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.
Except, that's what was preached every time they've tried it.
Assuming that you're not doing a "what the definition of is, is" it's another name for statists who have given up the idea of violent revolution and instead use "mind games" and propaganda instead.
[citation needed]
It seems more likely to me that they'd preach workers' democracy and the like, while the bureaucracy moves in to the position of the ruling class. As for the utopia stuff, again, I'd be surprised (but also not surprised, if you get my meaning) if the Soviet Union was explicitly promoting some utopian vision of things.
Well the latter might be true, but that doesn't mean they're either right or good for us in the long run - and that irrespective of any individual or short term benefits they provide.
I guess I'm getting off-topic, given how this thread is going. I agree totally that how these programs have become structured is financially unsound. But if you know their histories, they were established because of pressing needs that couldn't be met any other way. During the 30s, large numbers of the elderly--who couldn't work, and didn't have private pensions--were winding up in abject poverty. High unemployment made it impossible for many families to help them. SS came about because the circumstances of the Depression overwhelmed the ability of private interests to provide needed assistance. Medicare too, was necessitated because private insurors would not cover older, higher risk persons. Retirees--who no longer had employer based insurance--were either going without care, or going bankrupt paying for it. The problem was vastly bigger than private charity could manage. It's true that good intentions have expanded what was envisoned as safety nets into budget-busting all-encompassing social welfare programs. But they exist not because of any love of big government. But because private initiative was failing, and some type of systematic, collective action was the only way to meet the needs.
Then why did he deliberately choose descriptors that have extremely negative emotional connotations as opposed to using clinical language to get his point across? To then point out that he is a professional at this means that he cannot even use the excuse of ignorance, he is purposefully using the same tactics he is decrying in others.
So how exactly does advocating peace between nations and so on mean that they expect some sort of utopian, crime and violence-free world?
A global utopia of world peace is often seen as one of the possible endings of history. Within the localized political structures or spheres it presents, "polyculturalism" is the model-based adaptation of possible interactions with different cultures and identities in accordance with the principles of participatory society
Really? It's like one of the big goals. However, from a Christian perspective, true peace and utopia will never be possible without Christ.So how exactly does advocating peace between nations and so on mean that they expect some sort of utopian, crime and violence-free world?
I understand their history was born out of a pressing need - and that a pretty dire one at the time. And I accept the concept of a corporate solution to meet the need. But understand that that need was a temporary (albeit serious, granted) one. The solution however, was not. Indeed, the "solution" was designed from the start (amid much opposition, mind you) to be a permanent one. That's where my issues with the concept of "social security" begin. Again, I've no problem with the concept of coming together to solve a temporary problem. But that's not what FDR and the democrats did. They pushed through a permanent government program in the midst of a time of serious financial crisis for many - and used that crisis as warrant for the implementation of their program. So mine is not a value judgment of the need of the time.I guess I'm getting off-topic, given how this thread is going. I agree totally that how these programs have become structured is financially unsound. But if you know their histories, they were established because of pressing needs that couldn't be met any other way. During the 30s, large numbers of the elderly--who couldn't work, and didn't have private pensions--were winding up in abject poverty. High unemployment made it impossible for many families to help them. SS came about because the circumstances of the Depression overwhelmed the ability of private interests to provide needed assistance. Medicare too, was necessitated because private insurors would not cover older, higher risk persons. Retirees--who no longer had employer based insurance--were either going without care, or going bankrupt paying for it. The problem was vastly bigger than private charity could manage. It's true that good intentions have expanded what was envisoned as safety nets into budget-busting all-encompassing social welfare programs.
Again, I admit the good in pulling together as a nation to meet a temporary need - particularly a very pressing need.But they exist not because of any love of big government. But because private initiative was failing, and some type of systematic, collective action was the only way to meet the needs.
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?