What political party do you vote with?

Indie

So you admitting that the individual (in this case the child) isn’t responsible. Others are responsible for its position; it isn’t about the individual but about wider society.

I mean if some individuals are gaining advantages they didn’t earn and others through no fault of their own are having disadvantages thrust upon them - then your individual deterministic argument seems to fall apart.

It is not the individual who can determine their outcome since the greatest effect on their life is completely out of their hands. The potential they had to determine their outcome has already been affected by their birth not by them.

So disadvantage is not an individual problem but a societal problem.

*

As to emotional arguments, I’m sorry but where are your rational or reasonable arguments, so far your main, if only argument against what I’ve presented is that ‘shit happens’ and some Social Darwinist nonsense.

 

I don't vote for a party, I vote for the person. But I would vote to have a party.

 

Empathy is but the sharing of the feelings of another, which has little if anything to do with government mandated spending of tax revenues on programs which may or may not achieve any positive results. Charity as exercised by individuals is a true demonstration of ones capacity or lack of capacity in empathy.

 

i wasn't being huffy, it is just common sense. i mean no disrespect.

in the sense that you are drawing lesser conclusions. you are making arguments based on something which could be wholly irrelevant. to clarify, basically, you are arguing a straw man.

case in point.

what argument? i've nothing to add to what you have said. i stressed ny opinion, whilst you might as well have told me what you had for dinner last night.

i fail to see the connection between the 70's, thatcher, and policies that effect the here and now of american economics. i cannot argue a moot point.

if you want to play 'like for like', talk current affairs. if there is one thing that economists, investors and politicians should learn - it is that history tends not to repeat itself.

 

Indie

I’ll ask again - why do you continue to hold onto your views?

I mean they don’t seem to stand up well to scrutiny and you are totally unable to defend them from criticism.

(Yes I know you claim you have defended them but since none has seen these arguments and you cannot say where they are or reproduce them I think it safe say they don’t exist)

So as I’ve said before it amazes me that you continue not only hold onto these mortally flawed views but seem a need to promote them.

Why?

 

IB

Could be irrelevant or is irrelevant? As to mine being a straw man argument, I’d think you’d have to explain why you believe that because the argument you have present doesn’t do that.

You claimed that Democratic Party ideology was died but what you put forward as evidence for this didn’t seem to indicate that what it did seem to show was that neoliberal ideology was at fault and as I pointed out those ideas were embraced by many political parties including those of the Democrats and Republicans in the US and the Conservative party under Thatcher (et al) and New Labour under Blair.

Meaning that the neoliberal ascendency that has been in place for the past 30 years or so is the major reason for many of the ills that have and are befalling the west at this time.

*

Again rather than get huffy why not try and explain your thinking?

I had Lincolnshire mixed herb sausages last night; it was very nice with some broccoli, mashed potatoes and gravy.

*

Again you need to calm down and think rather that going off half cocked. It has nothing to do with the repeating of history (I don’t know where you got that from).

What you seem to be trying is to proportion blame, specifically you seem to be trying to blame the Democrats.

(As I’ve said your arguments seem a bit confused, so if I’ve got that wrong please clarify)

What I’m saying is that it seems wrong to blame a particular political party when the fault seems to lay with neoliberal ideas that were embraced by a number of political parties.

*

If you don’t know about the connection between the ideas and the policies undertaken and developed from the end of the 70’s up to today I really think you would benefit from a spot of reading and study.

A good place to start would be with A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273"]A Brief History of Neoliberalism: Amazon.co.uk: David Harvey: Books

Which explains the rise of neoliberalism from the 1940’s and its impact on the present.

Here is a review
http://www.monbiot.com/2007/08/28/how-did-we-get-into-this-mess/

 

To me the goal of every society should be to try and make that society fairer and better place to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

So to me the question when voting is which party is promoting policies that are more likely to move society in that direction.

But there are several problems with this in voting in a place where there are only two major parties.

In the US you only realistically have two parties that are of the right (one centre right the other further right) so what you get is people voting for there least worst option and factions within the parties vying for a say or even control.

So while people might want to vote for say the Greens or for right wing libertarianism but when it comes down to it in a two party system they are likely to vote for the least worst option if nothing else to just try and keep out the other guy.

This also creates sub divisions within the two parties, political factions, (for example in the Republican Party there is the Christian right, the neo-cons, the libertarians, and of course even pragmatic moderates.)

Now there are those on both the right and left who honestly believe they are working for the benefits of all, but I think they are hemmed in and often block by a system that has become dominated by the interests of wealth.

This means that good policies can become so compromised and water down that any good they could make is lost.

So while I still believe that people should vote, the more important and urgent need is for the reform of the political system.

 

get your head out of your ass. i haven't been huffy, i am just disagreeing with you.

it will happen.

 

IB

Well little rants about straw dogs, what I had for dinner and the position of my head in relation to my body sure comes across as huffy.

Can you please just answer the questions and address what’s been raised? Because so far I’m not entirely sure what your position is (other than confused).

 

Yes, this is clearly necessary, but in cases such as the US where it is so clear that the wealth dominate politics and policy (even the enforcement of law - i.e. why has Goldman Sachs not been prosecuted despite the overwhelming evidence against them?) how can it be achieved? How can citizens get passed the two-party system? I tend to think one of the biggest helps would be campaign finance reform as well as how the law views corporations as individuals (recently reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court, though I believe they had ruled this before as early as the 70s) but once again, how is this possible? How can ordinary citizens reform a government that is held hostage by the rich and powerful? At the moment it seems quite hopeless.

 

McFuddy

The big problem seems to be that from the very beginning the United States of America was set up with the interests of wealth in the forefront.

It began as a property owning democratic republic that is that in many places only those of a certain property qualification could vote or hold office (only about 10% of the population). The Electoral College system was also there as a block on the popular vote (the mob) and the Supreme Count which was to be appointed by and from the political establishment was presumed to always favour that political establishment and therefore be a check on radical change.

I’ve suggested ways of curbing the influence of wealth (for example -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...7&postcount=89
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...0&postcount=90

But there would have to be a major shift in public opinion for them to be given an airing but let us say by some miracle they were voted for by a great majority of the US electorate and made into law, the political establishment would have them declare ‘unconstitutional’ by the Supreme Count.

It seems to me that it is not a matter of just getting the right person/people in government since the system itself is the problem so the question is what needs to be done to ‘mend’ the system.

How to do that is of course the question.

There are basically two ways to change revolution or education. The problem with a revolution is that in the US today the result would probably be worse given the mentality and attitudes that seem prevalent in many quarters. So it needs, I think to be education.

The groups are out there such as the FairVote organisation http://www.fairvote.org/ but others might have to be formed.

Maybe the first thing to be looked at is the Supreme Court, I’d suggest that it should have fixed terms and the appointment be taken out of the hands of the President. Maybe the President could nominate someone, Congress could nominate someone and the Judiciary could nominate someone. Then the people could decide between them in an open vote.

 

Clearly a child is incapable of being responsible for its' conception and resulting birth. Obviously others, primarily its parents, are responsible for its initial position whether they be advantages or disadvantages. The wider society is not duty bound to assume any responsibility other than that which each individual member of society freely wishes to assume.

In your opinion, of course.

So you're saying that if you are born into a poor family you are destined to remain poor as are your offspring? I think that's utter nonsense.

You may look at it that way, but I do not. A disadvantage for one which may present itself as an advantage for another is most often an individual problem. A disadvantage equally to all is most definitely a societal problem.

I could ask the same, where are your rational or reasonable arguments. Your espouse your concept of justice and fairness with an emotional appeal with the expectation of it being accepted as rational and reasonable. Life and living are endeavors requiring efforts to which some are better suited than others.

 

Indy. Just curious--are you aware of what the republicans vote for and what they vote against?

 

First off, what makes you think I am a republican? I don't vote in support of a party platform, but have sadly been left with voting for the lessor of two evils in most every election throughout my life. Third party candidates who would be more preferable usually end up allowing the greater of two evils to prevail and I'm hoping that the people will eventually gain control of the republican party forming a true opposition to the democrat party. Presently there is little difference overall between the two major parties.

 

I'm not falling for this trick again.

 

It doesn't really matter anymore both parties are full of liars and thieves. You try to vote someone new in to make a difference. They get used to the perks and the power lunches. The fat cat limos and the backroom sweetheart deals. It's all just a smokescreen....smoke and mirrors....smoke and mirrors.

The only way to bring real change will be to beat your plows into swords.

 

Indie

An assertion but what backs it up beyond your belief?

If some individuals are gaining advantages they didn’t earn and others through no fault of their own are having disadvantages thrust upon them - then your individual deterministic argument seems to fall apart.

It is not the individual who can determine their outcome since the greatest effect on their life is completely out of their hands. The potential they had to determine their outcome has already been affected by their birth not by them.

So disadvantage is not an individual problem but a societal problem.

But the thing is you don’t seem to be able to counter it other than with unsubstantiated assertion.

Not destined but it makes it much more likely just as being born rich means you are more likely to end rich. The question here is one of social mobility and we have been through that before and the US has a rather low social mobility compared to many European countries.

Try - The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

And – Economic Mobility at http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

And again we get an assertion “I think that's utter nonsense” not a rational or reasoned argument.

That’s fine but what is your rationally based counter argument?

 

Indie

If one person is disadvantaged due to their own actions then the problem may be that individual’s problem (and I’d still ask why they were having that problem).

But if many people are in a very similar position that has nothing to do with them as individuals then it is a community problem.

A condition does not have to affect everyone in a society equally to be a societal problem.
*
Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half the population. Is that a societal problem or not?

I such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community as a whole to try and do something about it.

Now say half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But the thing is since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means it could affect anyone.

 

Indie

What “concept of justice and fairness” am I promoting?

My goal, my endeavour you could say, is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Are you telling us that those goals are irrational and unreasonable that trying to have a better world is wrong?

*

There are two distinct parts to this statement – Life and living are endeavors requiring efforts – with that I’d agree and both individuals and societies should try to have goals that try to improve things and work toward them.

The next part of the statement is problematic - to which some are better suited than others.

The question being by what criteria do you make the judgement as to who is suited or not? What is a ‘good’ goal and which not?

Without knowing how you are judging who and what is better it makes little or no sense.

I mean I’ve asked you many time to tell me what you’re endeavouring to achieve but so far you’ve basically refused.

 

This is exactly the problem that I hinted at above (and have expanded on elsewhere) it is about the mentality and attitudes that seem prevalent in many quarters of the US today.

It concentrates overly on individuals, corrupt politicians and fat cats and then believes the answer to those is the threat or use of violence.

But it seems to me that the problem is the system and the question is what kind of system would replace the present one and what mentality and attitudes would underpin it.

Because many here would seem to want to replace one bad system with one that is even worse, one similar to that in place but boosted on steroids and amphetamines.