This is for Leftists, not comments from the Right, we already know where you stand, and do not need to hear more jingoism. Would it not be easier to energize the Left than bang heads with the Right wing and fundementalists. We would get further perhaps.
What a thought !! I am terrified ! But willing to have a go. Many aspects of this idea will create less stress from the horrors who we have met !but maybe ...............infiltrators will arrive,
It's not "left vs. right", it's "the state vs. you".
As in being forced to have a baby by the state? Yup, exactly.
Yeah...and hopefully that creep who suggested Mossad assasinate Obama will find justice there.
Began, and sealed it!
"The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Pub.L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765, enacted October 3, 2008, commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks (however, the plan to purchase distressed assets has been abandoned). Both foreign and domestic banks are included in the program. The Federal Reserve also extended help to American Express, whose bank-holding application it recently approved. The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008."
golly...how come it's not called the global socialist crisis? MOM...that's what the Republicans tell me....it was Obama the Socialist's fault!
Well the crisis came about by the collapse of an artificial bubble created by the Federal Reserve. The government, rather than let those failed businesses die like they should, stole from the populace to let them live. National Socialism.
Twas the banks that did it...the lust for money and the luxury life.
The gvt couldn't let them die....the whole system we live by would have collapsed.....no money to run business, no money to run trains, buses, airplanes, mail, schools...all the things we take for granted that the horrible evil stupid gvt does for us superior ones who would be better off without it.
Gvt saved their a$$es.....and they had a party.
Oh dear oh dear.
How to enslave a population - PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION
PROBLEM - Create the problem. In this case, it is the financial crisis - Create an artificial bubble, of which the rich are happy to take advantage of.
REACTION - It's the rich! It's capitalism! It's greed! Do something about this government
SOLUTION - Oh, I'd only be too happy Give me all of your money and everything will be FINE.
An economic system that is built REQUIRING a life support system is no economic system at all. Let it all come down, let it burn. Let us start again from the beginning, and do it right.
Good ol' "Comparing one moldy loaf of bread to an even worse loaf".
No--trying to stop them from blaming Obama for something he didn't do.
Sorry, I get "bailing out the banks" and "bailing out the auto-companies" confused because they're both illegal:
Bush did authorize the first auto loan of a $17.4 billion, in October 2008, declaring some aspects of the loan depended on the companies hitting “Restructuring Targets."
Obama, however, gave the auto industry an $85 billion bailout. His retooling of the industry forced aside creditors in favor of the UAW union workers.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer. … -it/338876
Tax cuts cost reaches TRILLIONS:
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/jun/09/ … trillions/
Wow, LMC. You ACTUALLY believe that "the government=you".
This is astonishing.
I don't know how to explain this to you, and I know I'm just wasting time:
When the government steals less of my money, I am richer.
When the government spends more money, I am poorer.
This is what your precious tax money buys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qWADMf … ure=fvwrel
What is up with the many people using coined words to replace true definitions?!
Try Patriotism, why dontcha?
And NO it's not a waste of time to stand up for what's right, nor for the political Right in America. How else are the Left gonna realize that they can't just trod all over the rest of America's citizens' values and laws?
First, this question was aimed at Leftists as it says in the top. Second, jingoism is a real word...look it up...and it is not the same as patriotism. I meant jingoism. If you are extreme Right wing, this discussion is meaningless to you, and was not directed at you. Also, you did not read the question, is has to do with meaningless banter.
Please read the question, all of you, I don't want or need right wing chatter.
No insult intended but on an open platform such as the HP forums you have no authority on who responds to your thread or what their reply should entail.
You are completely right that in an open forum like HP we cannot control who takes part in a discussion. But forgive us if we socialists ignore your contributions because actually we want to talk to each other. We interact with the Right all the time but this is our conversation.
See you on another forum strand!
@Yellowstone8750. I don't know if you have read any of the work of Lukacs, but I'm providing a link below. You may find some of his ideas particularly relevant to this issue. It's a free download.
http://counterfire.org/index.php/theory … org-lukacs
Sorry, that's an extract from the book. This is the link for the free download.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65627941/Capi … is-Nineham
I think making a true stand, and not feeling like we have to compromise on everything would help. Also, addressing the concerns of the 'nanny-state' and 'big government' would help as well. Obama doesn't get credit for things he's done in those areas... that said, his competition seem to be shooting themselves in the foot, while he becomes stronger.
Bush got re-elected because there was still fear, and Bin Laden was still out there - that was enough. Now with the auto industry showing profits, signs the economy will recover and Obama's most-criticized plans worked, we can't afford CHANGE right now - change to a bunch of bumbling fools.
Left or right - it doesn't matter because there isn't any real difference between them. They are the different sides of the same coin. They're both owned and controlled by the banksters and corporations: their REAL constituency.
The only way forward is to establish direct democracy. This is a political system without politicians. The people's aspirations are canvassed via a process of rolling consultation: with everyone being given access to a computer to achieve this. This way we arrive at policies that are then enacted by administrators/civil servants. If the administrators don't deliver we simply fire them.
For this system to work we would need a Bill of Universal human Rights.
We would also need a monetary system that wasn't controlled by private interests.
In terms of our economy - it is a waste of time, especially if we are looking for economic solutions that help and empower those who are under employed or unemployed.
Socially and culturally - we are battling for the hearts, minds and spirits of our population, and therefore worth while. What helped make this country great was its cultural and spiritual diversity. We lose that, and we will be 'left behind.'
I'me a social liberal who has grown tired of the left vs right arguments Yellowstone. I think rallying your own cause and bringing people to your way of thinking via discussion in a manner that humanizes both sides is the way to move things in the direction you want. The constant bickering over who is right and wrong doesn't work, because you only make your opponent dig in. You have to make people think. You have to push them to understand an issue from another point of view. Change yourself and change the world. It won't happen over night, but I'm much more a proponent of showing people what why I feel a certain way through my actions and words of respect, rather than telling someone how wrong they are.
Hope that was in the ballpark of what you were looking for in a response. FREDDY
Freddy; exactly. The Right is more dug inn than the Left...more dogmatic.
God, those right wingers piss me off.
"ABORTIONS FOR ALL!!! I USED TO BE AGAINST WAR UNTIL OBAMA WAS ELECTED!! GET RID OF GOD OR I SUE YOU!!! TAX AND SPEND!!"
They're so dogmatic.
No one forces abortion on anybody, except China. And by golly---R's want to be more like them!
And China at least has a viable reason for their tyranny: Overpopulation.
What's your reason for forcing women to give birth?
Tax and spend...yeh, that's how we manage our society. What would you prefer...
hand it over to big business....OOOOPS.
"America for sale! Get your piece here"
Where do we start the bidding?
The right is very well defined. The unifying principle is money. The left in my view has never been a very well organized force, since it seems to have no fundamental unifying principle, such as the power of money.
Marx said it's all about money. You might want to read some Noam Chomsky, it's modern day writing and thoughts. The Left protests who gets what, where, and how.
I'm finding more and more that both parties concern themselves with money and power and if something good trickles down to the people, well that's just a bonus. I think both sides have some good ideas, but often times they are rooted in a quagmire of special interests, corporations, and the far elements of each ideology. The people are not getting served and going head to head with arguments and digging in just doesn't get a problem solved. Just my .02 on it.
Sorry - never did think much of Noam Chomsky. "The Left protests ...". Protests are not going to get one very far.
Yes it is a waste of time. Being huddled into one particular paradigm is only enslaving you. Tyrants love violently opposing viewpoints that differ in only little things, whilst both sides supporting huge injustices.
Both the left and the right support violence and decimation of liberties, just in different packages.
The left argues for personal freedom, but no economic freedom
The right argues for economic freedom, but no personal freedom.
Here's an outrageous idea: why not have freedom in all areas of our lives?
Vote for that freedom, I'm sure by the time you have reached middle age, you will see how far that got you.
If you only had a left foot, you would wander in circles. You need two, one left, one right, to get anywhere. Maybe it's time for two Presidents, and we only do what they can agree on.
In my youth I spent a lot of time arguing with fellow leftists, and it helped me to refine my thinking.
Then I got bored arguing with people I thought were just misguided. I thought it a better use of my time to argue with the right. It was certainly more fun.
Now I do not so much argue with rightists but I seek to persuade them that even on their own value systems socialism generates or can generate better results. They find that difficult to handle.
With American rightists "socialism" is a dirty word. They condemn ideas as "socialist". As I am "out" as a socialist they cannot just use the s word they have to engage in a discussion of ideas. Many of them find that hard because they have never had their ideas seriously challenged before.
The white man came, conquered the socialists, turned them into capitalists.
Charles;You might read my Hub on changing the name from 'socialism' to something else.
Charles,Now I know what your job has been I understand more your 'sort of ' laid back style which before I thought of as 'moderate' sorry,
Most of my political life I have been misunderstood. The Left think I am Right and the Right think I am Left. My thinking does not fit into a "box" and that means people think I am unpredictable.
I am a democratic socialist trying to build consensus and understanding.
I have always been against letting 'them' dictate my terms. Change terms and 'they' will obfuscate that as well. Global Warming is now Climate Change.
Socialism is a bad word on the right because it opens the door to...communism and extreme atheism. Also, private business owners and people who own property will not exist. That is totally against the U.S Constitution. Socialism can actually fit on the Left or Right.
The idea of the thread goes right to the target.
The left only exist as an opposition to the right and so cannot win, it can only ever fight a defence.
The right are those paid by the 1% to fight for them, plus those misguided fools who like to enslave themselves.
The USA political system is a perfect illustration of the problem, you have two possibilities for every political post, either a right winger with no conscience or a right winger with a little conscience. Either way you get a right winger, and the socialists are just the almost powerless defence against them.
Yes we all need a new way of government and a new way of electing them. The problem is that any new idea becomes immediately left or right as soon as it is aired, it is made to fit the current pattern of thinking rather than being considered on its own merits.
Just for instance, a working system that might be better than the current 'heads I win, tails you lose' system could be for local people to elect local candidates that are then put forward for the highest offices and all paid for by government itself - so that being rich or poor enters the equation less. This kind of system ensures that the candidates have the support of an actual majority of the people, anyone can be considered and real life enters into politics.
But this is exactly how the communist party works, or doesn't, depending on which view of it anyone might hold.
Recommend1;Take a quick look at the Paris Commune, after the French Revolution, and before the return to monarchy. That is what they had in mind.
The issue is always with how people are persuaded, money talks the loudest and as soon as any group get into power - whether supposedly for the people or blatant over-ruling.
It is clear that 'they' see the internet as a threat, and maybe this is because it offers the possiblity of some route to actual democracy, and this would be through the ability of 'anyone' to include information and not just the information that pushes things the way of the 1% (for want of a better name for 'them') - consider the possibility of 'senate' or 'presidential' votes being open to 'the people' to stop or overturn. Imagine discussions like this where the paid shills and trolls are clear to everyone - anyone can put up 'facts' or whatever.
In the U.S. the gov feels most threatened by us. They are prepared for that contingency.
For me R1, unfortunately, is that poor, working class people with a limited education, will always opt for instant gratification. I'm not being a snob here, I'm born of the working class, I am the working class. But when you have limited skills, particularly with regards reading, writing and critical thinking (remember I also worked with offenders) you tend to believe what the Daily Mail and the Sun tell you. The divide and rule strategy works so well. Instead of seeing that the media can be ideologically driven, it is so easy to become frustrated by all the so called "foreigners" who are doing so much better than you. In my district, they will always vote labour, without really understanding why. For me, despite being born into a family of labour party activists, I can't see myself voting labour again. Why would I, I'm a socialist. There is a huge gap.
Hi Hollie, I come from the same working class and when I still bothered to vote I would vote labour just because it was not conservative. Blair put a stop to that, he embodied the treacherous nature of labour and 'outed' the whole mess.
It is not just the Sun readers, the Mail and the Times are in exactly the same business of keeping the public divided and in the dark.
Don't get me started on Bliar! Yes the press, rather than influence what we think, they ensure they print only what they want us to think about. This has been very damaging for the left. Going back to Yellowstones original post, I do, despite the negative connotations which many attach to socialism, believe that there has been some king of "rebirth" in terms of left wing thinking. When we look at OWS and other movements around the world, people are rising up against the "devils" that socialists have always fought. I think the left have become energised, but they do not necessarily attach themselves to the "conventional" parties of the left any more (hardly surprising when you consider many of them have moved so far to the right they have become unrecognisable)
Your definition of the right is WRONG. I am not paid by the 1%. I make my own money as an entreprenuer. Most of the people who are on the right are there because they love America, the U.S Constitution, the law, Jesus Christ, God, capitalism and have a strong sense of what America is about.
Ha,ha, Told you what it would be like ! A nightmare ! Just ignore the nutty pests and carry on eh!
If the citizenry here could see the big picture...scary stuff. Something really bad is in the air.
I obviously meant the thread was getting better,just in case you thought I meant anything else was !
Republicans pass extreme anti-abortion bills....call abortion "lifestyle convenience".
Over bitter rejection from Democrats.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ … story.html
I am so offended, I can't put words to it.....Dems and R's are from different planets.
The Handmaid's Tale come to life.
Women.....a fertilized egg has more rights than you.
No, an unborn baby should have rights. Abortion is selfish and murder. Just think if Mary would have had an abortion. We would not have Jesus. Second, do you think God would agree with Mary having an abortion?
In the election for party leader I voted Beckett Beckett. Prescott's abrasive approach and short fuse made me question his likely actions in a crisis which ruled him out as a future PM. His analysis of the Deputy Leader's role was good but I thought his issues stated above made him the wrong person for that job, too. Beckett was identifiably a socialist.
Blair struck me as another flaky barrister without a political keel who would be guided by focus groups and worship the rich, a proto- MacDonald in the making. I did not realise then how generous I was being.
Shortly after Blair was elected Leader I was at a meeting of the Co-op Party, which was populated by old lags like me with 20+ years Labour Party membership. There were nearly 20 of us, and not one of us had voted for Blair as leader.
What does anyone think of the current leader?
Not the intellectual his 'Papa' was! Get him out, get cameron out ! Margaret Becket a moderate... Too late to give more !! this is answer toJames Charles
I don't trust him. To me, he is a remnant of New labour but was not in government during the Iraq war. He is a front that has been used to help distance the labour party from their past, somewhat terrible misdeeds. David Miliband may be the more talented politician, but he is tainted by events of the past. The sibling rivalry is fake." My big brother may join me again, now, or in government" They are whoring themselves for donations. The Milibands are mini blairs. The people however, are much wiser.
Hollie, I never thought of the 'Brother' agro. being fake !! You're spot on.
Jandee, big brother left new labour (think Murdoch et.al) IMHO, he is inviting them back, at their discretion. David, cannot front the labour party due to it's past, but Ed was not in government at that time. The only "career politician" that is not tainted by the events of 2003. How much has the leader supported the unions or OWSLSX, he hasn't. I s that because he cares what Cameron thinks, or.....
I don't identify with either "left" or "right." I think it's a waste of time. They are two sides of the same coin and ultimately end up pushing the same agenda. We all get hung up on social issues such as abortion or gay marriage, but the ones that affect our way of life end up roughly the same. For the most part, if a candidate is a member of either party, I'm usually not interested. Not all the time, just usually.
But you can look around this country and see what the Right has done to women's rights in America.....there is NO denying that the parties are not the same.
Individual members may have their views, but the Republican party actively works to dismantle womens rights.
No particular group has rights, only individuals, and both parties try equally hard to destroy individual liberties.
I'm sorry...but telling kids what they should eat is like mincemeat compared to forcing you to take on a responsibility you aren't ready for, nor can afford.
I keep hearing "the parties are both the same"...to me there is a gulf a mile wide between them. In-between which my daughters lives are in limbo.
Oh, what about Obama passing NDAA, giving the government the right to assassinate American citizens? What about the continuing use of tax-payers money to kill millions in the middle-east and Africa? And, the draconian crackdown on organic food is nothing to be sniffed at.
Would you rather have your daughters pregnant and alive or dead from all of the strange hormones and chemicals subsidised monsanto injects into the food?
The abortion debate, by comparison to the huge bi-partian destruction of civil liberties, is a distraction.
Not to me it isn't. It's the fundamental most sacred right in the world...
I'll tell you something....Obama didn't start this crap. It began in 2001, after 9/11. And back then it was a horror-show. A true horror show.
But,as time has progressed,the Patriot Act and NDAA all that, has not affected most people. I KNOW they read everything, see everything, hear everything, watch everything.....and as long as it has been going on...so far, it doesn't seem to have affected many.
BUT--access to healthcare and reproductive products is an essential part of daily life for MILLIONS of women.
This--they want to take away.
NDAA--they are fine with.
The most sacred right in the world is to get birth control? Over protecting the life of your family?
Okay, that kind of speaks for itself.
That's quite vague and smells of propaganda.
You have a right to your life, a right to speech and the right to seek whatever you please. You can speak without having anybody provide the stage for you, but to be 'secure in your own body', that is down to you and whoever is willing to cooperate with you. If someone does not want to do that, for whatever reason, has that right.
You don't understand.
The Religios want to make me do something I'm not co-operating with.
They will force me to do somethign with my OWN body that I am not willing to do.
Much like NDAA locking up terror suspects...they want to lock up my V*gi*a.
Okay, if they want to stop you using force, that is wrong, but they have the right to refuse. They're not forcing you to do anything that way. You can choose to be careful, find somewhere else to get control or even have the child (and is that such a huge disaster?).
No--I think the choice is don't have sex.
Purient and perverted IMO.
What's wrong with the other choices? Find somewhere else to get it or have the child.
That's 3 choices for you, and no force involved.
How far shoudl I have to go to "get it"?...How many days of work shall I have to miss?
What if I have to fly to another state? What if I can't afford that? What if I have a job, kids in school???
It should be in every clinic and hospital, then I could live without that panic on my head.
So--the more they cut programs and close clinics...I am left with no choices.
It's either use the pull out method,condoms, and hope nothing ever goes wrong...or don't have sex.
Say--how about you volunteer to have a vasectomy instead...since it's you who is bothered by abortion. If it's your desire to make it illegal...YOU take the responsibilty!
Boys can be snipped at birth, and then have it reversed later on.. Really: if YOU are against abortion...the onus should be on you.
Innersmith, your profile states that you are from the UK. However, I have to ask, are you living in the US? I have no doubt that you are an intelligent young man. However, I also have to ask, what right do you have to dictate to an American woman, who may be forced to accept particular social policy that is largely based on religious beliefs, when you neither live there, or have experienced life as a woman.
If you truly believe what you spout, then spout off to men. Educate them about contraception. If you were a woman and your life had been medicalised from a very young age, you would be aware that we need no lessons. it takes two to make a baby, but 100% of the time woman have the pregnancy and give birth. 90% of the time, they are the single parents. Go figure and come back when you have some real life experience.
I didn't realize that 90% of women raise unwed children by themselves. 90%? I'd be very interested in where you pulled that number from.
I'm for legalising abortion, because, even if I disagree with it personally, I recognise it as a demand and a necessity. However, as a libertarian, I have to accept the freedom of choice of the doctor in question. Why force them to carry out a procedure they disagree with? Would it be as much an issue if it was circumcision, or even euthanasia or infanticide? Why not have some leniency?
If there is a demand for abortion, and it is legal, someone will only be too happy to do it for you. I think you are greatly exaggerating the problem here and are equating the right of refusal as initiation of force, which is not the case. It is like Santorum saying heterosexuals rights are being stripped away by allowing gay marriage - it doesn't make sense.
"It's either use the pull out method,condoms, and hope nothing ever goes wrong...or don't have sex." - That's a lot of options, compared to the ONE option you want the doctor to have. If you weigh it up, you are the one applying force in this situation. You do not have a right to abortion. You have a right to seek abortion, because that doesn't require anybody to give it to you.
And sure, I'm not absolving the male from the responsibility. He has as much responsibility, and in turn as much say in the choice as the female. In fact, the prevalence of abortion is yet another way of absolving the males responsibility of his actions with a female. I am just as critical of men too, I just happen to be debating with a female right now.
I will not be doing with this condescending. My girlfriend is American, and spend a lot of time around Americans. She and I have dealt with this issue in real life, which I'm not willing to divulge here. We are both responsible adults and are committed to each other.
All the dictating seems to be coming from the 'abortion is a right' lobby. I'm the only one here advocating freedom of choice (isn't that funny, people claiming to be pro-choice don't respect the choices of the doctor?)
No, they do not.
They do share some stupidity in that area, but e GOP has always had less regard for individuals.
Actually. I see the Liberal Democrats trying to destroy personal freedoms and liberty more. That is the reason why they wish to expand the government and give it more power.
skinsman: they are not the same, they are very different in terms of ideology.
yes, you're right they are not EXACTLY the same. No one is, even inside the party lines that everyone loves to live inside. It's a team thing plain and simple. I'm for liberty.....or making OUR OWN decisions without big daddy government telling us what we can and cannot do. So I could care less about the ideology of a candidate. I always thought it was about helping America as a whole, not trying to make everyone do only what YOU think is right. Different strokes for different folks.
"Oklahoma bans abortion, even for rape victims"
This nightmare is real.
Why bother with comparison? We live in such a socially and politically polarized country that any attempt to bring sanity into the discourse will be blocked by people sticking with their predisposed narrow ideologies rather than actually active thinking about issues which concern THEM.
Problem is...they are legislating on issues which DON'T concern them....
The right to be secure in your home is long gone..facebook and google. And verizon tapping phones for the gvt.. But now they are coming after the body. The female body. They want it to belong to the state.
It's the Church of America. And we all better belong. Muslims? ahahah. People have voted us in the American Taliban.
say Boner and Cant baby....where are those JOBS MR PRESIDENT?
"later, we'll get to it after we crush the women under our feet."
NWAA!!: National Womans Assimilate Act---Bow to us. Barefoot and pregnant and fertile. We OWN you!
I started thinking that the left is fractured and cannot come together with the same force that the right enjoys.
But this question brings up an idea: The right has some basic hates and wants while the left has to take care of everything else, which is harder to corral into simple slogans and singular tactics. It is a great weakness.
Left and right will always be significant and important political classifications, and I don't see where nations can ever get rid of this way of classifying political beliefs and desires.
Well, here's one I just came across: I salute you fellow Freedom-Lover!:
"When progressives talk about liberty - they mean LIBERTY.. like individuals doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt or effect someone else.
When conservatives talk about "liberty".. they mean exclusively "economic liberty" - meaning the rich can do whatever the crap they want if they have enough money.. They can put a dioxin plant up river from you and pollute YOUR water.. cause that's American by God.. The right for the rich to use their wealth unencumbered by ANYTHING - true freedom.. Patriots."
UPPING THE ANTE: Iowa GOP bill would ban all abortions, sentence doctors to life in prison http://thkpr.gs/wMXsaP
hmmm, NDAA: Medical style.
Uh ohhh...another thought:
speaking of Heil......
A white Nationalists DID speak at CPAC....and an American soldier DID have the Nazi flag......
not liking what i'm feeling.
Obama did attend a Black Church led by a Reverend who hates Whites. The Black Panthers did vote for Obama and did get in the way of Whites who were going to vote.
not liking what I'm feeling here.
Not saying it's right but what about all the white people who stopped blacks from voting?
Rev Wright hates whites? Oh--you mean like Obama hates whites! Got it.
And how do 2 people intimidate a bunch of people from voting?
And wasn't it in a black neighborhood? Why were white people voting there?
And didn't George Bushs's Justice dpt investigate and find nothing?
Sorry.....there is a long history of Nazi and KKK in this world.....not so much the Black Panthers, who were started as a defense to racism in America.
That's like pitting a grape againt a vineyard.
You Ma'am, are history challenged. Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Uhhuh..I get it.
Telling the truth that God is against evil is "hating", our president hates his own mother and grandparents, and of course,
Even though your justice dpt deemed it innocent, you disagree.
I already know the drill: If you don't like, re-write!
Uhunh, you don't get it. By the way are you for segregation? You don't seem to feel white voters should mingle with black voters. You all about keeping polling places white only?
Neither do you.
You blame everything on the non-whites, and act as if EVERYBODY should take abuse---but whoa unto Nelly if you so much as WHISPER against the judeochristopoorputuponwhitemale.
You are correct, I do not understand how someone in this day and age would want segregation, its wrong ma'am. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I see that you copy ole blow-hard. That technique is SOOOO 90's.
shame on you, we shall overcome this type of bigotry, voters of all races should be able to cast their ballots TOGETHER!
Right...and suppose a black nationalist spoke at a DNC conference?
How long do you think the media would be at it? Russsshhhhh and co would have a field day for weeks!
While, I had to read on sub-underground about CPAC...in fact, it was so sub I can't even remember where I saw it!
I'm dreaming of the day we all have equality. It's not here yet....but it's on its way.
You don't want blacks and whites to vote together and babbling about equality, you are very confused. What number comes after 57?
Ok, I'm game.
But I see it differently.
Problem: Rich need more money in their bank accounts
Reaction: poor people and unions are destroying the world economies
Solution: Let us take over and privitze everything and it will all be fine
Liquidate ALL debt: money is make believe anyway.
Start from there.
As a socialist I do not criticise the Milibands for who their father was. Their father was an intellectual and one of the social circle of people like Harriet Harman. There is a role for middle class socialist intellectuals in helping develop ideas. Not a monopoly on ideas, but a contribution to make.
I am leery of "clever" people because often they have no practical experience and no common sense.
From what I can see the Millibands have never actually taken responsibility for something and run it. I set up and ran a business and had to meet a payroll for twenty-odd years. I know things go wrong and I have a sense of proportion when things go wrong.
All three party leaders have come up the "policy assistant" ladder. It may have given them a good understanding of what goes on at Westminster, but I worry if they have any idea about the real world outside London. If they have never been shat on by a boss do they understand why trade unions are needed?
If they have never been a shop steward - or negotiated a deal in the real world, they are lacking in relevant experience.
I am prepared to accept Miliband may be a socialist. I sadly have no evidence either way. But he was supported by the GMB. I would have preferred Ed Balls.
@skinsman8200. The percentage is actually slighter higher. The following link gives the statistics for the percentage of women in the UK raising children alone. Albeit, this study is not pertinent to the US. However, I have read American studies that suggest the numbers are very similar.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolic … vice-cuts/
@innersmiff. I cannot reply up there, sorry.
However, as a libertarian, I have to accept the freedom of choice of the doctor in question. Why force them to carry out a procedure they disagree with?
Because it is their professional responsibility, that it what they are paid to do. I was never particularly happy about supervising female offenders who were serving prison sentences which in the main were due to mental health and welfare issues. But that was my job. So, I had to put my personal feelings to one side and behave in a professional manner, not let my personal feelings cloud my judgement. Either that, or find another job.
I think you are greatly exaggerating the problem here and are equating the right of refusal as initiation of force, which is not the case
Really? So if my Gp refuses a referral, how many others GP's may I see? What if they also refuse? Sure, there's the private route, but it costs and this could be a barrier for many women. Refusal can equate to force, by denying opportunity.
That's a lot of options, compared to the ONE option you want the doctor to have. If you weigh it up, you are the one applying force in this situation.
Again, a Doctor is paid for his professional medical opinion, not his personal beliefs. If he is in the private sector then it is completely at his discretion who he treats, refers etc. If he is employed by the government on the other hand, he is paid to treat and refer every patient he sees. If he is unable to do so, he needs to find another job.
And sure, I'm not absolving the male from the responsibility. He has as much responsibility, and in turn as much say in the choice as the female
If this is how you genuinely feel you should spend your time rounding up absentee fathers, ensuring that they take responsibility for their children or face a prison sentence. As you and I both know, this will never happen anyway. So continue talking the good talk about how fathers should take responsibility and then take the time to work out the difference between "should" and "do".
I will not take this condescending, either. You may have faced real life situations. But as you well know, the majority of lone parents are women, and even when the fathers are involved in a child's life, the lions share of responsibility, both economic and emotional, belongs to a woman. When you have been a lone parent, you'll be able to talk with authority on the subject.
You keep changing the parameters for what the required level of 'authority' is to understand something. Would you not accept a cancer treatment from me if I, myself, had not had cancer?I know something about individual rights, which is good enough. I have as much right to an opinion about a universal 'should' as anybody else.
The doctor in question is working for the government, so okay, there is an argument that he has to provide the service the patient's tax dollars are paying for. However, the medical business is a very complex beast, and you can't possibly expect every doctor to morally support every procedure that happens in the hospital. Again, if the government decides that infanticide is legal, for example, some sick person is going to want to have it done. Does the doctor have a right to refuse or not? Or is it his obligation to carry it out despite it being completely against his morals? You can't have one right for one thing, and one for another.
(On a side note, I would argue against public healthcare so that this moral dilemma could be avoided, amongst other things)
We're talking about universal 'shoulds' (morals), which have nothing to do with what we have the ability to carry out. I could say: if you're arguing that doctors should give abortions even though they disagree with them why don't you hold a gun to their head and force them, or even better, do it yourself? It would be ridiculous.
Doctors SHOULD be allowed to refuse certain procedures that go against their conscience. Men SHOULD be encouraged to take responsibility for the decision and the child. How can that be achieved? I do not pretend to know, but I know that that is the moral thing to do.
You are arguing against a situation that just doesn't exist!
I don't want to go off track here, (which I am completely guilty of I admit by discussing this further in this particular thread.) but your using the term morality throughout your discussion. Morality means different things to different people. Like I said previously, I had found myself working with people who's incarceration I found immoral, but they were my personal feelings and had no place in my professional life. How would you feel if a large number of prison officers refused to lock up a potentially violent person (danger to society) because they believed that they should be in a secure hospital, not a prison? Would society accept their decision? I don't think so, Why should Doctors be the only professionals to refuse to do part of their job based on their personal beliefs? If a Doctor feels this strongly about it, he should not be forced to do it, but he should resign and set up private practice.
I accept that you think men should take responsibility but the fact is many don't. You can discuss shoulds all you like but they don't equate to reality. And it is reality that we are dealing with here.
Morals have no place in your professional life? Then please, allow me to open up a child assassination service. You can't say anything, because it would be unprofessional to do so.
Every professional has the right to refuse service based on morals, not just Doctors.
Morals apply to all people, in all situations and at all times. You can not have one moral for one situation and one for another, otherwise, what on Earth can you apply your own personal morals to? If you're accepting that your clients' incarceration is immoral, you can choose to ignore that if you wish, but you can also choose to speak up, or refuse service etc, if you believe it would be the moral thing to do. We have the power of free will.
I admit I have no idea how my morals could be achieved, but they are still my morals. I have no idea how to stop all the wars, but they are still morals, otherwise, what is the point in having them?
Morals have no place in your professional life? Then please, allow me to open up a child assassination service. You can't say anything, because it would be unprofessional to do so.
Personal feelings had no place in my professional life. Morals differ, or rather mean different things to different people. When I accepted my job, I knew that there would be certain situations that I may feel uncomfortable with, but I also accepted that those situations would occur within my professional life. I had the choice to accept the job or not, just like a GP has. Either way, there is nothing to stop a GP from campaigning in his personal life if he feels strongly.
You do also have the choice not to do things you disagree with, whether it is in your professional or personal life. That is a God-given/birth right. I see literally no difference, morally, between what you do at home and what you do at work.
Unless doing whatever it is you disagree with is specifically stated in the contract, the right of refusal is important. Now that the right of refusal has been taken away from public healthcare, those doctors that don't want to do abortions will want to go private, but will find it more difficult and less sustainable due to Obamacare. All it is going to do is annoy the religious and make things a whole lot more complicated.
You do also have the choice not to do things you disagree with, whether it is in your professional or personal life
Really? refusal to perform certain tasks within the criminal justice system can result in dismissal at best, prosecution at worst. That doesn't mean that in your personal life you cannot campaign and try to change the things you disagree with.
. Now that the right of refusal has been taken away from public healthcare, those doctors that don't want to do abortions will want to go private, but will find it more difficult and less sustainable due to Obamacare
They have a choice, just as you have said. Morals or profit? That's their decision.
Sure, because that's part of the contract, but why do a job that consistently puts you in a position that disagrees with your morals? I can see the logic with Doctors because they want the chance to help people, even if they're sometimes put in a morally awkward position, but to each her own - I don't pretend to know what your job is like.
What I am doing is questioning the morality of the contract the government is offering to the doctors. The very least the government could do is allow some freedom of choice within the system they've set up, even if it is not perfect. There may come a time where the only possible way to be a doctor is to agree to these procedures they disagree with. That's not really fair is it?
As the two countries seem to differ, can you make it clear which county you are referring to?
Mainly referring to the US but I apply the same standards to all countries so I would expect it of the UK too.
Well, the situation in the UK is that doctors are only obliged to treat patients whose lives are in danger.
They are excused, by law, of offering abortions if against their conscience.
In all other cases the law has no say on the matter and they may chose to treat or not treat as their conscience leads.
My work did not consistently put me in a position that was contrary to my beliefs, but there were occasions where this happened. Unless the doctor is performing the termination himself then he is only likely to make referrals to another Doctor. He merely makes the referral. However, if he is performing the procedure, then the same could be said about the doctor. Why would he choose a career that would consistently put him in a position where he was at odds with his beliefs?
A doctor does not have to become a gynaecologist. There are many other specialisms. There are choices for Doctors, too.
When I talk about my work, it is past tense. Believe it or not, I actually chose that career path because I wanted to help people, too.
Is there not a line to be drawn? The Nazis were not absolved from their crimes simply because they were on orders and 'knew what they were getting into'.
Of course there's a line to be drawn. I wasn't committing a crime by supervising women with mental health issues who should have been in a secure hospital not a prison. But, I did find it immoral. Not everyone would agree, I accept that. Having said that, if a doctor finds abortion immoral, which is his right, then why choose that area of medicine in which to practice? My point is, they have a choice.
+1 (and I speak as someone who's pro-choice).
I have long thought that one's professional and personal morals should be consistent with each other. In fact, this is what has led me to reject careers that would probably been well within my capabilities (and certainly a lot more lucrative than what I do for a living now).
I just don't "get" people who apply a completely different set of standards in the workplace to what they do at home.
Then you have to ask the question, why would a doctor qualify just to perform terminations, when they are at odds with his beliefs?
Performing terminations isn't something that most doctors would have to do. If a doctor is anti-abortion, then they can simply avoid working in that field.
In any case, I would also imagine that most doctors who are against "elective" terminations would probably be fine with doing a termination if it would save the mother's life.
Performing terminations isn't something that most doctors would have to do. If a doctor is anti-abortion, then they can simply avoid working in that field.
That is exactly the point I'm making, but Innersmiff believes that the choice is being taken away from doctors and they should have the right to refuse to perform the termination.
On conscientious grounds. (sorry forgot to add that)
But a Doctor, even in that particular field, does so much more than just abortion. If the doctor wants to do that but NOT do abortions, why the hell not?
No reason at all why not.
I think you are overlooking reality in favour of a good rant!
Not sure about the so much more. But tell me, why would a doctor opt for that brand of medicine when terminations, which of course he would be opposed to, are such a large part of his job?
Charles, I do not criticise the Milibands for their father ! I am sad for us that they didn't pay enough attention to their father. I would be the last to reject that we need middle class social intellectuals on the left but the working class intellectual of the left is more relevant,
I find it difficult to have any respect for the politicians that surrounded Tony Blair, it makes me feel angry when I hear them say they were under a lot of pressure to vote in favour of the Iraq war. Other politicians within the labour party managed to vote against. I guess to me it means they were just career politicians who wanted to ensure they could have jobs in the cabinet. How many of the MP's in the cabinet when they were in power, had Oxbridge educations? I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with that, but it was so unbalanced.
@ innersmiff, as far as I am aware there is no obligation on doctors in the UK to provide abortions or contraceptive advice if it clashes with their belief.
In fact the abortion act specifically gives doctors the right to refuse.
As I understand it, Obama has passed a law which has removed the right to refuse. And this has been happening in the US for some time.
Last I heard Obama was president of the US, not the UK.
Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about American matters.
I wonder about a lot too.....and what bothers me is we have no idea what goes on in those circles. Anything we think is just speculation.
Shouldn't be that way. Secrets don't belong in a free world. Someday we'll be free. Maybe soon ---that's the "vibe" I'm getting.
Wait til spring John....big doing in the works.
AND.....Obama is going after them. Subtly, but little by little.
You have to believe in the crazy idea that what we see is not at ALL what we get.
It's all going to blow open, and that is why we are learning so much of the dirty-ness that goes on with the world. I think anyway.
Because back even 5 years when everything was conspiracy....it's now like friggin obvious!
I was hoping that he would grant us independence.
I remember sitting in my solicitors office many years ago (Brian Livingstone, you might remember him,well he wasn't actually my solicitor but one in his practice was)
In the time spent waiting for something to happen he asked me what I thought about the Russian threat. I told him that I thought it was wonderful cover for the Americans to take over without having to bother invading us.
He thought about that for a few seconds and muttering an expletive, said that he'd never considered that but it made a lot of sense.
Right, Left, I can never remember which is which?
One group is deranged and the other demented but which is which?!?!
JanDee I should say I have not been to Liverpool for probably 20 years. I was a volunteer teacher in the Croxteth School Occupation - something you should write a hub about.
my daughter works in education ,good for you ! I will do a little 'nosey' it's coming back to me now
I see Collette D'Arcy is on Google. Her Dad was one of the principal organisers and she was heavily involved. I would be astonished if she were not happy to speak to you.
Give her my regards although I doubt she will remember me at this distance. I was the young lawyer from Bradford
I think the working class intellectual point needs expansion.
Any person thinks and writes from his or her personal perspective. Most middle class people have just not had the experiences that are part of being working class. So their thinking is also restricted.
Someone who has had these experiences will think differently and will have different thoughts. These are important and valuable contributions to the intellectual mix.
A person of the working class has also often experienced the "barriers" within society so to speak, that may not be apparent to an individual who has not experienced them.
The barriers are not just financial poverty. The middle class have opportunities and through their parents links to any profession they are likely to wish to enter AND the finances to make anything possible.
The surge of joy from successful collective action is something the working class sometimes enjoy.
"Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status...It has grown...as an invidious distinction between classes."
Marshall Sahlins, Stoneage Economics.
Charles, I completely agree.
It is always a waste of time to take sides in political debates - because the solutions we find for our societal problems are always non-partisan - in other words we're going to just do what we can and what seems to work no matter which political party finds the solution. Otherwise, politicians pocket money and perks for saying they'll do something in particular, but in reality they don't personally control any outcomes in lawmaking. Sometimes the left will have the answers and sometimes the right will figure out the best thing to do, but usually neither of them have a clue what we can do to solve our problems. We're all just blundering along and have a biological urge to fight about something.
If we take big money out of politics, then both sides will work a lot harder to find solutions. They will not be conflicted by their political obligations and those of their special interest pals.
This thread sounds like what I was addressing with the question in the beginning. The Far Left and the Far Right are further apart than some realize. There is a lot of banter in between the leaning centrists in the middle.
You got me! I was trying so hard to hide my philosophical origins.
You're in a dream world. Self-interest is a natural human trait. Marxists forget this and this is why every state that was ever based on Marxist theory ended up killing millions of people. They never believe that politics is its own special interest.
Erm, excuse me, who is in a dream world?
It's not Hollie arguing that without government food outlets would clean up their act and banks would suddenly become ethical!
Your info is incorrect...check Scandanavia. innersmiff
That is always the the argument from the right, the same old argument. Communism, socialism can never work because man is intrinsically greedy, therefore, there is no point trying to achieve any level of equality- so let's not bother. Let's accept that man is intrinsically greedy and construct a societal system that encourages greed, selfishness and inequality. Let's call it capitalism and pretend it is democratic and fair.
You and I Hollie, let's start our own county - I know, we'll call it the United States! People think this country was founded under the principals of capitalism and christianity - not so! when you read it, the constitution sounds very socialistic - so stop using it to justify capitalistic greed, is what I say. It's the same way the oil companies use the "private car" to justify their greed and meanwhile buy up patents for very reasonable electrical cars and other ways around the combustion engine. For shame.
It makes me want to scream I have to be honest though, Mega1, I've never read the constitution. I should and I will. I do think McCarthy had a lasting legacy upon the US though, do not say you have beliefs that are in tune with that of the socialist, or, everyone will think that you condone murder. This is insane, even in the UK (I'm thinking green party, of which I'm a member) there's a discussion based on, should we define ourselves as socialists? My response, define socialism and if that is in line with your thinking then say, YEAH. or no as the case may be.
Having engaged in these forums, all I can really say is that, for the most part, people who decry socialism or communism do not accept, nor understand the principles of it. I'm not saying that everyone from the left is good, christ no, I lived through the new labour years, and now next labour. *yawns* but to just work out where you stand, what you believe in, and stop being worried about the label. Better to educate about what a philosophy really means then to distance yourself from it because it's not popular. Let's start the country, Mega1, and let's tell all those revisionists to piss off.
"Self interest is a natural human trait" No'no' That is under capitalism-Socialism has no self interest ! Only thickos would say that marxists kill ! Okay ............Read marx before you condem.....just read it.........
It is an excuse Jandee. Suggest that man is so flawed that a political system, developed by Marx of course, that is not inherently selfish could never work. If you can't come up with the data, find some other reason. Similar to the argument that Iran is developing nukes. Why? Because ANDJ is a nutter of course, all muslims are nutters. No substance, all speculation, all BS.
long ago when the world was less populated and all the space hadn't been claimed one way or another - earth, air, water, even fire - all claimed by some one or some government - back then, people actually could have ideals and make their plans based on those ideals and proclaim people good and deserving of freedom. Nowadays, this ain't gonna work becuz we've over populated the planet and given most of the wealth and control to people who could care less, becuz they do not know the planet, know what it needs to thrive, or care to educate themselves. These greedy ones can call themselves whatever they like and the plan they have is to own the planet. Pure and simple. All the rest of us must just keep scrambling and if we are good and have an idealistic plan it may or may not matter at all, unless we get hold of some of that wealth and control - only thing is, its all a set up so that when we get that wealth and control (and guess how we get it!) we have turned ourselves into the greedy ones. It is so unbelievably weird - so instead of playing the political game I and many others are living as simply and under the radar as we can. "Perhaps someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one" JOHN LENNON - We just have to keep getting our message out as often as possible - I think that's about all we can do - we know war and debating won't work. Live the simple life and speak up when and where you see it can save a little piece of our beautiful planet. Peace!
To Hollie; No one can top that one. Well said and put.
I have actually read the Communist Manifesto and I decided it was despicable as soon as I finished it. Marx seems nothing more than a charlatan; hijacking genuine concerns about crony capitalism and using vague language to force his new world order through. A bit like Obama really, with this 'hope and change' nonsense.
I am not right wing. I used to be a kind of main-line liberal, but then I actually woke up to what is going on and realised that left/right are just two sides of the same coin. The system itself is illegitimate. It is based on violence and lies.
If you believe in free will, then the only moral political system is NO political system - give the people the choice to be good and see what happens, because enforced morality is no morality at all. What happened to just trusting freedom eh? All of this rhetoric about 'greed' is just that. Any mass movement that has killed millions of people was initiated on what people thought was the common GOOD - fascism and communism came about because those that supported it thought they were doing it to save the world, against EXACTLY the kind of things we are talking about here - capitalism, greed, cronyism. But all they were doing was replacing one tyranny with another. All I want is to stop this happening again. Look at history: if people just stuck to basic principles like 'Thou shalt not steal', 'Thou shalt not kill' in EVERY walk of life; whether it is a politician taking taxes or a soldier in war - those millions need not have died!
Whilst all of you guys worry about bankers bonuses, the EU is making plans to further centralise power, take away the sovereignty of the member nations and bankrupt them all; bills are being put into place to censor the internet so that no government and corporate criticism reaches the mainstream; bills are being put into place that allow the assassination of citizens in and outside the border of the United States, based on 'suspicious circumstances', including paying cash for a cup of coffee and being too worried about your privacy; initiatives are being put into place to make it ridiculously expensive for any corporation in any third-world country to make energy emitting carbon so as to completely destroy their economic development and further the devastating poverty; sanctions and embargos on Iran will eventually lead to a war, killing millions more, and possibly leading to World War 3, and a nuclear attack.
And you guys are sitting here talking about right and left? They are both the same! They both want all of the above! No politician with any chance of getting in opposes any of it! All of the bickering is just for show.
So come on, have some perspective.
Perhaps you could clarify something for me, Innersmith? Having stated that you have read the Communist Manifesto, where specifically did Marx hijack genuine concerns regarding "crony" capitalism? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the term "Crony" capitalism coined during the Asian Crisis of 1997? The Communist manifesto (1848)
So come on, have some chronological perspective, here?
Perhaps you need to re-read?
Hollie: You are correct. I am a student in Marx.
What he was referring to was crony capitalism when he was talking about the bourgeoisie. We have had different words for the same thing in history. Just some fancy word to galvanise well meaning people into supporting a dodgy ideology.
Wrong. You are a poor student of both sociology and economics. Capitalism as Marx described, which isn't even the capitalism as we know it today, cannot be compared to crony capitalism. Come back when you are prepared to be honest about what you have really read and what you haven't. Rule of thumb, if I have not read something, admit it.
Addendum: I have long suspected that your last two sentences are truer than most people know.
I agree, in this country at least, that what is supposed to be left and supposed to be right, are so diluted, so cosmetic that they're not worth Jack S***. But, if we are going back to principles and the perspectives that we once had, be it left or right, is t not better to be honest about things,like the books we've read for example. Or is it better to say that we have read them, just so that we can say we were disgusted by them because they contain ideas that are the polar opposites of what we think we believe in?
Is it not the case the good ideas can actually come from both camps? I'm no centrist, really I'm not. But if I could go back 15 years I would not be blinded by the ideas of Tony Blair, just because he was supposedly a Labour politician. I actually believe that John Major was the better man.
I suppose I'm asking Innersmith to really read the Communist Manifesto, again? None of us are voting for Marx, maybe we could learn something.
Ted Heath was a better man than Blair! I could possibly even say that Margaret Thatcher was a better man than Blair as well
No, Margaret Thatcher was not a better man than Tony Bliar. She was equally as treacherous. Heath was just a fool.
Marx advocates the destruction of the family, for one, so yeah I'm going to get disgusted by things that are the polar opposite of what I believe.
Yeah, I agree that capitalists exploit, but why and how do they? That is what Marx got wrong. And I find that some of the more dangerous ideas are born from truth, but are hijacked by self-interest. It's kind of like Hitler riding the wave of genuine and legitimate outrage at the draconian Treaty of Versaille etc. for his own interest.
In the modern day, this is manifested in the genuine and legitimate outrage of the Occupy crowd, but at the end of the day, getting angry at rich people isn't really going to get anything done. And now legislation is being proposed in the name of 'wealth distribution' that will burrow us further into enslavement.
Marx advocates the destruction of the family, for one, so yeah I'm going to get disgusted by things that are the polar opposite of what I believe.
If your first sentence is nonsensical, why on earth would you believe that anyone would read the rest?
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists"
"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To
this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home
education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions
under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of
Have you actually read it or just ignoring the parts which sound a bit tyrannical? To the Marxists, the Bourgeoisie family is a tyranny, and want to replace it with 'social education'. In other words, their own set of values that bypass parents. No doubt you will argue that it is not what Marx means, but I would argue that he is not doing a very good job of making it clear. Can you not see how obviously the tyranny of Stalinism was born from this very ideology you celebrate? Can you not see how this is bound to be exploited, even if you accept that what Marx proposes is feasible?
From Philip Larkin's "They F*ck you up your mum and dad" to Israel's kibbutz there is a long line of people from all sides of the political spectrum who recognise the damage that the family can do.
Better edit that before some f*ckwit reports it!
I would ask you the same question as I asked Hollie: what would you put in its place? A system of State-run foster homes? God forbid.
I'm no stranger to f*cked up family syndrome myself, but one thing I am glad of is that I didn't grow up in a foster home.
The trouble with removing the family is that most people don't want to have it removed. That therefore means that you have to take it from them by force. By which I mean draconian legislation enforced via fines, imprisonment and perhaps even gunpoint. In making the ends justify the means, you will have created a totalitarian society.
And if you exchange the word "family" for "free enterprise" or "money" then my argument is exactly the same.
People who join a Kibbutz join because they WANT to. Big, big difference.
Why is it a big difference? Nobody, not even Marx, was talking compulsion.
I dunno, "overthrowing the ruling class" sounds like compulsion to me.
The difference between doing something of your own volition and being forced into it against your will is massive. I can't believe you don't get that.
*You* might think you'd enjoy living in a commune but there are thousands who wouldn't - why should they be forced into it?
But who is being forced into anything?
Apart from all the kids that are snatched away from their families in this country, often with no good cause.
But sadly John there are also the children who are not safe with their own families who need rescuing.
"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."
As all humans are equal, why must one set of humans 'rule' over another? That doesn't seem like winning any battle of democracy. That is just replacing one tyranny with another. I feel like a broken record.
Nobody is arguing that families are perfect. But the way I see it is that, even if you accept that families are tyranny, they are tyrannies on their own, very different and spread out. State education is a monopoly on tyranny - indoctrinating the children with one particular ideology. The best ideas come from open debate and oppositional viewpoints, which come from the variety of background and they way they were raised.
You prove further that you are a poor student of sociology and economics when you compare Marx with Stalin. Compare Marx with communists, of which Stalin was not. Try Lukacs, he was a communist.
Well, I've read the Communist Manifesto. I acknowledge that Marx came up with some insights into the nature of society as it was then (as it is now too funnily enough), but the "cure" he came up with was, to say the least, dodgy.
Society is far more complex now, than even Marx could have envisioned. But strangely enough, as you point out, has very similar problems. I'm 45 years of age and I have always believed in peaceful protest and the vote (I know the vote is pretty useless, but I also think women and men suffered so much to achieve this, so I do feel guilty when I do not vote) It was a different era, the working classes (and women) could not even vote, so I guess that revolution and blood shed were the only obvious options at that time.
Odd though, to gain any attention now for whatever the cause, you have to make it to the front pages. Many may think this is dodgy, today. That the tactics are dodgy,personally, I think it is the political system we have forced upon us that is dodgy.
If I had the choice, I'd take big money out of politics. I don't, so I just fight big money. I think (most) politicians are puppets. I like PeterXDuns ideas about direct democracy, too. What are your thoughts?
Will get back to you tomorrow... it's my bed time!
I'm back now lol.
Firstly, your comment about politicians being puppets: I used to think that, but now I believe that a better way of describing them would be to say that politicians are like the tip of an iceberg. They're the visible part of a much larger power structure consisting of the banks, multinationals, the media and organisations like the IMF. They all feed off each other. That's presumably why our dear friend Tony Blair got that lucrative job at JP Morgan after his political career finished - I imagine it was a reward for "services rendered" (nothing like a bit of warmongering for pushing up shares in those arms companies).
The politicians' function is to provide the illusion that we have a choice, by making us think that by electing a different lot of politicians every four years it will actually make a long-term difference. Oh, and a lot of them have convenient character flaws which means that they make a great sideshow for the newspapers to feed off when one or more of them does something dodgy (the recent MPs' expenses scandal is a top example IMO). When politicians pull stunts like this, the resultant media frenzy gives us all the chance to exercise a bit of righteous indignation and to feel superior. Never mind that far more important things - like SOPA - pass right under the media radar.
I read Peter's hub just now. I think his comments in the last half of his hub about banking and money are spot on (the lifeboat analogy is very powerful). Not sure what I think about the computerised direct democracy bit. It's still open to abuse, just as any voting system - computerised or not - is open to abuse. Much would depend on the honesty and impartiality of the civil servants.
You asked me later on I thought could be done about it all (or words to that effect). The answer is "I don't know". I don't have any solutions, just a wish that people would stop believing that more government/legislation is the answer. It's not the answer, it's part of the problem. Unlike Evan I don't believe it's the *whole* problem, but it's a large part of it.
"I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a teacher or a plumber is class warfare" -- Obama
I think the hedge fund manager should pay more.
(1) He can afford to pay proportionately more from a high wage than the teacher or plumber can afford from a much lower wage
(2) If things go wrong the taxpayer is expected to bail out in the hundreds of millions
"But I do love bombing brown people, spying on Americans, exporting our torture, and murdering US citizens without trials."
Remember when the democrats were the anti-war party?
Yeah, that was a LO~~~ONG time ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjLriFOS … re=related
Yeah, I remember. It's been a long time
Thinking about it, back in 1981 or so I was probably 30. Colette was around 17 or 18 so strike "young" and just say "lawyer from Bradford".
Lovely thought but as near all TV stations, print media and radio is run by rightist people (Rupert Murdock being just one that comes to mind), I fail to see how the leftist voice will, can be heard, but for the freer internet.
However with the internet it will only be the leftist who will take the trouble to look it up, so one would only be preaching to the converted.
Even when “we” have people marching in the streets to voice “our” point of view, “we” are moved on by the right. And of-course the following day the reports in the rightists media (read all media) state the mob were a bunch of hippies, rabble, or just horrible people who don’t want to work and just wish to make trouble.
It’s a bit like the rich countries who get together to make work out how they will exploit the poor countries, any wonder they get upset and feel they have only their own interests in mind.
While the media as a whole is run by capitalist individual’s, and or businesses, be it mining, oil etc, I fail to see how the lefts point of view will be heard in main stream channels.
I ask one thing, do you know of anyone who runs a company big or small, who are leftists; I would say 95% are rightists.
You are correct you cannot keep banging heads with the right or the scary fundamentalists; it’s a waste of time, one has money / banks on their side, the other God.
Perhaps we should separate the left and right, as they did in India in 1947 with the Hindus and Muslims. I think an idea would be to move the right to Islands in the Pacific, you know, the ones that are sinking.
We might have to separate...it's either one side suffers while the other has it's way, and the side that's suffering fights to get their way, and once they do--it's back to the other side suffering!
There doesn't seem to be any consencus on certain issues. None at all
Really? There seems to be a pretty solid consensus on foreign policy, the war on drugs, SOPA, NDAA...
Once you have been on this forum long enough, you will realise that you will never, ever be able to get LMC to admit that Obama isn't all that different from George W. Bush.
You are a woman. I'm surprised to hear you say that.
(although I think W's anti-abortion stance was purely political)
Sorry..there is not concensus on foreign policy nor the war on drugs.
And, as far as NDAA....very interesting that!
I read a thread and all these right-wingers were so smugly saying "well--that proves it..Obama has destroyed the Constitution...and that shows why I would never ever vote for someone like that"......
But low and behold...who approves of NDAA? Why, Mitt Romney and Alan West!!
so, no, there is no concensus there either.
SOPA..I don't know that issue. know it but, don't KNOW it. in the biblical sense
No--I see some views as totally anathema to my world view: and I'm not changing mine...unless there is good reason to do so.
BTW..both were loans, and both are being paid off. And I'm glad the workers have a share and a say, since they do the work.
It's about dang time.
@Empressfelicity. You did ask me that question, and I answered. I am still waiting for your "cure"?
Ok, got your message it's your bedtime. I wait with anticipation for your cure?
I'm now confused, I thought we were talking about political systems, not foster homes. When did you ask me that question?
@innersmiff. Just a comparison, wouldn't want to embarrass you. Clearly you HAVE read the Manifesto and you are not a hypocrite.
Surely it is our own prerogative whether we want to educate ourselves or not? Surely it is not in our own interest to be uneducated? Why does this need to be enforced? If school is such a reputable and sure-fire way to get educated, there would be no need for it to be enforced, only idiots would refuse. Why the need for prosecution of parents and ‘truancy patrol’?
Who said that Innersmiff?
I'm not really sure what comparison you are getting at.
The communists want to replace family education with state (enforced) education, thing I'm railing against in that article. I see no contradiction.
Not all of us had parents with the time or ability to educate us. Should we then have been left uneducated?
We live in a country with enforced state education and that to my mind is no bad thing.
'Enforced' anything is a tyranny in my book. You can read my hub for details on why I believe it is only exacerbating the problem.
And I'm not suggesting that people should only be taught my their families. I'd just like more options and freedom of choice.
So anti shop lifting measures are tyranny and so are speed limits on the road and the requirement to pay for your travel, all enforced and therefore in your book tyranny!
The difference being that those can be used as voluntary contract obligations - in order to use this road you must keep to a certain speed limit etc.
Enforced education is: you must enter into this contract or we will throw you in prison. The 'options' are: go to a state school and get a non-education, go to a private school and pay through the roof to do so (wouldn't happen if there was more options) or get a home education which is subject to government checks and other undesirables (home schoolers are now considered 'potential terrorist threats' under the MIAC report and others). Freedom is the freedom to reject any kind of contract.
And, my conclusion is, if schools were actually any good you wouldn't NEED to enforce it.
"The difference being that those can be used as voluntary contract obligations - in order to use this road you must keep to a certain speed limit etc."
In order to use this society you must be educated.
Tell me where the choice lies in being born into a particular society. Would you advocate the banishment of people who do not get 'educated'?
Society does not banish uneducated people, it would not be a society if it did, it does however close many doors to the uneducated. Ever met an uneducated doctor or solicitor?
It does close doors, so wouldn't it be in peoples interested to get educated?
I know it isn't. I rail against fascist, capitalist, centrist and socialist enforced education too.
Sorry, no you fail that one. You started specifically with Marx and his ideas on education.
As an example of why I reject Marx's ideology.
innermiff: That makes no sense, the logic is false.
Cumpulsory education is a great thing a child does not have the decision making ability of an adult, because of this underdeveloped cognitive function a child is far more liable to make bad decisions, because of this the state takes away some of the childs ability to make it's own decisions ie. the age of consent, the drinking age and cumpolsory education.
When the child becomes old enough to make better decisions education becomes non cumpolsory ie. college/university. Having come to the conclusion that a child is unfit to decide what is best for him (I certainly would't have gone to school at age 12 if given a choice) who should, the options come down to 1 the parents 2 the state, for a long time the parents were given this right but it became apparent this was bad for children and society, why? because parents acted out of greed and self interest far too often, many parents kept their children at home to gelp with their labor or sent them to work in factories in horrible conditions to make more money, these children were then condemned to at best a life of manual labor and often a very short life due to the dangers they were exposed to in their workplace.
Having seen all this socialists and communists suggested that the best solution was a minimum level of compolsory schooling, socialists also suggested that children should receive atleast one square meal a day at school guaranteed by the state. The benefits of this system are many, it protects children to some extent from exploitation, it creates a more educated generation capable of more, it allows the state a way of checking if the parents are metting the requirements as parents ie. if a child turns up regularly beaten the issue may need to be investigated, it provides a way for children to escape bad situations for, example if a child is being mistreated he may not allways be able to tell someone from home but at school he has every opportunity to do so and it gives a society a shared language by which I mean in this discussion with you I know that you will know how to read and write and add and substract because I know you went to school this facilitates social interaction. (there are many more reasons too but this is becoming a wall of text)
Finally (and quickly) your argument that "if school is so great why does it need to be cumpolsory" completely falls apart because you are dealing with children, it works fine for say college (which is why its not cumpolsory) but children do not have that decision making ability.
Your hypothesis is that the state knows better than the rest of the population, and therefore needs to take power back from the parents, which is in itself contradictory. If the parents are the ones voting, and want their children to go to school, why does there need to be a middle man? As we all know, not everybody votes, so the socialists take on the responsibility of parenting everybody else's children - I do not agree that the state knows how to provide the best education for children.
All of the benefits you ascribe are either untrue "it creates a more educated generation capable of more" - since the creation of the Department of Education in the US, attainment levels have stagnated and even gone in the opposite direction, and have continued to do so despite massive spending and control; or invasive "allows the state a way of checking if the parents are metting the requirements as parents" - who decides what the requirements of parents are? This statement alone sets the precedent for tyranny. If the state decides that the requirements of a parent include a secular upbringing, for example, then that is a serious violation of privacy and freedom of speech. How can any state be so arrogant as to claim to know what is moral and immoral and dictate that to the parents?
Parents generally figure out that educated children actually bring home more bacon and stand to benefit from that, so they have every incentive to do so. Also, the variation in upbringing allows for the competition of ideas, and is a much better filter for good and bad than a single, unquestioned 'consensus' dictated by the state.
I gave you an example of what I meant by meeting the requirements of parenthood, they would be not sexually physically or mentally abusing your child for starters or is that facism to you?
It creates a more educated generation capable of more compared to children who don't go to school, are we seriously arguing thart a child without education is better off? Really?
It creates a more educated generation capable of more compared to children who don't go to school, are we seriously arguing thart a child without education is better off? Really?
As for people vote therefore they are the government then how can the government know better its ridicolous, people in general DO think that cumpolsory education is good (which is why it is law) however there will be many individuals within that society who will instead use their children contrary to what society wants which is why society dictates to the individual that they must allow their children an education but yes the assumption of the whole democratic system is the state knows best as the state is the combination of all our votes which is why the state can sentence someone to jail for a crime, because the state knows better and indeed why the state mandates at all because the state is the arm of the will of the people and their collective wisdom to counter those who would do the wrong thing (like not send their kids to school) you seem to struggle with this concept, we would not elect a government if we did not believe the state knows better than the individual (as the state represents the whole) if you do not agree with this rationalisation you are an anarchist, which is fine, I have no problem with anarchic doctrine but its outside the scope of the discussion whether compulsory education is good.
One could argue that protecting against child abuse would be a good justification, but unfortunately, once you set that precedent, it is difficult to go away.
Very few children receive zero education, but 90% receive poor education, enforced by the state. At least with choice, you can choose that poor education if you want to, zero education, or the many many many methods of good education through experience, interest, individual research, couses, apprenticeships etc. Then parents can better judge what the best education is for their child. Enforcement is punishing the whole population for the few anti-intellectual rednecks.
The state is anything but representative. Less than half of the population vote, of which less than half of those get the candidate they voted for, of which 0.0001% of those agree on exactly the same things and what their candidate is doing, who can change his or her mind on a whim without much blowback (ahem, Obama). We are a collection of individuals, with different wants, needs, talents and moral compasses. The only way the state could be truly representative would be if they left the population alone to its eclectic glory.
Jandee, innersmiff clearly is part of the probem, but to change their mind is about as likely as their eating a light bulb. You are correct, this discussion is wearing thin, which is what I said the problem was from the onset.
It's not wearing thin for me! I'm really enjoying it. I'm yet to see you tackle the points raised though!
I'm giving you a hand. Someone NOT from the right, trying to get you to think a little bit. That's much better than just making a thread so all your fellow leftists can clap each other on the back about how right you are. Obviously the right vs. left debate is going nowhere, we can all see that. So let's find some common ground.
We all hate corporate and government corruption, right?
We all hate exploitation and discrimination, right?
We all want to stop the wars, right?
Then let's discuss how best to solve all of those problems. THATs the area we disagree on. The whole spectrum of human philosophy can not be boxed into two sides which don't mean a whole lot. This is why I'm a libertarian - I want to give people freedom to explore every avenue, enabling competition of ideas, so that the very strongest ideas which stand the test of time are clearly visible. I believe you can apply that to most areas of life - the market, education, health etc.
.I have addressed the problems in my Hubs. This was meant to be a simple Forum that posed a question to Leftists. We, as the far Left need to do something rather than just talk. The system in this country is failing. If you want to see me address the points in more detail, read my Hubs....sorry if I offended you. You might look back at the original question I asked.
Thank you Josak , I was getting Bored and frustrated by this discussion but you have cleverly sorted it ! How do we know that the person who doesn't like education is not in fact a child ?
Oh and I am an anarchist but I don't see why any state needs to enforce education.
Hmmmmmmm I agree with you that the state is not truly representative but I think it's as close as it's practical to make it so given we must work in the realm of the practical I don't think this is a reason to infer it has no validity.
I was going to continue this conversation as it was going but I see that is not a productive idea, in philosophical discussion one usually starts by defining their ethical base as in I am a "greatest good for the greatest number" humanitarian if the other party is a moral absolutist then on many issues we are at an impasse because our ways of approaching an issue are so radically different that its impossible to find common ground, I think this may be our situation now our directions of approach are too different.
The only way to progress is to turn this into a anarchist vs democratic/socialist argument, let me know if you want to have that but debating a single issue within those different perspectives is preety hard.
I maintain that it is possible to accept the idea of free (un-enforced) education and be a humanitarian.
Ok its very difficult to defend a reality (necessarily imperfect) versus an imagined reality so would you please propose how under the current governamental system your education program would work, how does it function and how does it aid society and the individual.
I grew up in an orphanage in Argentina, whenever we weren't at school (which was compolsory) we were either working in the farm or getting our religious education (it was a catholic orphanage). The orphanage was run on the philosophical "virtues" of Mother Theresa that is we were raised to be poor because that would be good for our eternal souls, the people who ran the orphanage considered our secular education an evil thing and I am positive that if school had not been cumpolsory we would only have been taught to read (so we can read scriptures you see). School gave me an opportunity to get out of that place, to gain knowledge of the outer world and to become educated eneough to see through the web of lies and backwardness that we were being fed. Compolsory education is probably the best thing that ever happened to me even though at first I was convinced school was an evil sinful place without it I would probably still be living in the same 5 square miles as a peasant farmer for one of the nearby landowners.
Josak I was wrong as proven by your excellent reply.
I understand your position considering your circumstance, but I think you are overstating the problem of these middle-aged theocrat parents who don't want their children to be educated. Your orphanage obviously did not have much stake in getting you properly educated. They had no emotional investment in your well-being, and stood to gain nothing from the benefits of your education.
Let me express to you that the anti-intellectualism in the west is the result of decades of mind-numbing public school education, as well as other outside influences such as the government subsidised media. All things being equal, children want to learn, and parents want to help them learn. Children are born wanting to learn everything they can about this world, in excited fascination of everything that passes before their eyes. When provided books, they will read, but studies have been done to show that public school actually DISCOURAGES reading. Reading is then associated with work, and is seen as a chore. Yet another thing to do to tick that box that proves you are capable.
“I think the big mistake in schools is trying to teach children anything, and by using fear as the basic motivation. Fear of getting failing grades, fear of not staying with your class, etc. Interest can produce learning on a scale compared to fear as a nuclear explosion to a firecracker.”
― Stanley Kubrick
My solution then, would be to allow more options. I cannot claim to know exactly what is best for each individual student, unlike the state, but I do know that the current method of education has categorically not worked. There are free schools, apprenticeships, private tutors, learning a trade from a tradesman...there are infinite options available.
"During Romney’s tenure as a Marriott director, the company repeatedly utilized complex tax-avoidance maneuvers, prompting at least two tangles with the Internal Revenue Service, records show. In 1994, while he headed the audit committee, Marriott used a tax shelter known to attorneys by its nickname: “Son of BOSS.”
Bloomberg noted that “during Romney’s years on the board, Marriott’s effective tax rate dipped as low as 6.8 percent, compared with the federal corporate statutory rate of 35 percent.” Marriott’s tax dodging even drew the ire of Congress, with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a Romney endorser, calling the company’s use of one tax shelter an “expensive hoax” and a “scam.”
Today, Romney released an updated version of his tax plan, which, in addition to including $10.7 trillion in personal income tax cuts, would also implement a “territorial” system for corporate taxation. Citizens for Tax Justice has noted that such a system would allow companies to permanently avoid paying taxes on their offshore funds, increasing the incentive to move funds to other nations."
I hate this, yeah. What can be done about it? He's looking like the nominee, and apparently has Paul's support now too.
Can I call this anti-American? Because I think it is.
Is money the value of America? Seriously....because while people support it and vote for it....I have to wonder...
How much do you really hate exploitation and corporate corruption?
"GOP audience boos birth control"
I hate this too....what can we do about it?
They also bood a soldier (can't remember what for), and yelled for a man to die rather than have gvt healthcare.
The onus is on you here....what would you do about this?
Yes, they seem to want women barefoot and pregnant and the rest of us can be un-educated peasants.
The permanent underclass...made larger and split wider apart from them, the sainted money-bags.
Women taking care of the kids at home made the family a better unit. Now look at the family unit. It has become worse. Thank the feminists, the Liberals and the Democrats for such declines in the relationship of men/women. In addition to that, thank the nefarious Left for the decline in marriage and the increase in government welfare spending.
Don't you think lack of decent wages for men might have some impact on women having to work?
John just what are you saying ? Are you by chance saying women have to work to support the family ? Of course they do ! Which is all I can remember from my childhood, I can go over in my mind all my friends parents who all,the mothers ,worked. I cannot understand people who would think,especially people on the left, that a Woman hasn't got aspirations of her own ! Such as 'you are your work' 'Your work defines who you are'. I don't mean the rubbish work our 'superiors' have driven us into ,but people with jobs that they love such as Artists,nurses,schoolteachers and many worthwhile jobs that people enjoy and thrive on. It is a 'Womans Right To Work'. Women if given a decent job would almost always opt to fulfil themselves by working outside the home. I could turn your answer on it's head by asking 'Don't you think lack of decent wages for Women might have some impact on men having to work' ?
LOL Jandee, my remark was to counter Marquis's claim that the breakdown of the family was all the fault of the left!
Mind you, notwithstanding your comments there are many women in mundane and hard jobs juggling too keep families together and the wolf from the door and other clichés who would love to have partners earning enough to allow them more time with their families. In other words, "the rubbish work"
This forum is broke, I see my answer to Jandee in reply but nowhere else!
Thanks to every one who contributed to this Forum. I had no idea it would generate so much interest since it was about (or against) political bickering. The answer to our problems must exist somewhere beyond the realm of politics...but what. Thanks again, see ya on the screen. This is from yellowstone.
by SparklingJewel 11 years ago
http://articlesoffreedom.us/Home.aspxThe Articles of Freedom Liberty Coalition...And so it is proposed that these Articles be distributed to All in the Land, with the intent to draw the attention and courage of a “goodly number of millions of People” who, entitled to their Freedom and essential to...
by SheriSapp 11 years ago
Why are the libs so afraid of personal freedom
by Kathryn L Hill 4 weeks ago
How will this type of regime come about. I would say through technology.The most powerful of entities are Facebook, Amazon and Google.How much power are we willing to let them have?How can we reign them in? ... or do we want them to control us?Do we want to be blindly obedient to their...
by TMMason 10 years ago
It is BS like this that is driving America to the Right. So I say.. "Go Howard and the rest of you Leant Leftists, GO GO GO! Keep running your mouths with all the hate... you are helping me to collect more partners in my fight to remove you al from our Govt. So you all just go go go!"The...
by JOC 2 years ago
This article tended to resonate with how the left and the right view the issue.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opin … union.html
by Ruchira 10 years ago
Do you feel that personal freedom is more important than money?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|