CF Election Game: The Vote

[mzungu]

PEOPLE have the right to their dignity. A right to enjoy their county's natural habitats. They have the right to health care, jobs, and EDUCATION.

We cannot consider ourselves a civilised nation when we leave our poor to be fended by greedy charities that pocket most of the money they collect from donations.

Human decency, dignity, stable families, a healthy environment are very important issues for us.

Health care for all and education.

We shall style our health care to the British model. We shall finally put a stop to the drug trade (If there is a will there is a way).

Schools will no longer be able to serve junk food to our children. School meals will be proper meals and not transient fat laden killer food.

Education and motivation will result in safer streets and better employees.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Not exactly. Market controls will enable people to get rid of greedy companies. If prices are not fair then you can "vote" by not buying them. They may dictate the price but you dictate whether or not they get the price they ask for. If the price is too high people won't but it. You vote with your bank account.

That may work with products that you do not depend on for your survival, or even your day-to-day life. With stuff like the water supply, you don't have that choice. Either you pay whatever price the private owner of the water main demands, or you don't receive any.

Several attempts at establishing the free market utopia have been made during the last 30 years, each time with devastating consequences for the consumers (and rather favourable profit margins fo the private investors).
The assumption that the market will somehow regulate itself is a dangerous myth, a pipe dream that hands a carte blanche to those who have the money and the power to exploit the general populace for their personal gain.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

PEOPLE have the right to their dignity.

At what expense?

We cannot consider ourselves a civilised nation when we leave our poor to be fended by greedy charities that pocket most of the money they collect from donations.

While charities shouldn't be necessary, they still do a good job when governments fail the people.

We shall finally put a stop to the drug trade (If there is a will there is a way).

Does that mean eradicating all narcotics and hallucinogens in your nation (i.e., no cigarettes, no alcohol, no marijuana, no heroine)? Or all drugs, with the exception of tobacco and alcohol? Or are you going to legalise drugs, thereby ending the underground drug trade?

 

[callmeMurph]

PEOPLE have the right to their dignity.

They have the right to health care, jobs, and EDUCATION.

People do have dignity.

"Rights" to health care, jobs, and education disregard one's right to property and one's dignity.

We cannot consider ourselves a civilised nation when we leave our poor to be fended by greedy charities that pocket most of the money they collect from donations.

Stop donating your money to the government. They are one charity that wastes a lot of money. At least with charities you can decide which one you want to donate to. Bad charities will have less people donate to them. You have no choice when it comes to corrupt government charity.

Human decency, dignity, stable families, a healthy environment are very important issues for us.

As they should be.

Schools will no longer be able to serve junk food to our children. School meals will be proper meals and not transient fat laden killer food.

What if I want junk food? How dare you disregard my right to choose and my dignity.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'd definitely legalize drugs, thus depriving criminal syndicates of their income. With tobacco and alcohol being both legal and (mostly) socially accepted, anyway, the whole current stance is pretty ridiculous to begin with.

Entheogens have been used for spiritual (and in some cases, also recreational) purposes since the dawn of history, and it's only the consumerist mindset and the overabundant availability in (post-)industrial societies that has turned them into a liability.

 

[callmeMurph]

That may work with products that you do not depend on for your survival, or even your day-to-day life. With stuff like the water supply, you don't have that choice. Either you pay whatever price the private owner of the water main demands, or you don't receive any.

Several attempts at establishing the free market utopia have been made during the last 30 years, each time with devastating consequences for the consumers (and rather favourable profit margins fo the private investors).
The assumption that the market will somehow regulate itself is a dangerous myth, a pipe dream that hands a carte blanche to those who have the money and the power to exploit the general populace for their personal gain.

I am not advocating some utopia void of greed and corruption. I am advocating a system that limits the damage that corrupt people can do.

 

[callmeMurph]

I'd definitely legalize drugs, thus depriving criminal syndicates of their income. With tobacco and alcohol being both legal and (mostly) socially accepted, anyway, the whole current stance is pretty ridiculous to begin with.

Another example of why the free market works.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I am not advocating some utopia void of greed and corruption. I am advocating a system that limits the damage that corrupt people can do.

A goal which an unregulated market clearly cannot achieve, as demonstrated over and over again every time a state privatized its natural monopolies, such as the water supply.

 

[callmeMurph]

A goal which an unregulated market clearly cannot achieve, as demonstrated over and over again every time a state privatized its natural monopolies, such as the water supply.

The state should have no own the water supply to begin with. No one has any right to claim ownership of an entire water supply. The only reason they can do so is because the state allows them to do so. The state protects corruption.

 

[mzungu]

At what expense?

Good question! Since we are a party of equality and justice, we are very willing to accept proposals!

While charities shouldn't be necessary, they still do a good job when governments fail the people.

Charities are notorious for pocketing most of the donated money. They are being very dishonest when they request for donations and hide the fact that at the most only 40% of the moneys actually ends up helping the needy.

Does that mean eradicating all narcotics and hallucinogens in your nation (i.e., no cigarettes, no alcohol, no marijuana, no heroine)? Or all drugs, with the exception of tobacco and alcohol? Or are you going to legalise drugs, thereby ending the underground drug trade?

Another very good question that begs to be answered. We shall turn to the medical and scientific field for feedback and the law enforcement departments. We need to carefully formulate what is acceptable and what is not.

An example being: A shoulder fired anti aircraft missile is a weapon but so is a shotgun. Are they the same? Reason dictates that they are to be judged separately. You can hardly accept people walking around with stingers. Narcotics are so varied that they need to be classified according to their potency, and lethality factor.

This is an issue best left to the experts to advise us politicians.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

 

[callmeMurph]

Charities are notorious for pocketing most of the donated money. They are being very dishonest when they request for donations and hide the fact that at the most only 40% of the moneys actually ends up helping the needy.

Sources?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Good question! Since we are a party of equality and justice, we are very willing to accept proposals!

How about, respecting the dignity of women by treating them as people, instead of precious flowers to be kept at home?

Charities are notorious for pocketing most of the donated money. They are being very dishonest when they request for donations and hide the fact that at the most only 40% of the moneys actually ends up helping the needy.

Source?

Another very good question that begs to be answered. We shall turn to the medical and scientific field for feedback and the law enforcement departments. We need to carefully formulate what is acceptable and what is not.

An example being: A shoulder fired anti aircraft missile is a weapon but so is a shotgun. Are they the same? Reason dictates that they are to be judged separately. You can hardly accept people walking around with stingers. Narcotics are so varied that they need to be classified according to their potency, and lethality factor.

This is an issue best left to the experts to advise us politicians.

Indeed. And if the experts say that no drug is so bad it should be banned outright, would all drugs therefore become legalised and government-regualted?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The state should have no own the water supply to begin with. No one has any right to claim ownership of an entire water supply. The only reason they can do so is because the state allows them to do so. The state protects corruption.

Some places only have one source of water, and one network of pipes to deliver it to each household. Who ought to own it? The community that depends upon it, or a private investor trying to make a profit with it? I'm with the community, as the investor will put his profits before the welfare of those who depend upon the supply.

 

[WiredSpirit]

The way utilities are privatized seems to be problematic. In my hometown we have recently ended our contract with a private water company after numerous fines by the EPA that the city was always stuck with. I would like to know how many private companies have actually laid the infrastructure for the utilities they operate? How many actually maintain the infrastructure. In cities large and small privatization experiments have failed. In the few cases where a new subdivision is built out of city limits and a private company does lay the infrastructure, they just buy the water from the city and act as a middleman charging enormous rates.

Electricity is no different, except we've been a little more hesitant to change. Vectren charges customers in Evansville, IN three times the rate Big Rivers charges across the river in Kentucky, and Big Rivers often buys their power from Vectren's generation plants. Not to mention before the utility was privatized 85% of the employees were union workers out on the streets climbing poles and servicing customers or working in a power plant. Now that it is privatized most of their employees are non-union working in their new office building downtown pushing papers and making collection calls.

 

[mzungu]

How about, respecting the dignity of women by treating them as people, instead of precious flowers to be kept at home?

Our policies do no such thing. The only work that women will not be allowed to do is serving in life threatening combat roles. This is something we strongly believe in. Twisting our words will not further the cause of equality. We stand by our policy.

Source?

Personal experience with NGO charities in 3rd world countries. The CEO's and top employees were earning substantial salaries in the 6 figures. I personally met many, some of whom offered a relative of mine who was helping African children with cancer to make money if she joined them.
But if you really want a source then I shall have to list many sources since each fraudulent charity is listed separately:
Commercial fundraisers pocket millions meant for charity - OC Watchdog - The Orange County Register
Operation False Charity: Nationwide Crackdown on Dishonest Fundraising - charitywatch.org
Non-profit Organizations Beware Corporate Officers Compensation IRS Restrictions Debt Consolidation

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The reason why women didn't serve in combat in the past was that combat was usually hand-to-hand, depending upon sheer physical brawn.
Modern warfare bears little similarity to that, and as such there is no reason to treat women differently from men.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Our policies do no such thing. The only work that women will not be allowed to do is serving in life threatening combat roles. This is something we strongly believe in. Twisting our words will not further the cause of equality. We stand by our policy.

You would prohibit women from serving in life-threatening combat roles. To do that is to treat them as precious flowers. If women want to serve in the same military roles as men, why shouldn't they?

Personal experience with NGO charities in 3rd world countries. The CEO's and top employees were earning substantial salaries in the 6 figures. I personally met many, some of whom offered a relative of mine who was helping African children with cancer to make money if she joined them.
But if you really want a source then I shall have to list many sources since each fraudulent charity is listed separately:
Commercial fundraisers pocket millions meant for charity - OC Watchdog - The Orange County Register
Operation False Charity: Nationwide Crackdown on Dishonest Fundraising - charitywatch.org
Non-profit Organizations Beware Corporate Officers Compensation IRS Restrictions Debt Consolidation

Fair enough.

 

[Protocol11]

Not exactly. Market controls will enable people to get rid of greedy companies. If prices are not fair then you can "vote" by not buying them. They may dictate the price but you dictate whether or not they get the price they ask for. If the price is too high people won't but it. You vote with your bank account.

Yea, not always. When Texas deregulated electricity, our prices skyrocketed. Some people were getting 1000$ a month bills.

We also got governer Goodhair trying to sell off state roads and highways to private companies, turning them into toll roads because the idiot doesn't want to pass a 10 cent gas tax, nevermind that the tolls for the public-turned-private roads are a great deal more than a little gas tax.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Choice #1 seemed good to me.....

 

[WiredSpirit]

Somebody vote for the Hawk party already (poor Chris)

I propose that if this poll ends in a tie between Mzungu and myself we shall engage in mortal combat.

Or each of us promise the loser a prominent cabinet position, whichever.