What political party do you vote with?

Indie

I know that’s what you think, I’m asking you to present any rational or reasonable arguemet to back your view up. I mean what you then go on to presented wasn’t that.

*

And there are many people that claim to have been abducted by aliens. We have been through this before using self-serving apocryphal examples isn’t a rational argument. How can I or anyone else gauge the validity of your examples.

You are trying to say your viewpoint is right so there is an incentive to claim you know of ‘example’ that back up your view, the problem is that these cannot be verified or quantified.

Even if accepted they only creates more questions than answers.

What is your definition of ‘middle class’?

What kind of property and what kind of business?

Are you claiming that all penniless immigrants to the US achieve the ‘great success’ of entering the ‘middle class’?

Or are you claiming that just penniless immigrants from Asia achieve such social status?

Or are you saying that nobody you know that immigrated to the US penniless didn’t have what you see as ‘great success’?

How did such penniless people come to get a visa (a working visa) to the US?

I could go on but I think you get the idea, I’d need a lot more information before I could judge if your assertions stand up. That is why if I normally point to published research or historical examples that can be checked by anyone.

When you say that their offspring are much less successful do you mean they have fallen down the social scale and are not ‘middle class’ anymore? Have they lost the property or businesses set up by their parents?

 

Indie

I’ve said something similar -

“Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour
Quote:
What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.

Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.”

Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

*

I favour good governance where there is a balance and the interests of all are served. Those that champion ‘deregulation’ as bringing about ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ usually are only championing the self interests of one group over another. For example the ‘deregulation’ of ‘useless’ environmental laws allows the polluter to pollute more easily and increase the profits of some businesses and industries but is that in the interests of all and does it take into account the hidden costs of health problems or future clean up operations?

The deregulation and weak monitoring of the financial services sector created the mirage of prosperity and made a few very rich but it lead to an inevitable crash that has and will cost a large number of people dearly.

*

LOL so tigers, rabbits and chipmunks have functioning democracies? I must say they don’t show that on the National Geographic channel, where was David Attenborough when the koala bears were setting up their little polling booths?

If people are ‘easily’ led there is usually a reason for it, I believe in asking questions and seeing if people’s arguments stand up to scrutiny some do and some don’t. What I am wary of (and try to warn other to be wary of) those that cannot defend their ideas from criticism but demand that theirs is a ‘truth’ that people should accept unquestioningly

*

How do you define ‘Democratic Socialism’?

In what way has it “been the itinerary for quite some time now”?

I’m sorry but after long conversation with you it seems that your definition of ‘freedom’ seems to be the freedom of some to exploit others and you seem to want a society that is at liberty to allow those you see as having no value to die.

 

Not what I think, but what I was told by my friends when expressing their achievements after arriving in the U.S. compared to life expectations in their home countries.

I don't put as much faith in studies as you do.

The fact that the sub-title was changed from "Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better" to "Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger", and then again to “Why Equality is Better for Everyone” makes it obvious that the contained world view is expected to be accepted implicitly, which the sub title tells me I don't already.

One hundred percent success, really? Cost effective too?

 

Indie

On political philosophy

Far from removing yourself you have a political philosophy that you try to promote (basically a mixture of right wing libertarianism and crackpot Social Darwinism)

The problem is that it is a deeply flawed philosophy that you seem to find impossible to defend.

*

For me that is important in choosing the political philosophy I’d give may vote to, does it stand up to scrutiny?

 

That's fine, but your scrutiny doesn't stand up under my scrutiny.

 

Indie

LOL – ok I’m game - can you point out exactly where my arguments don’t stand up? You’ve repeatedly refused to do so in the past when you’ve made such claims but maybe you’ve been struck down with a case of honestly and will do so this time?

 

You seem to have the view that a society is comprised of all those who are members of the same species, and that a right exists for all to share in the production or achievement of all others with no rights of ownership. I do not, and I've never once been dishonest in stating my position to you, which obviously infuriates you. Sorry, but we are not all Socialists. Perhaps you would fare better to direct your attention to those more malleable?

 

LOL - I notice you haven’t actually been able to present where my arguments have not stood up to your scrutiny.

You’ve tried to suggest this before. It didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now, because that's not my view and anyone reading my post would quickly find that that isn’t my view.

I find your dishonesty and lack of rational argument funny rather than infuriating. And you haven’t been dishonest in stating your position (although you can be very circumspect) and often drawing you view out of you is like pulling teeth.

But the tricks you use to evade addressing what’s been said or in getting out of answering questions makes you a dishonest debater.

I know you are not a socialist (and I know socialist that don’t consider me a socialist) and I have no interests in ‘converting’ you.

What I am trying to understand is why you hold the views you do when you seem incapable of defending them from criticism?

 

The real question is why should I NOT hold the views that I do?

 

Individual. Did you check out the video I asked you to? Comments? OPB.org Frontline--'The Warning' in case my message didn't get thru. Might answer your question.

 

I don't vote for parties, I vote for people.

 

Indie

People have the right to hold any number of silly or irrational ideas to be true.

But other people by the same token have the right to point out just how silly and irrational those ideas are and to ask why such people hold so silly or irrational ideas to be true.

 

Are you referring to the video which related to Margaret Thatchers comment about Socialism and running out of other peoples money? But this is what happens when government attempts to control the economy of a nation, maintaining growth, and redistributing money it does not have. I have often wondered if the negative consequences are not intentional as they are seldom too difficult to recognize in advance, and even I have taken advantage of them on occasion. Profits are easily made in both an up and a down economy, just ask George Soros or Warren Buffett.

 

There may be some truth in what you say, however you seem to ignore the facts which exist related to the implementation of the ideas you hold to be true yet still wish to continue implementing them. Look at Greece for example, or even your home country. I'm not even sure that the debts that exist in the developed world could be reduced adequately, much less eliminated by confiscating totally the wealth held by each and every inhabitant. And starting from nothing, all being equally destitute it would be but a short time before an economy would begin to grow with some becoming more 'equal' than others.

So yes, I continue to wonder why such people hold so silly and irrational ideas to be true.

 

The American political system gives an illusion of democracy, but election laws, money, polls and media show that representative government for all of serious convictions does not exist. This horse race of a system forces people to vote for the "lesser of two evils". Most democracies around the world have some system of proportional representation for their legislative bodies. That way if a party gets 50% of the vote it gets 50% of the seats. However, if a party gets 10% of the vote it gets 10% of the seats. That protects majorities but at the same time gives voice and representation to minorities. Now that is what I call a win-win-win senario. BTW, I always vote Peace and Freedom Party.

 

That is your problem. People tell one group one thing and then tell another group something else. Parties should be strong so that people know what they are voting for when they vote for that party.

 

Indie

Once again you go for dishonest misdirection rather than honest and rational debate.

*

But what idea are you talking about because as I’ve pointed out above what you dishonestly claim are my views and ideas are far from the ideas and views I’ve expressed.

For example – “by confiscating totally the wealth held by each and every inhabitant”

I’ve never advocated the ‘total confiscation of everything from everyone’ but you seem to be dishonestly implying I do.

Can we get away form your lies about what I think and actually discuss (honestly) what I have actually presented?

And having first lied you then go on to embellish the lie – so you talk of destitution, and ruin – oh please, can you stop writing melodramatic fiction and start discussing things honestly?

But when you purposely make up silly and false views it is very easy for you to portray them as silly.

The problem seems to be that being unable to come up with any real and rational arguments with which to counter my criticism your ideas you’ve decided your only recourse is to lying.

 

Indie

You mention Greece and the UK financial problems.

Well as I’ve pointed out before and at length and in detail most of the blame for the financial crisis can be laid at the door of neoliberal ideas and policies that have dominated the thinking of the financial sector and government in the west for the last 20-30 years.

In the UK the flawed neoliberal ideas of the Thatcher era were taken up by the New Labour leadership.

In Greece there were similar moves by left and right toward neoliberal ideas. The government that was in power just prior to the crisis (2004-2009) was the “strictly neoliberal” right wing New Democracy Party. They used derivatives as a means of hiding the true level of their debts.

 

Balbus

What should I key on? "That you want to make society a better place for all"? By what means? Taking from some and giving to others? Money seems to be your main focus, those that have it are the enemy thus the cause of all problems, and those who have little or none have no future without government intervention taking from those who have most and giving to those who are perceived to have less.

That's far to Left of what I accept to be a responsibility of government. You dwell on the children, who are incapable of exercising responsibility, but it is not the government or society as a whole who bears the children, it is individuals, a single male and a single female, who you appear to feel have a right to have children without recognition of the responsibility of their action, and instead are willing to assign the responsibility to the whole of society for their irresponsibility. Neither society nor government are capable of providing a safety net for all the failures of individuals perpetually. The more government assumes in the name of society the responsibility for acts of individuals, the greater the number of individuals becomes who will shun individual responsibilities. You make use of children irrationally in your argument, using them primarily as an emotional tool.

You seem to work from the final stage of Marx "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." That is applicable to living in a commune, but not in a society made up of many societies where people are free to exercise their liberty to make choices that effect their personal lives, and that of their families, friends and neighbors.

Your desires of what a governments role in society are do not appeal to me at all. I am quite happy with a broad spectrum of individuals, some with great minds, some mindless, some with great wealth, some with little or none. But it is the responsibility of the individual not the government or the society as a whole to assume the responsibility in doing what is necessary to achieve their desires of success, and while failure can always occur, it is final only for those who accept it.

I think we've wasted enough time and space bickering over something that has always been and always will be a problem related to human kind, don't you?

On topic, I vote for which ever candidate has the greatest chance of winning who also leans furthest to the right. In the last election we had to candidates who leaned left of the middle, so I'm hoping this time around, come 2012 the Republican primaries will result in someone Right of center and get the country back on the path to recovery. The Democrat party continues to move further to the Left, so I will likely never again vote for a candidate from that party in my remaining life time.

 

as opposed to the few becoming rich from the labor of the many

oh, the democrats tried that in 2008, his name was barack obama