What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I know I will be called a "bleeding heart" for this, but when I look for a system I look for one that will take care of everyone equally. I think it's fine for money to be a factor in how nice of a home you have or the car you drive or the extra things you have. But when it comes to having food to eat or a place to stay or health care or police and fire department protection, those cannot be left up to chance, those have to be there and the only way to 100% make sure they are there is for them to be government run.

How is the current system taking care of everyone equally? How can such a system even exist.

Also that it is necessary for them to be government run is ridiculous, too.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I know I will be called a "bleeding heart" for this, but when I look for a system I look for one that will take care of everyone equally. I think it's fine for money to be a factor in how nice of a home you have or the car you drive or the extra things you have. But when it comes to having food to eat or a place to stay or health care or police and fire department protection, those cannot be left up to chance, those have to be there and the only way to 100% make sure they are there is for them to be government run.

Erm, the groups that provide places to eat and sleep are typically not run by the government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How is the current system taking care of everyone equally? How can such a system even exist.

Also that it is necessary for them to be government run is ridiculous, too. [/B]

How would your system insure 100% that those services are there?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm, the groups that provide places to eat and sleep are typically not run by the government.

They do receive some degree of funding from them usually.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is that not a fairly good argument against anarcho-capitalism? He refuses to tip out of selfishness and the feeling that tipping takes money needlessly out of his own pocket, in fact the other guy eventually agrees with him and attempts to take his money back. In the end the only reason the tip is left is because he's partially repaying an informal debt to the other guy. The arguments he brings up in favor of letting her go hungry and receive less than she worked for are the same one's brought up in favor of anarcho-capitalist freemarket economics "she can go get another job".

Good scene though, I'll probably go rent that.

obviously I wasn't using a scene from a fictional film to make a valid point?

I think you might also be missing the fact that Steve Buscemi's character is an *******, and his dialogue intentionally extreme. Terintiono is obviously trying to make a tongue in cheek point about market theory, making what Mr. Pink says, satire, and not a pro market capitalist point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Erm, the groups that provide places to eat and sleep are typically not run by the government.

I was talking with my girlfriend the other day about how it is amazing that church groups, out of all the groups in society, are the most willing to take in and look after the mentally and physically disabled.

We could quibble about the efficacy of sending a paranoid schizophrenic to sunday mass, but the fact that they are willing to provide that support is really admirable.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The police come to my home just as fast as they come to a person with more or less money then me. When I walk into a hospital I am treated according to the severity of my condition, not the amount of money I have.

Well, I wonder if the police in Harlem really reacts as fast as the police in some rich quarter, but I guess it's okay if it is governmental prejudice. Besides. Some people will live further away...some areas don't have the same police density as others. It's not really equal.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
How would your system insure 100% that those services are there?

My system wouldn't necessarily, I suppose. Doesn't mean government is the only system that can.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I know I will be called a "bleeding heart" for this, but when I look for a system I look for one that will take care of everyone equally. I think it's fine for money to be a factor in how nice of a home you have or the car you drive or the extra things you have. But when it comes to having food to eat or a place to stay or health care or police and fire department protection, those cannot be left up to chance, those have to be there and the only way to 100% make sure they are there is for them to be government run.

ok, but lets take canada for example

purely logistically, given how remote some areas are, police, medical and educational service cannot be guaranteed equally to everyone. In southern Ontario, one of the most densely populated areas of Canada, my grandparents have a cottage. It is in a small town, and the quickest ambulance response time is, I don't want to overestimate, so I will say 10-15 min. There are no local schools or hospitals, and a nearby provincial (re no local police) police station that only patrols on party weekends. These people pay the same tax I do, and my city has public transit, way too many police with way too much time on their hands, growing hospitals (largely donors, I must admit).

Logistics aside, we can also look at the case of native people. In this instance, it is government solely who had the ability to take away these people's rights. Stalling land claims in courts, unfair legal representation, abuses by the police, cabals between local native leaders and the state, military type tactics during protests at reserves. Something like the taking of native children and forcing them to live in white homes and get abused in underfunded specially made catholic schools is an abuse only a state is capable of.

Equality is a wonderful goal. States have a long history of being against it however

Originally posted by inimalist
obviously I wasn't using a scene from a fictional film to make a valid point?

Why was that a question?

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you might also be missing the fact that Steve Buscemi's character is an *******, and his dialogue intentionally extreme. Terintiono is obviously trying to make a tongue in cheek point about market theory, making what Mr. Pink says, satire, and not a pro market capitalist point.

I realize he wasn't being completely serious, but people can be assholes in the real world too and if they make an argument that applies to people's sense of short term selfishness they can be quite convincing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I was talking with my girlfriend the other day about how it is amazing that church groups, out of all the groups in society, are the most willing to take in and look after the mentally and physically disabled.

We could quibble about the efficacy of sending a paranoid schizophrenic to sunday mass, but the fact that they are willing to provide that support is really admirable.

Having been to church regularly for the first 15 years of my life I have to admit it never surprised me. I realize that I didn't go to one of the well known extremist gay-bashing "real christian" warhawk churches but still, that doesn't change the good things that people take from religion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I wonder if the police in Harlem really reacts as fast as the police in some rich quarter, but I guess it's okay if it is governmental prejudice. Besides. Some people will live further away...some areas don't have the same police density as others. It's not really equal.

Well here they do.

My system wouldn't necessarily, I suppose. Doesn't mean government is the only system that can.

What is another one?

ok, but lets take canada for example

purely logistically, given how remote some areas are, police, medical and educational service cannot be guaranteed equally to everyone.

Logistics aside, we can also look at the case of native people. In this instance, it is government solely who had the ability to take away these people's rights.

Equality is a wonderful goal. States have a long history of being against it however.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why was that a question?

more rhetorical impact

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I realize he wasn't being completely serious, but people can be assholes in the real world too and if they make an argument that applies to people's sense of short term selfishness they can be quite convincing.

ok, but if we extend the film metaphor, he still ended up paying because of the influence of social organizations that he voluntarily belongs to.

to extend it any further goes way beyond even the sort of superfluous use of the film I intended. The debate reminded me of the scene, and reservoir dogs is so good

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Having been to church regularly for the first 15 years of my life I have to admit it never surprised me. I realize that I didn't go to one of the well known extremist gay-bashing "real christian" warhawk churches but still, that doesn't change the good things that people take from religion.

I remember even working in group homes, largely secular and government funded. Most of my co-workers were christian to the point of my personal annoyance at some times (like a 2 hour discussion about why I should give god a try...).

That being said, they were the ones who were stepping up to do the most charitable thing they could think of.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
That's not the fault of a government run system though, that's simply an issue of greater travel time.

hence making equality of access, even in government run states, impossible.

Thus making the argument that in anarchist states there may not be equal access (which I believe is largely based on total miscomprehension of what Bardock and I have been saying) moot. We could talk about how it might differ in different systems, but I know I have said that a system that didn't provide at least as good of coverage as we have now is not desirable.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And they have apologized for it. I'm not saying Government is perfect, but I think it hits more then it misses.

which is totally irrelevant.

My point was that the oppression of native people by the canadian government is such that it would require a state apparatus to carry it out.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Which is a fault on their end. A rich person has no more right to live then a poor person does.

a) strawman
b) even in socialists systems, the rich are more equal

Originally posted by inimalist
more rhetorical impact

Oh . . . it just confused me.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but if we extend the film metaphor, he still ended up paying because of the influence of social organizations that he voluntarily belongs to.

He payed because he felt he had a debt to the person who payed for the meal.

Originally posted by inimalist
to extend it any further goes way beyond even the sort of superfluous use of the film I intended. The debate reminded me of the scene, and reservoir dogs is so good

Kay 😛

Originally posted by inimalist
I remember even working in group homes, largely secular and government funded. Most of my co-workers were christian to the point of my personal annoyance at some times (like a 2 hour discussion about why I should give god a try...).

I couldn't stand a ten minutes discussion on why I should look at god differently than I do. Can't even remember what started the conversation but it had something to do with death and mourning. We were doing a mission trip in Africa and helping with construction for a, shall we say, slightly more evangelical group.

Originally posted by inimalist
That being said, they were the ones who were stepping up to do the most charitable thing they could think of.

If nothing else religion is a good motivator (even leaving out Hell and such)

Originally posted by inimalist
a) strawman
b) even in socialists systems, the rich are more equal

Because socialism collapses due to human nature (sort of like anarchy). A truly socialist state doesn't have any rich people.

Originally posted by inimalist
hence making equality of access, even in government run states, impossible.

Besides being government run provides more oversight and accountability.

My point was that the oppression of native people by the canadian government is such that it would require a state apparatus to carry it out.

a) strawman
b) even in socialists systems, the rich are more equal

How is it strawman? What I said was perfectly true. And again I never said it was perfect but people who don't have money would be more equal to the rich then under your system.

All these political ideology like Anarchy, communism, socialism, capitalism, or even whateverthehellism just look good on paper.

When you put it into action rather than discussion you're bound to find flaws and holes all over the place.

The people who promote things like anarchy or communism can do it because they're inside a society that allows such things to be spoken. Once you actually put it into practice things will change. Eventually totalitarians will arise and you ain't going to have time to say:

"oh, but we can do it this way...." [[BOOM CENSORSHIP]]

Be happy with what we have.

Political parties do nothing but harm. The republican/democratic system is so flawed and corrupt it would be best to just scrap it.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
All these political ideology like Anarchy, communism, socialism, capitalism, or even whateverthehellism just look good on paper.

When you put it into action rather than discussion you're bound to find flaws and holes all over the place.

The people who promote things like anarchy or communism can do it because they're inside a society that allows such things to be spoken. Once you actually put it into practice things will change. Eventually totalitarians will arise and you ain't going to have time to say:

"oh, but we can do it this way...." [[BOOM CENSORSHIP]]

Lots of nonsense.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Be happy with what we have.

Why? Because it's not total shit I shouldn't be unhappy it? I shouldn't say anything? And I should propose what I think could be done better?

Again, why?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lots of nonsense.

Yet proven so consistently by history. Go figure.

Capitalism, looks great but gets completely screws over those who are prevented from taking advantage of it by the people in power.
Democracy, looks great but suffered from people being apathetic/stupid/greedy/shortsighted/opportunistic/factionalized.
Federalism, looks great but (see Democracy).
Marx/Commu/Socialism, looks great but is manipulated by the intelligent and privileged.
Anarchy, looks great gets owned by the neighbors.
Totalitarianism, looks great, works great, deemed to be inhumane and oppressive by whiners.
Feudalism, looks great but ends up screwing over those without noble heritage.
Whateverthehellism, may have looked great but now apparently remembered only by WD.
Technocracy, looks great but ends with humans as slaves.
Theocracy, looks great but produces whiners.
Utopianism, looks great but secretly evil.
Eutopianism, looks great until killed by neighbors.
Dystopianism, looks terrible but secretly even worse.

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no system is going to work even nearly as well as it "should" unless you fundamentally alter human nature and the entire sociological landscape of the planet.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I shouldn't say anything? And I should propose what I think could be done better?

You can say whatever you like. Most people will ignore you and laugh, though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yet proven so consistently by history. Go figure.

Capitalism, looks great but gets completely screws over those who are prevented from taking advantage of it by the people in power.
Democracy, looks great but suffered from people being apathetic/stupid/greedy/shortsighted/opportunistic/factionalized.
Federalism, looks great but (see Democracy).
Marx/Commu/Socialism, looks great but is manipulated by the intelligent and privileged.
Anarchy, looks great gets owned by the neighbors.
Totalitarianism, looks great, works great, deemed to be inhumane and oppressive by whiners.
Feudalism, looks great but ends up screwing over those without noble heritage.
Whateverthehellism, may have looked great but now apparently remembered only by WD.
Technocracy, looks great but ends with humans as slaves.
Theocracy, looks great but produces whiners.
Utopianism, looks great but secretly evil.
Eutopianism, looks great until killed by neighbors.
Dystopianism, looks terrible but secretly even worse.

Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no system is going to work even nearly as well as it "should" unless you fundamentally alter human nature and the entire sociological landscape of the planet.

I was referring ot "The people who promote things like anarchy or communism can do it because they're inside a society that allows such things to be spoken. Once you actually put it into practice things will change. Eventually totalitarians will arise and you ain't going to have time to say:

"oh, but we can do it this way...." [[BOOM CENSORSHIP]]", I can see that it wasn't clear though. Though, I don't think that communism looks good on paper at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can say whatever you like. Most people will ignore you and laugh, though.

Better than most people look at you strange and then avoiding you which your ideologue must cause.