Social Issues vs. Economics

In this country, we call that the First Amendment. Have fun.

 

I'm not sure about Brits but this unfortunately is a common American trait.

 

When the economic issues are not allowed to become major problems social issues are much more easy to deal with, and if social issues are dealt with rationally they do not create major unsolvable economic issues.

 

Haven't been on Hipforums for a while sorry, this thread is a bit of a mess now so i'll try and reply as best I can without writing pages.

No governments (in recallable history) have been anything but bad. I'm not saying power corrupts but it attracts the already corrupt or the weak and corruptable. You'd have to make a system full of strong good people that didn't reach beyond it's grasp that wasn't open to influence by corrupt people and stayed that way forever. Better chance of getting alchemy to work. To say that people are inherently bad and selfish so they must be ruled by people is a non-sequitur.

What is generally percieved as right and wrong isn't actually right and wrong, to claim otherwise is argumentum ad populum. I haven't found it overly difficult to shrug off the ethcis I was raised with (catholic) or various others. The realization that all morality is relative and subjective is very liberating and means they're all equally invalid.

Where?

Because monopolies (other than natural monopolies,which are a completely different thing) are only formed through corporate personhood, monopoly-inducing regulations and a tax system made deliberately complicated so as the country can become a tax haven to those the government decides to enrich. All due to government interference. You keep asking me where I get facts from about free markets, yet you have a lot of your own that you're pulling ouut of the air, it's a double standard.

It's been explained plenty of times to you, and not just by me or in this thread. So no, actually starting taking in posts and i'll start bothering.

Semantics. You're still paying for it.

No shit. But the US isn't anywhere remotely close to a free market.

Then you know absolutely nothing about the libertarian ideal. You're still free to form a community chest for services, just voluntarily. Taking peoples money through coercive force and putting it into a pot isn't justifiable. The ends don't justify the means.

That's the difference between the two. In a libertarian country social democracies are still allowed to form of their own will. In a social democracy a libertarian community is now allowed to form.

It becomes increasingly difficult when he just states random opinions, ignores the refutation completely and then implies that he's right because no refutation has been offered.

It's nothing but trying to justify an appeal to authority. You're wrong. It is a logical fallacy and makes the point fallacious and invalid. Accept it and move on.

Sorry this reply took so long balbus, been busy and forgot about this place.

 

Gedio

LOL – that’s ok, you’d be amazed at the amount of people that seem to get annoyed if I don’t reply straight away, but as I always tell them, I do have a life outside of hipforums.

*
thing is that all known human societies have had some form of governance, from the elders and meetings of hunter gather societies through to chiefs, kings, republics, councils and parliaments. All such governance can be shades of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ to say that you are not even trying to strive for better governance would seem to imply you don’t care if the governance is good or bad.

So to you there are no shades no redeemable qualities in having any form of government?
So you’d want anarchy total lack of government, has that ever existed?
And within this ‘anarchy’ you still have a monetary system where power and influence would be dictated by relative levels of wealth?

Sorry Gedio but that’s what I said that what’s perceived to be ‘right’, ‘just’ and ‘acceptable’ at any one time can change, in other words there isn’t a definitive and everlasting ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ that the values can change. I think you need to read the posts a bit more carefully.

So you are totally devoid of any ethics or morality and have been able to shrug off ALL the influences that the society you grew up in may have attached to you – how do you know?
But history has shown that unregulated markets are unstable and a society that doesn’t protect people from exploitation limits the majority of peoples freedoms.

Have you read any books on the industrial revolution?

The unregulated factory system?

The slave based plantation system?

Do you want me to suggest some books?

Since there never has been a ‘free market’ how do you know this?

Thank you - you make my point for me there never has been and for the reasons you and I have set out there never will be one.
The problem isn’t so much ‘government’ but the capture of governance by the interests of wealth.
That influence can be countered or allowed – I’d wish to counter it, you it would seem would allow it (even increase it).

Try reading - Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

I mean the great flaw in the theory that in a system where there is no government (or weak governance) but where wealth’s power was intact is that wealth would just create a plutocracy.

Well please put up a counter argument all you have done so far is say I’m wrong but that’s not a rational counter argument.

LOL please don’t get huffy because you’re unable or unwilling to put up a counter argument, and if you believe ones have been given then if shouldn’t be too difficult to point one out, now would it?
No I pay into a community chest we all pay in and we often pay in a differing rates, I am helping to pay for other people’s children to be educated just as someone is helping to pay for my child’s education

I’m not saying I don’t, so how can that be semantics? All I’m pointing out is that I’m not paying for it alone, which would be more likely under a right wing libertarian system. Again why these silly little attacks, that have little or nothing to do with the discussion?

the OECD report on the NHS indicated it was good value for money especially compared with the US.

Again you make my point for me – there was opposition to a US style NHS and a more ‘free market’ approach was argued for which became corrupted by financial interests.

Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

As far as I can tell the right wing libertarian idea is that people would have to pay directly for their child’s education. No community chest just ability to pay would dictate the level of education received

What about right wing libertarian ideas?

So ‘government’ cannot raise taxes for anything, the military, the judiciary, the police would all be privately funded and owned?

But right wing libertarian and free market ideas would mean that wealth would have so much power and influence that they’d dominant society and so run it in their own interests not that of the majority.

Are posters on these forums somehow obligated to answer your questions or respond to your “criticism”?

LOL again don’t get huffy just point out where these supposed ‘refutation’ you claim exist are, I’d be very happy to see and discuss them.

 

RNC and DNC offer a few puppets for the American people select from and we (americans) call that democracy?

Does anyone believe in this “representative” form of government?

Haven’t you heard? According to the US supreme court restrictions on corporate expenditures in elections violate the First Amendment protections of free speech.

Seriously, whose interests do you think are being represented?

 

Like most of the guys here, you are assuming that all people "know" that economic issues are the only ones that anybody cares about. This kind of attitude explains why the Republican Party doesn't give a rat's ass about women. We are 52% of the US population, god damn it!!!

In the latest polls, the gender gap is 19%, more than any successful presidential candidate has ever been able to overcome. For Romney, his extreme lack of understanding of women and what the majority of us care about most deeply is going to be political suicide for him, and for his party in general. Pathetic as it is, it won't upset me to see him get his ass handed to him on election day.

If not even one person here understands why tens of millions of American women find Republican social policies to be completely and utterly unacceptable in every way, then I'm wasting my time posting here. No matter what you think of the current two party system, it is going to put somebody in office in November. And you need to care who it is, unless you have plans to move to another country. It's not hip to be completely out of touch with reality, or to be a sexist.

 

Just what do the 'majority of women' care about most deeply?

 

ha, Libertarianism? More like barbarianism. Earth Revolves around money, so it's expected to value greed more. This in it's own has destroyed the Natural Social behavior. I can guarantee that when currency was invented the death rate went up by about 99% :devil:

Your question is kind of hard to answer, because well everything is no longer natural it's now brainwashed. And to be frank I am inclined socially to hate politics, how many people do you know personally that are political activists or left wing expressionists? Really, we are so controlled we don't know we are controlled. Each state should emancipate and start a commune.... That would solve most of the issues today...

 

The poll results are online, if you care to look them up. We care deeply about equal pay for equal work, and the right to control our own pregnancies, including birth control, without having to deal with complicated restrictions set up by men or male-dominated organizations.

Most of us thought these issues were settled a generation ago. Now the Republicans seem to think it's all up for debate again. :willy_nilly: Some are even questioning the value and wisdom of mothers working outside the home! This takes us all the way back to square one.

The majority of women also favor public education over private school choice, and affordable health care, and we don't worry much that big companies and the ultra-rich are paying too much in taxes, while we are paying too little. (Yes, that last point is economic, but partly social.)

Women favor advanced education, and government cuts to college scholarship money impact women much more than men. As recipients, they outnumber men by a large percentage.

Sexual preference is not technically a women's issue, since there are more male homosexuals than lesbians, but we do tend to be much more compassionate than men about respecting the sexual preferences of those who are different from us. This is another huge issue where the two big parties are worlds apart.

Mitt Romney says that he regularly talks to his wife to find out what American women are thinking. In other words, he can't even publicly pretend that he cares what we think. He has to delegate that task to someone else, who has always lived a life of privilege, completely disconnected from the life experiences of ordinary women, with a staff of personal servants to make her life easy. Obama has never claimed that his wife Michelle is an expert on such issues, even though she once had a demanding career.

Classic quote from Salon editor Joan Walsh:

I want a President who doesn't talk about women as if we were visitors from an alien planet. He has nothing to say to us; nothing to offer, except to conservative religious women who believe that men should always be in charge of everything important. Of course, religious women have nothing to fear from free choice in all things, since that allows them to follow their own consciences.

If you have read anything at all about the hippie movement of the 1960's, then you know that one of their fundamental values was equality of the sexes, as opposed to the patriarchal system promoted by the status quo political system of that era and by organized religion. These values ended up getting adopted largely by the Democratic Party, not the GOP. While the Democrats don't do a perfect job of putting them into practice, we have to keep in mind that the next President and the next congress is going to come from one of these two parties. That's the reality we have to deal with, like it or not. Republican victory is the worst case scenario for women who love freedom.

 

Before Citizens United, it was undisputable that corporate influence distorted our political process. After Citizens United, with over a trillion dollars in corporate money available for misuse in elections, it is hard to dispute that the Court has broken our democracy.


The Court’s action dramatically dilutes the vote and the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury. The decision unleashes billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections.


http://freespeechforpeople.org/

 

^^^ Truth

 

I don't pay much attention to polls as they are usually written to produce the results most desired, or leave one to pick from a limited choice of answers.

Putting that aside, I agree with much of what you stated, although I don't look at things as being aligned with the Democrat or Republican party nor do I feel that many of the issues should be approached with such minute detail at the Federal level of government. The biggest problem with our two party political system is that it limits our choices to one of two over how an ever growing number of issues will be tended to, leaving us to concentrate on which issues we consider most major until the point the minor issues are made to become major ones. This is how our freedoms are diminished gradually and inconspicuously by most.

 

Money is used to purchase things, and wherever desirable things are made available for purchase it will be put to use. The more powerful our government is over us, the more it attracts those who wish to and can afford to make purchases, hence the NEED for the Federal government to be held to the powers given by the Constitution, as originally intended with changes NOT through interpretation by the appointment of Justices based upon their political and social agenda, but only by amendment as allowed by BOTH the people and the States.

Ideally, there should be but one interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments.

 

Karen

I’m passionate about nearly everything many people here call ‘social issues’ and it is for that very reason that I’m very conscious of what people call the economic issues (and economic outlook) that are needed to provide or support for such things.

For example -

Equal pay

I agree but this is very much have an economic aspect and very much what kind of economic policy you follow I mean it would be very much against a neoliberal approach where the ‘free market’ decides.

Birth control

Again I’m very much in favour but once again this has economic aspects, some of the best ways to achieve this is through – education – universal access – and equal gender rights all can have a cost attached and how (or if) that is provided can be dictated by what kind of economic policy you follow.

Public education (including higher education)

One of the major (if not the major) corner stones of democracy. Without good education it is unlikely you’ll get good governance. To me it would be free and start early from kindergartens to adult education schemes. But again a person’s economic approach can colour just how they think the best way of supplying ‘good education’ can be achieved. I mean many on the right have a rather Social Darwinist approach toward this subject.

Affordable health care

But what is meant by ‘affordable’ often it can be dictated by a persons economic ideas. For example a universal healthcare system free at the point of delivery like the UK’s NHS is attacked by neoliberals as ‘unaffordable’ socialism.

Gender rights

At first this wouldn’t seem to have a economic angle, but there can be differing approaches to this issue that can be passive or active in style. I‘d favour an active approach that would involve some degree of financial support.

Taxation

Well….

 

Yes the one that conforms to your extreme right wing viewpoint.

Oh indie you are a hoot.

 

I realize that every political issue has both social and economic consequences, but those seldom divide up precisely at 50%, so I have no problem with grouping issues for convenience in conversation. If I call something a social issue, that only means I think its social impact outweighs its financial impact. Politics is such a complicated subject that we need some broad categories to help us manage things. I don't think those categories have any significance beyond their practical use.

Fortunately, birth control and sex education are almost always far cheaper than the medical costs of pregnancy and birth, not counting lost productivity during maternity leave, or various other negative consequences of increasing the population by one. And in most cases, the same health insurance plan or government agency ends up picking up much of the tab for the child's health care for at least 18 years. Reliable birth control is one of the most cost-effective investments you can make in the world of health care.

Opponents of birth control in this country almost always rely only on religious arguments. It's nearly impossible to make the financial side of it look bad.

A proposed new state law in Arizona would require employer health insurance to cover birth control pills only in cases where a doctor has determined that they are needed to address a medical condition. This would represent a fundamental change in the way that decisions are made about medical spending; a new low in personal freedom for women, for this generation. Company presidents and owners are not claiming a significant financial burden, but citing a moral obligation to prevent any of their funds being used for a purpose disapproved by the Pope. This runs counter to the right of religious freedom for employees.

In this country, an absolutely free market is a neoconservative cornerstone. Liberals are very much aware that the free market gave us decades of racial segregation, severe oppression of laborers, etc. as employers pressed a "divide and conquer" approach to maximum advantage.

...which is a great mystery to me, because only a small minority of Republicans have the means to send their kids to high quality private schools. The wealthy who reap a competitive advantage are too few in number to swing a state-level election.

Some of the wealthiest leaders may think that a stupid and uninformed population is more easily manipulated and controlled, but they may discover at some point that they have built a Frankenstein's Monster which is going to turn on them and tear them to pieces.

Considering where we are right now, I think we would be wise to stick to working on basic gay rights issues that have little or no economic impact. Homosexuals are penalized in so many different ways in this country. We need to remove some of the antiquated laws that are more easily changed before we tackle the bigger challenges.

Unfortunately, we're still creating more problems. Some Southern states are currently tweaking their regulations on banking, insurance, housing, education, etc. to make life miserable for gay couples. A lot of that has been going on in my state. These Tea Party legislators ran on platforms of economic reform and spending cuts, but they seem to never miss an opportunity to change social policy in homophobic ways.

 

Citizens United vs. FEC is unleashing billions of dollars in corporate money to dominate legislatures and elections. Legislators are returning the favors by drafting legislation catered to their corporate task masters. The corporations often have multi-national interests.

Did the most conservative US Supreme Court in decades uphold "original intent" in Citizens United with respect to their decision that restrictions on corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment's protection of Free Speech?

The Bill of Rights are rights guaranteed to all US citizens, however in 1819, the Supreme Court recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts (Dartmouth College vs. Woodward), hence the birth of Corporate Personhood.

Was the original intent of the Bill of Rights to guarantee rights to corporations or citizens?

 

We would be best served if the Federal government confined it's activities to no more than the creation of laws of protection where found needed. Social and economic issues can be so broadly interpreted as to what they encompass making it difficult, if not impossible to discuss rationally at the National level. As I've mentioned before, the 16th and 17th amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act have made the general population and the States more or less irrelevant as to how we are governed.
Perhaps a careful reading of the Constitution, observing the effect the 16th and 17th amendment had in empowering the Federal government over the people and the States and the consequences of allowing the Federal government to tax individuals directly in order to redistribute portions of that revenue and some additional borrowed back to the States with strings attached.
To me, it would make more sense to focus primarily on the economic issues as the social issues cannot be solved by simply accruing greater debt, which government and the Fed compensate for by devaluing our currency, causing prices and the cost of not only the social programs but all costs to rise, which in turn allows the rich to become more rich with no benefit at all to the poor and stagnation of the working middle classes. Presently, most every level of government in the Nation is indebted beyond their means, with some incapable of recovering without outside help, which without making the changes necessary would only help temporarily.

 

Corporations are owned by citizens, and labor unions, also active politically are comprised of citizens, and it is also true that they each contain some who are not citizens. Politicians can and have been bought by many ways other than campaign contributions, and as long as the power they are capable of wielding is unlimited by the general population, those with money will continue to take advantage of the situation for their own benefit.