What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?

[justbehappy]

An unfulfilled requirement is still a requirement.

A requirement is a necessity. A requirement that is unfulfilled would make it not a necessity.

You could, with enough votes.

That scares the crap out of me...

Personally, I think individual liberties should be maximized.

:yes:

That's a good way to put it. FDR called it "equitable pursuit of happiness".

Which is why I'm okay with free education, but handouts arn't equality in my book - and pursuit and giveaways just don't go together.

The point is those jobs are necessary and aren't going to go away. Somebody has to fill them. If they're necessary to the functioning of society, then the people who fill them should, at some minimum level that I don't feel we have reached, share in the benefits of society.[/quote]
Then you disproved your point, or whoever I was applying to's? Because you/they said the opposite - that there will be no one to take them. Or maybe it was another post. Sorry I don't remember..

 

[justbehappy]

I'm assuming you mean taxes that are used for things you don't like.

Please enlighten me to why I despise them so much then since you know so much about me

There are no social programs that don't affect most people, though.

I don't know the exact requirement for all the programs, but as of 2008, 13.2% were below the poverty line. Coulnd't find 09 or 10, but I don't think it's raised to 51%.

Luckily for you you've never had to use them, but that doesn't mean you never will. You might never have to use car insurance either, but it's still helpful to have.
It cannot be helpful to people that will not use it.

Your explanation was insufficient. You're welcome to try again, though.

What specifically did you disagree with?

Yes, it is. The direct benefit is a better society to live in.

That's not a direct benefit.
Say you're standing in a crowd of people and you throw a boomerang. For things like roads for example, you're paying taxes toward them (throwing) and you get to use the roads (the boomerang comes back to you.) With social programs, you're throwing the boomerang and it lands somewhere in the crowd. Now, we're responsible adults, and we don't need a fricken boomerang, so we can take joy in the fact that some kid probably now has it (richer giving money to people who need it more). But why couldn't we just give it to the kid ourselves, rather than throwing it out and hoping it actually gets to a kid (private organizations for the needy rather than going through the government). Or maybe I wanted to keep it, for my kid (financial choice.)
Maybe you should try a different example that is actually analogous to the situation we're talking about.[/quote]
It was pretty out of the box and stupid wasn't it? But that's what could happen if we let the government decide what is responsible of us to do and not do.

 

[justbehappy]

Also (slightly off-topic here), is it possible to say that the Military is Socialist? 'Cause the taxpayers have to fund it and it's a national force etc.

If the military was Socialist than all basic programs would be Socialist (school, fire, police, roads, etc). Plus, don't all (civilized) countries have a military?

 

[Sunstone]

If the military was Socialist than all basic programs would be Socialist (school, fire, police, roads, etc). Plus, don't all (civilized) countries have a military?

Don't be in denial. The military is indeed socialist. That's just a fact.

 

[justbehappy]

Don't be in denial. The military is indeed socialist. That's just a fact.

Just because it fits into the philosophy doesn't make it Socialist. You could just as easiy say that is Democratic because the people want it.

 

[Sunstone]

Just because it fits into the philosophy doesn't make it Socialist. You could just as easiy say that is Democratic because the people want it.

The military is socialistic because its means of production are owned by the people and not privately owned. That is the very definition of socialism.

 

[Smoke]

A requirement is a necessity. A requirement that is unfulfilled would make it not a necessity.

I think you'll find, if you're ever under water for any significant time, that the fact that your requirement for oxygen is unfulfilled doesn't make it any the less a necessity.

 

[justbehappy]

The military is socialistic because its means of production are owned by the people and not privately owned. That is the very definition of socialism.

You are not seeing what I'm saying. It can fit under under many government's. And that's why so many countries have it. I don't see how it's any more Socialistic than Democratic. In a Socialist country, it is Socialist. Here, it's Democratic. I think you can only define something as something other than the counry's government system if it goes against the government system.

 

[justbehappy]

I think you'll find, if you're ever under water for any significant time, that the fact that your requirement for oxygen is unfulfilled doesn't make it any the less a necessity.

Good point, but I also do not see social programs as a necessity (at least not in the way they are done).

 

[Sunstone]

You are not seeing what I'm saying. It can fit under under many government's. And that's why so many countries have it. I don't see how it's any more Socialistic than Democratic. In a Socialist country, it is Socialist. Here, it's Democratic. I think you can only define something as something other than the counry's government system if it goes against the government system.

Your point is irrelevant. The military is not made socialist or not by virtue of which system of government runs it. The military is made socialist by virtue of who owns its means of production. That is a different matter than which system of government runs it.

 

[justbehappy]

Your point is irrelevant. The military is not made socialist or not by virtue of which system of government runs it. The military is made socialist by virtue of who owns its means of production. That is a different matter than which system of government runs it.

How else would you define something then? If it fits under many governments - which it does

 

[Sunstone]

How else would you define something then? If it fits under many governments - which it does

It simply does not matter how many systems of government can accommodate militarys. None of that makes any difference at all as to whether a military is socialist. Instead, it only matters who owns the military's means of production. If the people own the means of production, the military is socialist. If a king or a private contractor privately owns the military's means of production, then the military is private. I don't think you have been able to understand that, so I think we should just agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the reactions regarding the NHS - during the Healthcare Reform debate the British media showed lots of footage of crowds protesting how much the US didn't want a UK style NHS... but there is an anti-american bias in the UK media, if the UK media have a choice between showing us a reasonable well informed New Englander offering a balanced opinion or some nutter telling us that Stephen Hawking moved to the US because he'd have died in the hands of the NHS, they'll always go for the latter! (this actually happened, Hawking sent a letter of protest to the editor who printed this)

Re Labour's investment in the NHS I'd agree with both of the above, their investment in infrastructure was much needed and made a big difference, unfortunately they also hired new managers and administrators at 4 times the rate as new clinical staff and massively inflated the costs of running the thing...

 

[justbehappy]

It simply does not matter how many systems of government can accommodate militarys. None of that makes any difference at all as to whether a military is socialist. Instead, it only matters who owns the military's means of production. If the people own the means of production, the military is socialist. If a king or a private contractor privately owns the military's means of production, then the military is private. I don't think you have been able to understand that, so I think we should just agree to disagree on this one.

I see your point, but I still think it falls under the government it's a part of if the government allows it in their system.
I agree, case closed but unsolved I guess.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would ban people who frequent Religious forums like this...
from making any decisions about Government.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Governments only get elected by spending vast amounts of money.
Your Law makers buy the right to govern you.

It is not about philosophy any longer
It is about Ownership of people and resources.

The Laws and taxes are not chosen to benefit you...
They are chosen to benefit those prepared to pay the lawmakers and those that control them, most.

 

[Magic Man]

Please enlighten me to why I despise them so much then since you know so much about me

If that's not what you meant, you need to be clearer with your words.

I don't know the exact requirement for all the programs, but as of 2008, 13.2% were below the poverty line. Coulnd't find 09 or 10, but I don't think it's raised to 51%.

And yet all of those social programs affect most of the people, as I said.

It cannot be helpful to people that will not use it.

First, yes, it can. Second, even if you don't use the service directly, it's still helpful to you, just as insurance is.

What specifically did you disagree with?

Your explanation.

That's not a direct benefit.

Yes, it is.

 

[Magic Man]

I see your point, but I still think it falls under the government it's a part of if the government allows it in their system.
I agree, case closed but unsolved I guess.

This is very simple. A military is a socialist idea. Many governments use it, but it's still socialist in nature. If it fits the definition of a socialist idea, then it's a socialist idea. I find it especially funny that you, of all people, want to deny this, since you accuse liberals of becoming more socialist and wanting more socialist policies.

 

[doppelganger]

Just because it fits into the philosophy doesn't make it Socialist. You could just as easiy say that is Democratic because the people want it.

The options are not "socialist" or "democratic" are they?

"Socialism" is usually a reference to economics and refers to a manner in which resources are shared. What do you mean when you use that term?

"Democratic" by contrast is usually a term that refers to the legitmizing system for political power - where the people vote on the actions of the government, or in the case of a democratic republic, vote for purported representatives who then vote on the actions of the government.

So in usual parlance, "socialist" and "democratic" are not mutually exclusive. You can have things that are both socialist (resources and risks are shared for the mutual benefit of all) and democratic (how they are used is determined by some popular vote of the people).

Usually, the opposite of "socialist" is "capitalist" with every economy in the world falling someplace along a spectrum between the two. And the opposite of "democratic" is "autocratic" (which in turn can take several forms including "dictatorships," "military juntas," "absolute monarchies," etc.).

Since the U.S. military is funded through mutual contributions and operates ostensibly for the defense of the people generally, it is a "socialist" institution in the economic sense. The process by which decisions are made about how the military is used is determined under the rules of a "democratic" republic.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Military predate Socialist Ideas by Millennia.

The earliest military would have been tribal collectives. Money was not involved, it was resourced by the individuals.

Later Warlords and Kings Created armies, both volunteers and conscripted. these again worked on collective principals, from groups of vassals.

Armies have always been collectives with common interests even when augmented with hired mercenaries.

Politically they may be of any political persuasion.