Discussing Socialism: Harnessing Self-Interest & Avoiding Mediocrity

[drankin]

Indeed it is bad policies, and it is driven by religion.

Different subject but, what does religion have to do with killing unborn babies? Is it only wrong to kill babies if you are religious?

 

[ShawnD]

Different subject but, what does religion have to do with killing unborn babies? Is it only wrong to kill babies if you are religious?

The definitions of human are different between atheists and religious people. Religious people think anything past conception is killing, which is why the day-after pill is a sin. Atheists look more towards the birth as being the cut off point between "human life" and "just a bunch of cells". To an atheist, the day-after pill or an abortion is more like killing the bacteria on your counter top than it is killing a human being.

 

[drankin]

Are you sure you are speaking for atheism in general? Atheism just means one does not believe in a supernatural divinity. Why would an atheist believe one particular way or another on whether a human being needs to exit it's host (mommy) to be classified as a such? It's seems to be more of a medical determination than a religious/atheistic one.

 

[Smurf]

The definitions of human are different between atheists and religious people. Religious people think anything past conception is killing, which is why the day-after pill is a sin. Atheists look more towards the birth as being the cut off point between "human life" and "just a bunch of cells". To an atheist, the day-after pill or an abortion is more like killing the bacteria on your counter top than it is killing a human being.

Okay. I'm not going to ream you out for that post because I'm pretty sure you realize you're making gross over-generalizations, and you were just too lazy to use detail, that's cool I do it too. But just so that everyone else reading this knows: Religion has nothing to do with it. Politics has forced the abortion debate into these particular camps.

 

[Smurf]

Are you sure you are speaking for atheism in general? Atheism just means one does not believe in a supernatural divinity. Why would an atheist believe one particular way or another on whether a human being needs to exit it's host (mommy) to be classified as a such? It's seems to be more of a medical determination than a religious/atheistic one.

It's not medical, it's political. During the French revolution they changed from a system of rights where you asked "what religion is he" to a system where you just had to ask "are they citizens". Now politics is evolving again and this debate is one particularly shallow aspect of it. We're asking "are they human".

 

[drankin]

It's not medical, it's political. During the French revolution they changed from a system of rights where you asked "what religion is he" to a system where you just had to ask "are they citizens". Now politics is evolving again and this debate is one particularly shallow aspect of it. We're asking "are they human".

I agree with you. Where I was going is that the issue has been so polarized based on religion that people haven't take a fresh look at it without bias. Who cares what your religious or lack of religious beliefs are. Are we talking about a human life or not? That is what is important.

I apologize for thread derailment. If anyone wants to start a thread specific to this topic, I'm in.

 

[ShawnD]

edit: comment deleted because a new thread was created

 

[russ_watters]

But those who didn't finish high school, need to be reeducated in order to complete their high school diploma. The reeducation is private and it costs about 10,000 dollars, depending on the subjects which need to be completed. Without a high school diploma (or a matriculation certificate) it is difficult to find a well-paying job and to get out of poverty.

How many times must the government give people hand-outs before personal responsibility takes over? Or do you even believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician.

How do you reconcile these conflicting ideas? How much should the government pay? How much personal responsibility should people be allowed to shirk?

 

[russ_watters]

I think that perhaps source of your amazement may be erroneous assumptions about the "core ideals" of the Democratic party.

What Clinton did was not abolish welfare, or violate any socialist value held dear by democrats.

Did you happen to read any of the opening post...? What Clinton did was widely decried by leading Democrats as being against the party ideals and was an issue taken directly from the Republican's playbook.

Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.

Social evolution is as real as biological evolution. A society is at it's peak when every individual is realizing her full potential. Each individual will more fully realize his potential when his/her basic self maintenance needs are met. Just like in the military. Each individual is provided food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and employment.

What is wrong with a civilian government providing these most basic needs to all it's citizens?

The results of the government stopping providing many of these services is clearest in what didn't happen as a result of the reform. Forcing people to take personal responsibility for their lives did not result in higher crime, higher poverty, etc. People actually will take care of themselves if forced-to! (what a bizarre concept! )

How can a government claim sovereignty if it cannot provide these most basic needs?

Where in what political theory does that question come from? It certainly was not part of the principles on which the US and most western governments that followed were founded. Most of these social "entitlements" that people now take for granted in the US were put into place in the 1930s by Roosevelt. The changes he made to the government - and mostly not for the better - were the biggest in the country's history. And much of it was unconstitutional - some laws were overturned and later "fixed" to be constitutional, but much of it was allowed by a Supreme Court that became passive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal


Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility...

 

[Smurf]

Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility...

Sovereignty when analyzing a state boils down to what's called a 'monopoly on violence'.