[Tieowbeijas]

No it's not parole, they simply get let out for a while and then get put back in, if the convict did something really serious (like murder) then they often have someone with them to make sure they don't run of.

Stupid was just bad wording on my part, a better word would be... "bad".

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by aldo_14

So the right to life isn't a sacred right.
 

Only when you're unborn...

[vyper]

Nooooo! STFU! Please for the love of god don't bring that into it...

[StratComm]

I say we merge all of the abortion threads from the start of the forum until now into one, and see if the vBB code can take it.  My money is on the thread breaking.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor

Yes, but I am not and should not be obliged to do the right thing. There is not law that says you have to be a nice guy. If you want to take all your money and make it up into a big pile, it's your money so it's your choice..

By that statement, we should all live in anarchy; no government, no police, and soforth.

Taxation is a part of the society we choose to live in (the choice being in terms of what humanity has evolved its society & culture to be); the reward system of taxation is simply the continued existance of such a society, albeit with it's inherent faults intact.

Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80


Only when you're unborn...

Not really relevant or applicable here.

Abortion is an issue of defining what is (the beginning of, specifically) life, not what constitutes staying alive (and even that has to be weighed within the context of what could be defined as the maximum expectation of treatment).

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Tieowbeijas
But high taxes don't have to equal good everything, just take Sweden.
We have an effective tax rate of ~50%, first 30% comes off your salary, then everything you buy have some tax on it, that I can't remember the english word for it, that usually is 25%, some stuff like food and "culture" (books and crap, might even include video games "soon") have lower whilst alchohol and tobacco have much higher.
Still we have awfull eldercare in most places, schools are crap in the bigger cities, there are too few police officers (in the "county" I live in we have no full time police, just one guy who is here two days per week, the "county's" population is around 10 000) and we have had major cutbacks on our military (not saying that this is a bad thing, since the russian ain't a problem these days).

But the health care is pretty good here, 'cept for dental care which costs an arseload since they changed the insurance system for it. You used to pay ~20% of it yourself whilst insurance (that you get from the state) covered the rest, now it's the other way around and it makes it pretty damned expensive to go to the dentist if you don't have a job title of "CEO" or something else that grants insanely high salary.

As far as I understand it...I think it was Sweden who beat out Canada for several years in a row now as the best place in the world to live which included things like healthcare and general health of the population.

And we have what you have too...big taxes on income and big sales tax.  The provice gets a cut and the government gets a cut.  The Canadian government gets GST 7% (goods and services tax) and Ontario government takes PST 8% (provincial sales tax).  PST varries per province.

All originally ment to be temporary short term things that have lasted for years and years.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kosh
That is a complete contradiction.

Social health may put a "burden" on you, but isn't lending a helping hand to others in need one of the best things that a human being could do?

Let me put it another way, how would you feel if you were that poor "schlub"? I doubt you would feel very good if you lost your house to pay the hospital bills.

It is a contradiction. Life is full of them. I admit there's a contradiction and yet I still believe both things. Wilde once said, "The wise contradict themselves." Likewise, F. Scott Fitzgerald observed, "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." I don't know if I'm wise, but I know I can still function.

On "Best Things":
One of the best things a human being can do is look up at a helping hand and say, "No thanks, I have the strength." Likewise, lending a helping hand is a wonderful thing. On the other hand (the one not on loan, I guess) requiring that someone lend a hand, demanding that someone co-opt his labor for the benefit of anyone else is not "one of the best things that a human being can do." Do you see the difference? I might choose to give aid, but I should never be REQUIRED to give aid. When you REQUIRE me to give aid, you've taken my choice and the product of my labors: you've robbed me.

On Feeling:
It doesn't matter how I 'feel' about not being able to pay my hospital bills. I incur debt, I must meet it. Its my responsibility. Not yours. Not my mother's. Not your sister's. Not Aldo's little dog Skippy with the one bad leg and gimpy eye. Mine. Only mine. I won't 'feel' very good, but that doesnt matter a rat's ass.

Imposing societal obligation based on "feelings" leads to all sorts of stupidity.

Originally posted by aldo_14

I don't think you can really take responsibility of a random event like illness or accident.  Under a system of paid healthcare, it means you need a vast amount of money just because of what might happen next time you step outside the door.  

My point is that you can't take responsibility for the illness, but you can take responsibility for the treatment.

I really do agree with you, though, Aldo, as I was trying to explain to Kosh above. I doubt he'll get it though.

[Kazan]

all irrelevant mik

that "required helping hand" helps keep capitalism stable

[mikhael]

I respond in kind: you're wrong.

[Kazan]

except not

those "required helping hands" keep the wealth disparity and poverty rates from rising above levels which would destablized the economy.  Under the current jackasstrations tax cuts which overwhelmingly favor the top 1% the wealth disparity is rising alarmingly while simultaneously the national debt is balloning faster than ever before.

There wouldn't be a problem with social security if the budget was left balanced - part of the 'debt' is us borrowing from ourselves: from the SS trust fund.

[Bobboau]

kneecapping corporations when they directly atack the competition rather than out pompeteing them, keeps capitolism stable. getting corperate cash out of the government keeps capitolism stable. takeing my hard earned paycheck and spending it on things I don't want, does not keep capitolism stable, it changes capitolism into socalism, and socalism is crap.

[Kazan]

bobboau: you're half right

pure socialism is crap
pure capitalism is crap

you _have_ to help out those who cannot help themselves otherwise the system does become unstable [crime rate ++, etc]

and helping out the left fortunate isn't socialism - learn the definition of the ****ing word http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=socialism --- i'm sick and tired of otherwise intelligent people throwing around the words "socialism" and "communism" for any program they don't like just because it helps out other ****ing people

don't be so ****ing greedy.


You REALLY want to lower you taxes? let's bring back the late clinton years - after he had worked out a balanced budget - and AMMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE A BALANCED BUDGET IN ALL BUT EMERGENCY SITUATIONS and then once the debt is paid off we can cut a lot of taxes while simultaneously increasing socialprograms - and still have a surpluss of cash

even better
a) become a net creditor
b) make the military spend efficiently

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Bobboau
takeing my hard earned paycheck and spending it on things I don't want, does not keep capitolism stable, it changes capitolism into socalism, and socalism is crap.

Your cash is spent on things you may not want with the understanding that someone else's cash will be spent on something you do want. That's what we call a society.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Your cash is spent on things you may not want with the understanding that someone else's cash will be spent on something you do want. That's what we call a society.

DING DING DING - We have a winner!

[redsniper]

[Seinfeld]You know, I pay all these taxes but the only public services I really use are the post office and the lines on the road. So basically, I pay all this money just so I can mail letters and drive straight.[/Seinfeld]

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Kazan
except not

those "required helping hands" keep the wealth disparity and poverty rates from rising above levels which would destablized the economy.  Under the current jackasstrations tax cuts which overwhelmingly favor the top 1% the wealth disparity is rising alarmingly while simultaneously the national debt is balloning faster than ever before.

There wouldn't be a problem with social security if the budget was left balanced - part of the 'debt' is us borrowing from ourselves: from the SS trust fund.

Much better. your prior post made an assertion with no backup.

Now, you may wish to go back and reread what I said, you seem to be missing my point as much as Kosh.

[mikhael]

Greed is good. Selfishness is good. There's nothing wrong with being greedy.

[Bobboau]

it is socalism if it's forced, if you have no choice. if wealth is redistributed to others who get it for no other reason than being born.

now, it might not be very nice sounding, but if someone else is incapable of suporting them selves, it isn't my problem (or it shouldn't be, currently I have no choice in the matter). if they are driven into crime and are imprisoned for the rest of there lives, if they starve, if they get hurt and bleed to death on the streets, it isn't nice, and I'm sure they don't like the situation, I wouldn't if I was them, but it's not my problem. I will not suport loosers, and if I find myself as a looser, I will not accept forced help. if the people who cannot  suport them selves are allowed to fall, we will be better as a whole, but if you take from the healthy to keep the weak alive and consumeing, we are going to colapse. I ask, you, what would likely happen if you took a population of some animal, and for an extended period of time took resouces from those who were able to gather them and gave it to those who were incapable or unwilling? for someone who beleives so strongly in evolution, you have supriseingly little faith in it. as a theory you know it has some qualities, one of wich is you can make predictions, what happens if you take resouces from sucessfull organisms (ones wich devote energy to gathering what they need and useing it apropriately) and give it to unsuccessful ones (wich have a net loss of resouce gathering potential)?
I think it set's up an environment wich selects for organisms wich do not devote effort to gathering there resources and become dependent upon the redistributeing force (you or in the case of people socalistic governments (sevrices)) to survive the redistributeing is dependent upon the productive members of the population wich are being selected against, because they are useing energy for no to little (or at least less) gain. eventualy the dependent group will totaly deplete the productive capacity of the productive group makeing it a net loss to be productive, and a net gain to simply consume and devote all energy to reproduction (because you don't need to do anything else), so the producers will be forced to either become consumers or work themselves into exstinction. the population becomes entierly consumer, and is dependent upon the redistributeing force, wich now has nothing but a net loss to distribute, the system will either colapse or the redistributine force will have to start forceing people to work, telling them what to do and how, and when.

currently I could probly have a higher income if I simply sat on my ass and colected unemployment, do you have any idea how demoraliseing this is? and do you have any idea how hard it would be to get off of wellfair and get paid less to do more work? this is the primary problem with all socalistic systems, it's more benifical to the individual, especaly on the lower economic levels to simply not work.

as far as I'm concerned the best environment for human civilization is capitolism that is managed only so far as to keep the corperations from gaining controle over the government (and thus becomeing a facist state wich is just as bad as comunistic from my perspective)

now, I will admit that there are some socalistic pollacies that don't have this negitive effect, the biggest one, being public schools. everyone should get a chance (not that everyone must be made to start at an equal level), there should be some minimum threshhold that if you have the will you can climb to success from. childeren must be requiered to attend some form of school, and the government must ensure that some form of education is available in all reagons.
but as I have brought this point up, it should be noted that no matter how hard you try not everyone will win.

yes, we need to spend less.
_much_ less.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

Your cash is spent on things you may not want with the understanding that someone else's cash will be spent on something you do want. That's what we call a society.

well, why don't I spend my cash on the things I want and other people spend the cash on the things that they want, that way at least the government spending would be representative of the wants of the population.

you know I honestly would be far less mad with haveing a huge chunck of my money taken away if I had some sort of budgetary oversight, I would almost consiter that far. if you simply made the procedure for redistributeing to what you wanted over the default an opption, the vast majority of people would not be bothered to change from the default.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by mikhael
Greed is good. Selfishness is good. There's nothing wrong with being greedy.

Yeah there is something wrong with being greedy. It's called Enron, and Arthur Anderson, and Global Crossing, and Worldcom, and Marth Stewart, and Adelphia amoung others.