted. We evolved to teach our children morality, to this end dispelling the myth of innate rights (the value of each individual person) is less than helpful. And yes I am being vague about that particular case because I hate the moral grandstanding that generally follows when I tell the full story. We were on a medical mission overseas and while we had the "means" the mission was over so we left him there untreated. We couldn't stop the massive logistical effort we were undertaking for just one person. Suffice it to say for medicine to work it can't accept the premise of an infinite value for each human life. Resources are finite, so in cases care must be rationed. You say it's wrong to leave people suffering without treatment, but this will be inevitable when dealing with critical medication shortages, the problem will be further exacerbated when medicine is socialized. This is also not contradictory. The value of a human life is subjective, I'd say somewhere above "worthless" but a bit under "priceless".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 6:28:20 GMT -7
So what about the future (seeing as we are all Trek nerds? Eventually, some of us will have to leave Earth in order to collect the staggering amount of raw material out in the Asteroid Belt in an effort to fix the mess we've made of Earth. Unfortunately, we won't have our open capitalist-based representative republic on Island One. We would be left with one of the following: ► Government-Appointed Dictatorship (basically the military) ► Government-Appointed Socialism, where the Governor is appointed by the UN (or some other government) ► Corporate Dictatorship (if the colonies are "Privatized")
In the beginning, Representative Republics, Direct Democracies, Representative Democracies, and even Communist Governments won't work. The colonies are too valuable to for any government to simply hand over to the workers. Initially, Island One would have to be very much like a Dictatorship. Resources would be too sparse to allow much freedom. Once the colony is established, and begins delivering product (energy, metals, and water for Earth, and completed sub-assemblies for Island Two), life would get better. Probably move to a more socialist society where people have some additional freedom. Eventually, they will move to a Representative Socialist Society. People would appoint representatives based upon Location within the colony (Wards or Sections) or Skills (similar to a Labor Union).
No matter the government structure, there would always be limited space and resources, and therefore limited freedoms. Clearly, Food, Shelter, Universal Health Care would be part of the citizenship package - you have to provide that to anyone on a space colony (so long as resources hold out), and in that regard it would be a lot like military life. Three-square and a rack, and a medic if you bust yourself (a doctor if you bust yourself bad). Reproduction would be controlled - you can't just fill the place up with an infinite number of mouths to feed. There would have to be slacker laws for those who don't contribute. Free College and University as long as you stuck with the skills needed for a colony.
So... this all sounds pretty liberal. Would there be room for any conservatives up there?
|
|
|
Post by krebizfan on Nov 19, 2018 13:29:20 GMT -7
The ruler may be appointed but it would be impossible to bring enough troops along to force the issue without crippling the economic viability of the colony. I would expect more colonies to be chartered with the elected leadership being granted authority from the central government in exchange for promises of how to operate. The actual government will be adjusted on the fly to match the reality with the titular authority being side-stepped unless the titual authority produces suicidal orders which would trigger a rebellion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2018 17:02:08 GMT -7
I'm not sure about a "Ruler", but it's kind of splitting hairs (I would think "Committee"). I agree that there would have to be adjustments to the form of governance as the colony matures, likely getting less strict over time.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Mar 27, 2019 16:30:57 GMT -7
Apart from Mueller getting fired (but it's still early) I can safely say I told you so about that report.
Now we will see if the government has flipped or if trump needs a second term. If it has flipped there will be hell to pay. You might see Hillary and Obama's underlings serve jail time.
That's the thing about senate judiciary hearings...they reel in the big fish and then only fry the small.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2019 13:05:21 GMT -7
Ya ever get the feeling that everyone... EVERYONE on all sides of the political spectrum have gone completely bat-crap crazy?
For two years I've been saying that Russian Collusion is Birther 2.0. "Oh NO!" they say. Toss a brief (passive aggressive) rebuke at me for voting TRUMP (which I didn't, but you can't argue with a true believer). "TRUMP colluded with the Russians!" And then go on to present emotions as factual support of their claims. The THE REPORT comes out saying "not really"... Just not good enough for the members of Collusion Nation. They remain convinced that Trump did something wrong. AND? So did Hillary. She got straight up busted by the FBI... who then did not press charges (a rule for king and a rule for common man)
Just a tip... If you go on screaming and yelling about how horrible Trump is and how he is a Russian-colluding, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, xenophobe, you're handing him a second term. The absolute best thing every rabid anti-Trumpoid can do, is shut the fuck up.
I'm Starting my own Political Party. The Iron Nerd party. Our platform (by "our" I mean my dog an I): 1. No Gov't funding for colleges with large sports programs. Those kids can go to a Sports Academy. Universities are for LEARNING and RESEARCH, not football games. 2. Gov't work-trade to pay for Trade Schools (you work for a couple of years on Gov't Projects, and get your 2-year degree paid for) 3. University Assistance for shortage fields (wanna be an engineer, the Gov't helps you pay for that degree, wanna go into Liberal Arts - yer on yer own) 4. Healthcare system closer to the Japanese or R.O.K systems. 5. No taxes/FICA/SS taken from paychecks of the bottom 25% of earners. 6. NUCLEAR FREAKING POWER (screw that guy with the "Einstein would shit" sign! We need clean power to transition into full solar). 7. High-speed rail on new, Federally owned and maintained high-speed tracks (not commercially owned sub-100 mph tracks). 8. SPACE! We gotta go there to harvest the bounty of the belt - and in order to have a 100% solar energy economy. 9. Citizenship for undocumented aliens provided they can secure a financial sponsor who must pay their expenses, but may take them as Dependents on their taxes. They can vote and apply for benefits after 18 years (that's how long the rest of us had to wait) provided they can pass the citizenship examinations. After 18 years, their sponsor has no further responsibilities to them.
I'll probably run in 2024. Look for us on the ballot. Should be a good time for all.
Addendum 10. Prison reform. Our prisons ain't working. It's time to change course and find a system that does work. Maybe not "Full Danish", but certainly not Prisons-for-Profit.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Mar 31, 2019 19:55:41 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Mar 31, 2019 21:02:51 GMT -7
@ironnerd depends on if there is any sense of equal justice.
There isn't, republicans continually make the mistake of "whataboutism"--What about Hillary's corruption, deleting 30,000 e-mails, storing classified documents. The thing is people don't care, they are never going to shoot their own horse. They'll lie to your face about it's broken leg so they don't have to pull the trigger.
Also "collusion" as defined by the Hillary campaign and stupid people on TV is actually "Opposition research" and it's not a crime. But the Russian hackers and Jon creepy ass Podesta's e-mail hack (he fell for a phishing scheme) was wrapped up into the 'collusion' narrative to make the argument that Donald trump helped hack the democracy.
But if his son meeting Russian diplomats is 'collusion' then buying research from Russia is also. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE HILLARY Campaign did.
Again, it's not a crime. I won't hold my breath for another investigation to get hilldog on that. If Mueller didn't see anything wrong in what trump did apart from process crimes then there's no way this flips on collusion. But on the sitting president's administration spying on the opposition party? That I want to hear more about.
That said I don't enjoy many comedians any more but politics has been funny as hell. The hypocrisy is stark naked and they aren't even smart enough to pretend to hide it anymore.
Let me know when you get it started, that party platform sounds good to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2019 3:55:18 GMT -7
...But on the sitting president's administration spying on the opposition party? That I want to hear more about. Yeah. A sitting President's administration spying on the opposition candidate before and after the election. That's pretty bad stuff. That's pretty much what happened in Watergate, but at least Nixon was in the race. And Nixon did not push it this far. Several people will see that as an anti-Obama comment. It is, and it isn't. It's anti-Obama because he's the guy who appears to have done it (and if he did, we deserve answers from what was promised to be the most transparent administration ever). But far more importantly, the comment is based in a concern for the nation's future. Backsliding into a Banana Republic is pretty easy, and starts off with stuff like attempting to de-legitimize the election process. Every time someone loses an election, it will be the Democratic Process that is called into doubt. That path takes us to an end of elections, and that's the end of our experiment. Try to remember that "America" is not lines on a map, or DC, or monuments, or wars. It's people. As far as I can tell, at this point, the goal of today's Liberals and Conservatives is to drive wedges between people who would otherwise get along fairly well. "They" spend a lot of time pointing out our differences, when they could just as easily point out our similarities.
|
|