News What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

[Hurkyl]

Maybe I missed something, but how does not being able to move kill people? Are you saying that not having enough money to move kills people? If yes, how (give an example)? and if not, its not a right to life issue.

Just what I said: there are 10,000 people in a town, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people.


I'm not really talking about the issue of minimum wage anymore, since the debate has moved onto just what the "right to life" means.


Someone mentioned a mining town that goes bust, so let's continue with that one. The town was formed in a hot, dry, desolate, isolated location. The citizens of the town live entirely on imported food and water, because there certainly isn't enough local resources to keep them alive. (Let's ignore other things, like electricity)

The only real influx of money comes in the form of money paid to the miners by the mining corporation -- the town never blossomed to the point where it could become economically stable without the mining corporation, and very little comes from outside sources.

So, (very) indirectly, all food and water is afforded by the wages paid by the mining corporation. However, the mine goes bust and most of miners are laid off.


So, now you have a situation where there is little to no influx of money, but the only way any of these people can survive is to purchase food and drink from the outside. Obviously, this won't work for long, so the only options are move or die, and if you can't afford to move...

 

[russ_watters]

Hurkyl, that's an interesting hypothetical, but it just bears no relation to reality. The fact is, the starvation rate in the US is statistically nonexistant and unemployment is not a factor there: there are a variety of welfare programs available that make it pretty much impossible for anyone to starve to death in the US (or any other western nation, for that matter). Beyond that, even a mentally ill homeless person (a significant fraction of the homeless in the US are mentally ill) can easily feed him/herself for a long period of time via panhandling.

 

[Hurkyl]

Fortunately, I've made few (if any) claims about reality.

Remember that, for the last few posts, I've been responding to franz's interpretation of "right to life" meaning that, as long as you can breathe, the government has done its part.

 

[russ_watters]

Fortunately, I've made few (if any) claims about reality.

I know - I wasn't implying that you did, just saying that you should. This is a subject with a lot of real information behind it that we should use to form our opinions.

Remember that, for the last few posts, I've been responding to franz's interpretation of "right to life" meaning that, as long as you can breathe, the government has done its part.

I said something similar (and historically/Constitutionally, that is what it means - if you want to argue it should be broader...) - and I'm still not sure of your position. With the hypothetical, you implied the possibility of physical death - but now you seem to be saying that the "right to life" should not be limited to physical death. Could you clarify that, please?

 

[BobG]

Just what I said: there are 10,000 people in a town, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people.


I'm not really talking about the issue of minimum wage anymore, since the debate has moved onto just what the "right to life" means.


Someone mentioned a mining town that goes bust, so let's continue with that one. The town was formed in a hot, dry, desolate, isolated location. The citizens of the town live entirely on imported food and water, because there certainly isn't enough local resources to keep them alive. (Let's ignore other things, like electricity)

The only real influx of money comes in the form of money paid to the miners by the mining corporation -- the town never blossomed to the point where it could become economically stable without the mining corporation, and very little comes from outside sources.

So, (very) indirectly, all food and water is afforded by the wages paid by the mining corporation. However, the mine goes bust and most of miners are laid off.


So, now you have a situation where there is little to no influx of money, but the only way any of these people can survive is to purchase food and drink from the outside. Obviously, this won't work for long, so the only options are move or die, and if you can't afford to move...

And the solution? If the mining corporation has gone bust, it's not possible for them to do anything about it. If the mining corporation is bust and no one's working, the city's not taking in any taxes, so they can't do anything about it. There is no right to life (if there is, then at least everyone's right is violated, since even the most fortunate don't live more than about a hundred years).

There's a right to try to live without the government making it harder - in other words, if farmers do manage to scrape up enough of a crop in a bad to stay alive to the next (hopefully better) year, the government shouldn't come through and say, "The government's piece comes first - you get whatever's left over."

Or, alternatively, the government shouldn't come in and say the mining company has to pay out more money in labor than it's taking in, ensuring the company goes bust and that everyone's jobs disappear.

 

[setAI]

the right to life unquestionably means the right to food/shelter/healthcare [equal access to the limit of technology for all]- this is self evident because All Humans are RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE ANOTHER- period-

the proof of this can be demonstrated by the fact that no individual human can survive in isolation- humans are totally supported/defined/maintained by the society of humans-

while it might be temporarily convenient- or even efficient- to ignore these rights and pursue a dominion over a class of people- this will always lead to struggle that will only grow until the situation is untenable- therefore ANY and ALL socially Darwinistic ideologies end in RUIN- they cannot hold back the reaction to their actions forever-

just out of practical necessity- we humans must recognize a minimum of right for SUSTAINED life-

as the saying goes- "there but for the grace of god- go I"- over 90% of homeless people are severely mentally ill- anyone of us could go insane and end up on the streets DESPITE any sense of our own willpower and control we feel we have now- would you like to be abandoned or discarded as garbage when your time comes? or would you hope for basic health and shelter?


humans BY DEFINITION have to support each other- or they literally would not exist- let alone survive! so we have a fundamental human morality of basic SUSTAINED life for all humans- basic food/shelter and HEALTHCARE- anything less is by definition uncivilized and IMMORAL-


now- what is the best way to build a world where these minimum requirements are met?



I personally am thankful that all of these painful issues will be moot within a generation or two- all humans will soon have total control over all aspects of their physical and mental structure- an illiterate schizophrenic junky will be able to restructure there body/mind after a few days of nanotherapy into that of a healthy and brilliant economic genius or scientist or political expert- or anything they can imagine- we will have a world of only predators and no human prey to oppress or ignore any longer- perhaps new forms of artificial life will take the place of the downtrodden?

 

[russ_watters]

the right to life unquestionably means the right to food/shelter/healthcare [equal access to the limit of technology for all]- this is self evident because All Humans are RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE ANOTHER- period

Can you cite any court case, political theorist, activist organization, international organization, etc. that has ever used that definition? It seems to me that that definition is only self-evident to you.

For example, the National Right to Life Political Action Comittee deals with physical life/death only (particularly having to do with abortion and euthenasia).

For two birds with one stone, the US Constitution's right to life comes from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/242/242-sup-locke.htm :

Life: One's right to life is the right you have for everyone else not to take your life away, and it extends to having the right to be given certain things to preserve your life (i.e., to be taken care of so that you won't die). So, if I shoot you with a gun and kill you, then I have violated your right to life; and, if I see you starving in the gutter and I don't give you my extra sandwich, then I have also violated your right to life if you die as a result of my not feeding you. According to Locke, your right to life is both a negative right and a positive right. [emphasis added]

Caveat - I had said the right to life was negative. Apparently to Locke it was both positive and negative. In American law, the positive right to life varies and is not consistently applied. Ie, good Samaratin laws don't exist everywhere.

It seems like it could be true in Marxism, but I'm not sure. In any case, no Marxist government has ever existed and all moderrn democracies are based on Locke's definition.

 

[loseyourname]

as the saying goes- "there but for the grace of god- go I"- over 90% of homeless people are severely mentally ill- anyone of us could go insane and end up on the streets DESPITE any sense of our own willpower and control we feel we have now- would you like to be abandoned or discarded as garbage when your time comes? or would you hope for basic health and shelter?

You know, there's a difference between helping out a person who has no hope of helping himself and ensuring a certain minimum quality of life for everyone. You also run into the problem of violating another person's property rights when you force them to provide monetary assistance to another. I'm all for providing that assistance, don't get me wrong. Personally, I give as much as I can, limited though my resources may be as an unemployed college student. Giving, however, should not be compulsory. A person has every right to do whatever he pleases with what is rightfully his, provided he isn't using it to harm another. This seems to be the basic axiom from which our constitutional system is derived. We do reserve exemptions for children and incapicated family members, because in these cases these people are under the charge of others and are incapable of caring for themselves. But these exceptions are few and are certainly not the rule.

 

[setAI]

Can you cite any court case, political theorist, activist organization, international organization, etc. that has ever used that definition? It seems to me that that definition is only self-evident to you.

I would say it's self evidence is clear to anyone with my IQ level or above
"self-evidence" is often expressed in other terms and in the obvious structures of human society- as well as the root of Ahimsa found in all the world's religions- they try to make it seem like the noble and divine mercy of sinless people- however it is basic math:

in a world with limited resources where no individual is ever isolated- is ever non-dependent- any form of control that creates social imbalances that reduce the rights/access of a group of people will always antagonize said group- allow such an imbalance to continue and eventually class struggle will lead them to find some leverage against your interests- a morality of minimal health/food/shelter for all is an EMERGENT property of any limited environment with competing-but-co-dependant agents- because it is a necessary component of social stability for the long-term- not because it is just right and just- which it is as well-

you wouldn't have to provide the minimum of human rights or cow-tow to the poor if you had a means of absolute control and limitless resources- you would never fear a waning of your power or resources due to the reactions to inequality because all that oppose you would be powerless- but since such absolute power is currently unavailable- self-preservation indicates a set of principles we call "morality"-

 

[russ_watters]

I would say it's self evidence is clear to anyone with my IQ level or above

Uh huh... can you cite a political theorist with your IQ or above who holds the opinion? Or are you saying you are the smartest person who ever lived?

 

[setAI]

Or are you saying you are the smartest person who ever lived?

I'm only 47th

 

[ray b]

I like the old Roman system
2 leaders for one year and no second term
nobody who wants the office is considered acceptable
so no-one runs for the office

voters should qualify by taking a test at leased as difficult as a drivers test

end the stupid electoral college
or at least vote by distric not by winner take all state vote
but one man one vote is the best way

out law party line voting [one vote for every person running in a party]

 

[Smurf]

out law party line voting [one vote for every person running in a party]

Definitly, every single vote should be anonymous.

 

[russ_watters]

Definitly, every single vote should be anonymous.

I don't think you understand what he meant: All (I think) voting machines have a "straight party" button or lever you can use to automatically select all the candidates from one party. I didn't think anyone used those anymore until my roommate told me he did. I can't tell you how much that annoys me - its the ultimate in uninformed, knee-jerk voting.

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

 

[honestrosewater]

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

You would stop at ballots? What purpose do political parties serve in the US?

 

[honestrosewater]

nobody who wants the office is considered acceptable
so no-one runs for the office

Yes, compulsory service does have several benefits. The two major problems are 1) division of labor works so much better, and 2) personal freedom is more valuable.

voters should qualify by taking a test at leased as difficult as a drivers test

i.e. ignorant people shouldn't vote. I agree (sorta), but making voting rights conditional is not the way to go. Maximize education to minimize the number of ignorant people.

end the stupid electoral college
or at least vote by distric not by winner take all state vote
but one man one vote is the best way
out law party line voting [one vote for every person running in a party]

Amen.

 

[Smurf]

I don't think you understand what he meant: All (I think) voting machines have a "straight party" button or lever you can use to automatically select all the candidates from one party. I didn't think anyone used those anymore until my roommate told me he did. I can't tell you how much that annoys me - its the ultimate in uninformed, knee-jerk voting.

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

Ooh. I didn't think either the US or Canada had ever used those. I wonder if we do too then

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You would stop at ballots? What purpose do political parties serve in the US?

They fund the campaigns.

 

[Smurf]

Even more reason to eliminate them, funding should be provided by an independant source (the state?) and everyone should get equal amounts of financing so that the contenstants don't need to be backed by large corporations and/or the upper class to get any exposure.

 

[loseyourname]

He might be a bad example because he didn't win, but Howard Dean was backed mostly through small donations. He certainly didn't have any corporate support. During the primaries, anyway, I don't think any candidate receives party funding. Not that that's an argument for keeping parties in existence.

If we did abolish all political parties, though, where would the candidates come from? Would you set a minimum number of signatures for a nomination petition, and anyone that gets that number is on the ballot? What happens if you end up with 150 candidates? How could we possibly know who was the most capable out of such a large group. Any kind of public debate on the matter would be impossible.

 

[Smurf]

What happens if you end up with 150 candidates?

I think we should devote an entire thread to this. But honestly, what's better? Only hearing about 2 candidates from each party, or not being able to make up your mind between 150 of them? I'm sure we could figure out a way to eliminate a few of the contestants.

 

[plover]

I'm sure we could figure out a way to eliminate a few of the contestants.

Jousting? Chariot races? Segway races?

 

[Smurf]

All very good ideas

 

[honestrosewater]

If we did abolish all political parties, though, where would the candidates come from?

Everyone would be an independent candidate. Maybe the current laws for independent candidates would work, I don't know, but I think it does deserve another thread.
Jousting would be good. Or human chess games. Serve huge chunks of meat and it would be just like a Renaissance fair.

 

[BobG]

I don't think you understand what he meant: All (I think) voting machines have a "straight party" button or lever you can use to automatically select all the candidates from one party. I didn't think anyone used those anymore until my roommate told me he did. I can't tell you how much that annoys me - its the ultimate in uninformed, knee-jerk voting.

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

There's nothing wrong with political parties. It's the simple principle of strength through unity.

But Russ's idea of removing party affiliations from the ballots is a great one. You can't bar citizens from voting just because they pay no opinion to politics. But you can at least try to make the uninformed votes balance out so they don't influence the election.

This is especially important for local elections. Most candidates adapt to the area they hope to represent. A Western Democrat (from New Mexico, Arizona, Nebraska, for example) has little resemblance to a New York Democrat (except in Congress or as President where they have to maintain an alliance to get any of their projects passed). I've sometimes found local Democratic candidates to be a better choice than the Republican candidate - especially having lived the last twenty-some years in Repubican strongholds where ultra-conservatives can sometimes make a successful bid for office.

 

[Smurf]

Especially having lived the last twenty-some years in Repubican strongholds where ultra-conservatives can sometimes make a successful bid for office.

Yeah, wolfowitz is a b**** eh?