Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Behind abortion, privatized prisons, and the environment it is creating, is one of the greates evils in our society.I thought to add another concern: privatization.
...
Prison privatization has led to heavy lobbying from these organizations to affect laws, and the creation of another class of ultra low wage employment (prisoners) that US employees outside the prisons must compete with - degrading real income.
...
No it's not. Privatization often allows for better quality because companies become interested in serving their customers better because it leads to higher profits. The biggest opposition to privatization comes from those who have monopolies over certain services.
Think about UPS Vs Federal Express Vs the US Post Office. Who do you think gives you better quality? If the Post Office could provide such better services, why doesn't it? Because it's a government bureaucracy, and as such, it is at an inherent disadvantage, and people look elsewhere.
Privatization hasn't led to lower wages - the abolishment of trade barriers with places like China and India have. We've allowed companies to simply relocate and have allowed ourselves to be in unfair competition with China. Proper trade tariffs would resolve the issue fairly quickly.
I suppose my problem with libertarianism is that, in practice, it is a form of ideologised selfishness. It denies one's responsibility to one's fellow man; it deprecates the idea of self-sacrifice; it supplants Mammon for God.
All of this is very evident in the thinking of Ayn Rand, and it is very evident that she thought this was a good thing. To me this is horrifying. It is worse than heresy; it is literally anti-Christ. Just read the so-called "Galt Code". That so many who are meant to be Christians are beguiled by this system is deeply worrying to me.
Ultimately, it is not mere freedom from oppression that libertarianism calls for, but freedom from any responsibility at all - even to the poor, the sick, the needy, the suffering. Even to the sinner. It is the salve for the conscience of the wealthy, and the focus of those who sleep with Newton and are not only desirous of but actively in love with the vain things of the world. I think, anyway.
But also, there is a simple problem here: no system is self-governing. The theory of self-correcting eco-systems has proven false (how it could co-exist as a theory with evolution I have no idea - you'd think they would contradict one another), and the idea that the markets self-correct is similarly evidently false.
With that said, no amount of regulation can be brought in that cannot, ultimately, be circumnavigated by the wily and the unscrupulous. This doesn't mean we should cut a swathe through the law to make it easier for them; it does mean that Western society will only become healthier if ideas of personal and corporate responsibility, and a healthy personal and corporate ambition, as well as ideas of prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, charity, hope, and industry are reincorporated into our societies. In short: selfishness/greed is killing the Western world. It is a greed which reduces everything - people included - to objects valuable only in the pleasure they bring me.
And I suspect it is greed born of pride. I don't know if the East shares with us Latins the story of Satan's fall, but according to our tradition, the Prince of Darkness told God, 'non serviam'...
You know, if Ron Paul becomes the candidate than all the power to himAs for what you said, E.C., I refuse to vote for any evil, lesser or otherwise. I will vote what my conscience and faith tells me is morally right. Also, while Ron Paul started the tea-party, he's not the star of the show any more. The tea-partiers are far more interested in Glenn Beck and Bachmann, who twisted principled positions of Ron Paul and marketed them very well. I'm not a fan of the tea-party, personally, and many tea-party 'libertarians' might not always agree with the non-aggression principle, which, as I said early is the core tenet of libertarianism. Most of them are simply very fiscally and socially conservative.
As for Ron Paul's electability, he actually is in the Republican party because he believes libertarianism is what Republicanism used to be, and he wants to return it to that. He also polled 49% to Obama's 51% in a Rasmussen poll that asked how voters would vote if a hypothetical election between the two happened today. That's not too bad. Ron Paul appeals to a great number of people on the left. I would know, as I left the "left" to become a Paul supporter. He is also picking up steam and random endorsements from rappers, actors, businessmen and the like.
Either way, he isn't stealing my vote from anyone. If it weren't for him, I probably wouldn't be voting anyway, since I wouldn't vote for someone that I don't morally agree with. Actually, I'm most likely going to register for the first time to vote for him in the primary, and I know other non-voters that he has motivated to vote.
Millions of murders every year... Yea, it's pretty evil.Just out of curiosity, how many people here think abortion is the greatest evil of today's society?
I am a philosophy major specializing in theology and ethics so looking at issues like this is a hobbyMillions of murders every year... Yea, it's pretty evil.
You do know that Ron Paul is a doctor, right? Probably with much more knowledge about the medical system than you and I could ever imagine.
He can't be any more 'dangerous' than Obama. He's been rather prudent his entire career. And even though I feel he exaggerates in some of his political beliefs - such as on the legalization of heroin, among others - he is consistent and wise enough to admit that ideally such acts would be regulated by the states, not by the federal government.
Don't take this as an insult, but in Ireland you don't really understand the American frame of mind. Just because someone proposes a healthcare system that isn't publicly funded by the government, that doesn't make it "heartless". Many here do feel you can provide an efficient private healthcare system by reforming the existing regulations. Part of the element that is missing in Ireland is that of freedom. Many Americans have a fear of the federal government encroaching upon their personal lives. Healthcare by those who oppose Obamacare is seen as a further step in that direction, away from individual and states' rights.
I don't know, I kind of find the opposite - when Americans hear "universal health care" they assume it means that it is primarily run by the federal government. In reality there are many different ways of running such a system, and a lot depends on the size of the country and the structure of government.
Of course there are lots of ways a universal system could work, so there should be lots of good options for the USA to consider.
Here in Canada the federal government has a fairly minimal role mandating the provinces have a similar level of care and allocating some funding, user insurance is run by the provinces; delivery is by small health care regions or private business; practitioner insurance for doctors is through a national co-op; extended care and much drug coverage is through private insurance.
But when I look at the American system I don't see any real way to make it work without a serious over-haul, and I can't see the private insurers letting that happen. But for some reason the libertarians tend to support them, and it is never very clear to me why that should be. A corporate society is no more free than a true socialist society.
But when I look at the American system I don't see any real way to make it work without a serious over-haul, and I can't see the private insurers letting that happen. But for some reason the libertarians tend to support them, and it is never very clear to me why that should be. A corporate society is no more free than a true socialist society.
The person is no less of a person the day she is conceived than she is the day before she is born, the day after she is born, or on her thirtieth birthday.I am a philosophy major specializing in theology and ethics so looking at issues like this is a hobby
Do you believe abortion is equally as evil regardless of when (term wise) it takes place?
Murder is murder. Babies are completely helpless, but then again... when anyone is murdered, aren't they usually helpless to avoid it?Do you consider abortion as more, less or equally evil to standard (people living independent of the womb) murder?
There is probably a distinction there regarding action vs inaction and all, but effectively they are both are wrong.Do you consider abortion more severe than letting someone die?
You do know that Ron Paul is a doctor, right? Probably with much more knowledge about the medical system than you and I could ever imagine.
He can't be any more 'dangerous' than Obama. He's been rather prudent his entire career. And even though I feel he exaggerates in some of his political beliefs - such as on the legalization of heroin, among others - he is consistent and wise enough to admit that ideally such acts would be regulated by the states, not by the federal government.
Don't take this as an insult, but in Ireland you don't really understand the American frame of mind. Just because someone proposes a healthcare system that isn't publicly funded by the government, that doesn't make it "heartless". Many here do feel you can provide an efficient private healthcare system by reforming the existing regulations. Part of the element that is missing in Ireland is that of freedom. Many Americans have a fear of the federal government encroaching upon their personal lives. Healthcare by those who oppose Obamacare is seen as a further step in that direction, away from individual and states' rights.
I don't know, I kind of find the opposite - when Americans hear "universal health care" they assume it means that it is primarily run by the federal government. In reality there are many different ways of running such a system, and a lot depends on the size of the country and the structure of government.
Of course there are lots of ways a universal system could work, so there should be lots of good options for the USA to consider.
Here in Canada the federal government has a fairly minimal role mandating the provinces have a similar level of care and allocating some funding, user insurance is run by the provinces; delivery is by small health care regions or private business; practitioner insurance for doctors is through a national co-op; extended care and much drug coverage is through private insurance.
But when I look at the American system I don't see any real way to make it work without a serious over-haul, and I can't see the private insurers letting that happen. But for some reason the libertarians tend to support them, and it is never very clear to me why that should be. A corporate society is no more free than a true socialist society.
Knuckman arrived here 27 years ago, and quickly advanced from his first job as a runner in the trading room to a trader. He worked for brokerage firms, soon established his own firm and is now an analyst with Agora Financials, a consulting firm specializing in commodities investments. He also writes a newsletter that offers investment tips. "I trade in anything you can get in and out of quickly," he says candidly. "I'm here to make money."
How he makes money doesn't make any difference to Knuckman. He draws no distinctions among commodities like petroleum, silver or food products. "I don't believe in politics," he says. "I believe in the market, and the market is always right."
"The age of cheap food is over," predicts Knuckman, noting that this can't be such a bad thing for US citizens. "Most Americans eat too much, anyway."
For his fellow Americans, who spend 13 percent of their disposable income on food, the price hike may be an annoyance. But for the world's poor, who are forced to spend 70 percent of their meager budgets on food, it's life-threatening.
Since last June alone, higher food prices have driven another 44 million people below the poverty line, reports the World Bank. These are people who must survive on less than $1.25 (0.87) a day. More than a billion people are starving worldwide. The current famine in the Horn of Africa is not only the result of drought, civil war and corrupt officials, but is also caused by prohibitively high food prices.
above excerpts from:
Speculating with Lives: How Global Investors Make Money Out of Hunger - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
The food crisis of a few years ago (07/08 ?) was also in large part the effect of commodity speculation.
No no! The market has a moral compass!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?