are we to be free?

with all the talk of socialism in america and the growing governmental control over our relatively free marketplace, i feel the need to ask those of you on these boards a rather basic question. is the individual an important component of american political philosophy or is the will of the people of paramount concern?

this country has always led the world in its pursuit of the rights of the individual, understanding that the price we pay for those rights is a tumultuous life at best. as the rest of the world has leaned more and more toward regulating the rights of their citizens, the u.s. has only slowly moved in that direction. individual liberty has created a booming economy (for the most part) and a platform from which most of the modern worlds greatest advances have come. we see that embracing idea that the individual should be allowed such freedom has given us not only great wealth, but also an increasingly large gap between the richest and the poorest. now, with the call for government to do something about the poverty of this country, is it time for the end of individual liberty?

nikita krushchev, the architect of the post-stalin soviet union, once said, â??Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for allâ?�. this blustering cold war icon also claimed, "we will bury you" and that it would be our working class that would be responsible for our downfall. he, of course, failed to mention that it was not the working class but the political elite and their military might that managed to keep socialism alive in his own country. are we to follow in the path of those failed relics or are we willing to allow a free marketplace to determine at what rate our morality overshadows our innate avarice? our politicians make the choice seem simple, equality for the masses or rampant greed. if we keep an eye to the future, the choice is not quite so simple.

the poll above is a rather stark black and white, with no middle ground. this is because there is no middle ground. either we are all allowed to freely live our lives or we must fall in line with what is best for society. to believe we can partially legislate such things is the ultimate in naivete.

Great post and poll.

I think it is obvious I believe individual liberties are the most important. It's is the foundation on which our nation was built.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn't truly solve any problems. When individual freedom's are a priority, people have an active role in the quality of their lives and their general happiness.

Socialism is basically the promotion of mediocrity. Intelligence, hard work, individual liberties, the pursuit of happiness, and the monetary motivation to progress an individuals creations and inventions takes a back seat to the society as a whole.

The argument from the other view will be that these are "selfish" ideals, and to an extent they are. My question however, is why are they not justified ideals? Socialism forces the population to support each other rather than the individual supporting his/herself. In a free society, it is up to the individual to provide for themselves, and typically, those who have made fortunes, donate to charities freely.

Why should we want a society of mediocrity?

I don't understand how anyone who as studied the American Revolution, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and read some of their writings can support socialism.

Socialism is the antithesis of the American Dream. It is the antithesis of the framework our Founders laid out for this nation. It is a direct insult to everything our forefathers believed in. An insult the the ideals they risked their lives and fortunes for.

everyone claims that freedom is of paramount importance, but few seem willing to acknowledge the true price we must pay for it. flag-wavers may applaud our servicemen and bible-thumpers may give thanks for the ability to worship as they please and the price we pay for those freedoms may appear evident. but the real price we pay and will always pay is the risk of failure and few seem willing to take that risk these days.

socialism removes that risk, but it also removes the possibility of great reward. socialism is a form of slavery, slavery to the will of those with the power to shape society. that's all fine and dandy if you are willing to endure those chains, but let's not be taken in by the idea that a government in control of our lives is a better idea than a marketplace in control of them. the fables of democratic socialism or socialism kept in check are as foolish as the idea that all men will always behave ethically.

I agree, I'm anxious to see the outcome of your poll. And yes, with freedom comes great risk, that is the essence of freedom. You are free to make both positive and negative decisions, free to succeed or fail. At the same time, you have to be willing to accept failure and the fortitude to rebound.

I also agree we now live in a society where failure is viewed as something that should be prevented, as well as a society that views actual success as negative. We live in a society where, simply by succeeding you are labeled as an evil corporate villain.

I don't understand how starting a company, employing fellow citizens, and providing a service or product to the community is so easily attacked. People don't even look at corporations on an individual basis anymore, they simply label them all as evil.

I also find it funny how people feel socialism will alleviate this corruption. The big corporations will be better able to adapt to socialistic policies, regardless of if they remain in the private sector or are seized by the government.

The actual victims of socialism will be the small business owners, small farmers, and young entrepreneurs. I'm not saying the big corporations will be unharmed, but they will be much more likely to adapt.

People feel they are entitled to success, or at least a level of success in which they have what their neighbor has. Nobody has a right to anything other than what they have directly earned.

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody elses rights as spelled out in the constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody elses rights as spelled out in the constitution.

---

I agree, unfortunately most people have never even read the constitution and don't realize what our rights are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

Individual rights are absolutely the most important. As long your rights don't violate somebody else's rights as spelled out in the constitution.

---

but, as the constitution evolves, where do your rights spill over onto another's. we can all see that if you shoot your gun into a crowded room and kill someone, you have infringed on one of their basic rights. but if your accumulation of wealth is seen as having too much and another is starving, is the government justified in taking what is yours to feed those who failed to succeed? our rights seem fluid. do we have the right to abundance in the face of need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

but, as the constitution evolves, where do your rights spill over onto another's. we can all see that if you shoot your gun into a crowded room and kill someone, you have infringed on one of their basic rights. but if your accumulation of wealth is seen as having too much and another is starving, is the government justified in taking what is yours to feed those who failed to succeed? our rights seem fluid. do we have the right to abundance in the face of need?

---

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privelige and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.

The comparison you use is faulty in that one is a deliberate act and the other a lack of action.
By that logic anyone who does not attempt to stop a murder is as guilty as the killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Many would define that as greed .

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

---

Schools offer scholarships to many students with good high school GPA's and/or ACT/SAT scores. Not to mention student loans aren't hard to receive. We again come back to personal responsibility and risks. You can choose to take out loans in order to fund your education if you choose to take the risk. It is an investment, not an obligation of the state to provide higher education to all people.

I fail to see what is wrong with that. If you do well and land a decent job, it's a good investment, if you drop out, it was a bad one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Many would define that as greed.

---

others would define it as looking toward the future. the question is not whether it is right to ignore the plight of others, but whether government should force us to care for others as those in power see fit.

Quote:

---

Just how fair do you think a system is that only allows for an advanced education to those who can afford it?

---

excellence is not always rewarded, but with a bit of luck even the poorest can find the education they deserve. who is to determine what is fair or if fair even exists?

Quote:

---

Those most likely to succeed are born into a life of privilege and the old boy network ensures that those at the top stay there.

---

is it a sin to want to provide for your children? of course those born to privilege will have an easier time than those raised in poverty, that is a major reason for the accumulation of wealth for many. once again i ask, is it government's place to penalize those who have succeeded so that others can thrive or should we depend on the private charity of the people themselves to aid those in need? the difference is choice, the essence of the individual.

Quote:

---

The comparison you use is faulty in that one is a deliberate act and the other a lack of action.
By that logic anyone who does not attempt to stop a murder is as guilty as the killer.

---

there was no comparison. merely a pair of examples, one obvious and the other not so obvious. with the inception of the international bill of human rights we have determined that all people are entitled to such things as housing and education. the question is if it is government's duty to assure everyone these basic rights and, if so, how they propose to pay for these things without penalizing the successful.

governments produce nothing and create nothing of value, so their wealth must be taken from the people. if so much is to be provided for so many, whose wealth must be appropriated and where exactly do we draw the line? are we to allow our liberal establishment's globalist ambitions to attempt to level the playing field across the world? our poor would seem rich in other corners of the earth, should their wealth be stolen to provide the basic necessities for those even poorer than themselves?

I personally feel we are on the correct road!

I am thankful I was privileged to participate in an election that, elected the popular vote as well as the electoral vote into office.

No more Neo-Con bullshit!!
Under the previous administration we had no rights, "patriot act" "Gitmo" we are now starting down a long road to recovery.

Both, our freedoms and the economy.

I got no problems with republicans, just the neo-cons who seem hell bent on world collapse, oh, sept us.

The people have spoken, and we want our freedom back!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadscale

I personally feel we are on the correct road!

I am thankful I was privileged to participate in an election that, elected the popular vote as well as the electoral vote into office.

No more Neo-Con bullshit!!
Under the previous administration we had no rights, "patriot act" "Gitmo" we are now starting down a long road to recovery.

Both, our freedoms and the economy.

I got no problems with republicans, just the neo-cons who seem hell bent on world collapse, oh, sept us.

The people have spoken, and we want our freedom back!!

---

Clearly you don't know what "personal liberties" mean or you didn't vote in the poll. Considering what you said you should have voted for the second option.

Secondly, Bush was more of a moderate. The 'patriot act' could easily be argued to infringe on our liberties, although it is intended to prevent terrorism, I can see the fear that the government would use it to spy on American citizens and not just terrorists. I don't like it either, although I believe if used correctly it would be a benefit. Unfortunately, the government cant be trusted to use it the way it's intended.

Gitmo on the other hand doesn't infringe on our liberties in the least. It is a facility for captured terrorists, or at least it was. They aren't protected under our constitution, therefore the point is moot.

Please provide examples of what particularly you believe the Obama administration has done or discussed to preserve our liberties? I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.

Is it the talk about requiring public or military service for all American youth? Corporate bailouts? Forcing a CEO to resign? SCHIP(extending healthcare coverage to children 30 years old who live with their mommy)? Putting us into massive debt, more than any president in history(but than promising to cut it in half back to what Bush got is into)? Discussion of banning certain kinds of guns and raising taxes on ammunition? Government control of food producers? Searching private citizen's computers? Perhaps his support of partial birth abortions (and the killing of babies who survive the abortion once it is outside the womb?)

I agree with a woman's right to choose up to a point, however, once a child is born, it's murder. Does a child not have rights simply because the mother wanted an abortion but didn't do it in time?

But please tell me what liberties he is protecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

Clearly you don't know what "personal liberties" mean or you didn't vote in the poll. Considering what you said you should have voted for the second option.

Secondly, Bush was more of a moderate. The 'patriot act' could easily be argued to infringe on our liberties, although it is intended to prevent terrorism, I can see the fear that the government would use it to spy on American citizens and not just terrorists. I don't like it either, although I believe if used correctly it would be a benefit. Unfortunately, the government cant be trusted to use it the way it's intended.

Gitmo on the other hand doesn't infringe on our liberties in the least. It is a facility for captured terrorists, or at least it was. They aren't protected under our constitution, therefore the point is moot.

Please provide examples of what particularly you believe the Obama administration has done or discussed to preserve our liberties? I'm anxious to hear what you have to say.

Is it the talk about requiring public or military service for all American youth? Corporate bailouts? Forcing a CEO to resign? SCHIP(extending healthcare coverage to children 30 years old who live with their mommy)? Putting us into massive debt, more than any president in history(but than promising to cut it in half back to what Bush got is into)? Discussion of banning certain kinds of guns and raising taxes on ammunition? Government control of food producers? Searching private citizen's computers? Perhaps his support of partial birth abortions (and the killing of babies who survive the abortion once it is outside the womb?)

I agree with a woman's right to choose up to a point, however, once a child is born, it's murder. Does a child not have rights simply because the mother wanted an abortion but didn't do it in time?

But please tell me what liberties he is protecting.

---

Look at the red the red in the quote. I did vote in the poll!

3 Months to fix the Bush fuck ups is not enough.

Gitmo is at the heart of our liberties, any administration that condones torture will take all our freedom.

Oh one more.

Do you feel the Obama administration wanting the ability to shut down private companies because they view them dangerous to our economy? What exactly constitutes a danger to our economy anyway?

The have also been talking about eminent domain a lot lately. Do you feel that infringes on our liberties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadscale

Look at the red the red in the quote. I did vote in the poll!

3 Months to fix the Bush fuck ups is not enough.

Gitmo is at the heart of our liberties, any administration that condones torture will take all our freedom.

---

You missed the point entirely and ignored the rest of the post. You should have voted for the second option, that was the point. Do you care to comment on the rest of what I had to say.

Regardless I think it is clear you don't actually understand what "individual liberties" are.

I'm used to liberals ignoring things they are unable to respond to at this point though. :(

Edit: He didn't ask if we are on the correct road. He asked what is most important. You don't follow directions very well do you?

I personally believe Obama would like to go to Camp David and set it out like Bush did.
I don't think he will.

The neo-cons got everything so fucked up it will be hard for anyone to fix.

I don't agree with all the decisions Obama makes, but I feel I have a lot more freedom NOW than I did in December.

If the Neo-Cons didn't fuck up our country, please post a good thing they did.

By neo-cons I assume your referring to the Bush administration. If so see my post here to that same question.

By the way, please elaborate on how you feel the things I mentioned have increased your liberties.

Hey JaggedEdge :thumbsup:
I'm sorry I did not try to imply Obama could give us more liberties.

I just believe he may reinstate the ones we lost:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadscale

Under the previous administration we had no rights.....

---

we have been losing our rights for a long time and baby bush had little to do with it. the rise of the welfare state we are all forced to pay for has been ongoing for longer than most of us have been alive and our indoctrination into the belief in its necessity seems nearly complete. the fight against the wars in iraq and afghanistan was a political diversion, as was the uproar over any abuses at guantanamo. our wars go on and the patriot act remains in place, a tool that the liberal establishment will undoubtedly find useful should the people balk at their totalitarian schemes. i'm curious as to what rights we really lost under the thumb of these dread neo-cons that seem to be intent on world domination.

Quote:

---

The people have spoken, and we want our freedom back!!

---

in three months our new liberal leadership has tightened government control over the marketplace and the bond between business and government has been more firmly cemented than at any time in our history. the people themselves have been taken out of the loop. we have been convinced of the fable of the evils of big business, those evils were always a matter of bureaucratic corruption, and have allowed government free reign over the marketplace. the seeds of wealth redistribution have sprouted, well fertilized by the bullshit of socialistic pundits, and the wealth you may accumulate is now in danger of becoming the property of the state.

the people have been duped and they are just too lazy to do a damn thing about it. we have been convinced that we have no right to the better things in life while others live in poverty and that our government has the right to quash the individual in favor of the greater good. for all you one trick ponies out there, who see only the end of our wars as their goal, try looking a bit further. these three months have shown us what this administration finds most important, reinforcing government control over their buddies in business. we have been shown that it was always bureaucratic bungling and "progressive" policies that led business into their greatest fiascoes and that the hand of government has always been hiding within their corporate puppets.

ok i cannot except that individual rights are more important. this country has been recognizing and letting individual rights and those of the minority rule the land for much too long now. used to be in this country when the majority spoke the minority listened. now all i have to do is complain to the ACLU and i can get that desicion overturned.

when individual rights are made most important you will eventualy deteriorate into anarchy.

even in a democracy you must give up some things make things good for everyone. not just you.

finally, an honest man who is willing to admit that he sees the individual as merely an unimportant cog in the vast machine.

"the needs of the many...outweigh, the needs of the few?"-spock

Sometimes the needs of the few or the one outwiegh the needs of the many. Captain James T. Kirk.

We in the US are a republic not a demacracy. It is ALL about the ONE.
Many ones make a majority and that rules. Rome was a republic.

With out free thinking individuals we would not be aloud to have this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOC NAR on probation

Sometimes the needs of the few or the one outwiegh the needs of the many. Captain James T. Kirk.

We in the US are a republic not a demacracy. It is ALL about the ONE.
Many ones make a majority and that rules. Rome was a republic.

With out free thinking individuals we would not be aloud to have this conversation.

---

:thumbsup:...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOC NAR on probation

Sometimes the needs of the few or the one outwiegh the needs of the many. Captain James T. Kirk.

We in the US are a republic not a demacracy. It is ALL about the ONE.
Many ones make a majority and that rules. Rome was a republic.

With out free thinking individuals we would not be aloud to have this conversation.

---

Amen, technically each state was intended to be it's own individual republic. The states created the federal government and gave it limited powers. Ultimately the little republics should be allowed the Big republic, unfortunately the states keep losing powers while the Feds keep seizing it.

I think that a lot of you are unfairly bashing socialism. It is important to understand that many of the socialistic policies in this country exist because of the failures inherent within a capitalistic, conservative, system of government. If our government was able to provide the basic necessities to anyone willing to work for them, their would be no need for socialism. The welfare state would not exist if the average American was able to provide for themselves and their family on a working wage. The socialistic policies which have been adapted by the American government over the years are there to address certain domestic failures within the federal government.

The reality is that there are millions of Americans out there with no health insurance, no life insurance, and no savings. These are honest hard working people who are simply unable to make the money needed to take care of themselves. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to take care of their families? The government is not helping these people in any way. Yet they pay taxes. They pay money to the federal government in the hopes that they will use it to provide for the common people.

A lot of people forget why we pay taxes. We don't pay it for the privilege of simply living in this country, we pay it so that the government can make things better. We pay it so that the jobs we pay them to do get done. Its not just some gigantic bank account that the members of our government can use as they please. But nowadays that's what it seems like. Hundreds of billions of our dollars are spent on things that wont even effect us.

Saying that things like the unemployment program, medicare, and section 8 housing, are a waste of money is just plain fucked up. Millions of people rely on that money to survive and that's a fact. These people have done nothing wrong, they have tried to do everything they could and because of failures within our government there is a wall they cannot climb.

In the end it all comes down to empathy. The ability to feel any sort of connection to your fellow man. If you can eat lobster every night while your neighbor starves, then I don't know what to tell you. Its all apart of this idea that the government is not responsible for the well being of the American citizens. Think about what this country would be like if everyone simply had the "chance" to live a peaceful life. Apparently that's what America used to be like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramulux

If our government was able to provide the basic necessities to anyone willing to work for them, their would be no need for socialism. The welfare state would not exist if the average American was able to provide for themselves and their family on a working wage. The socialistic policies which have been adapted by the American government over the years are there to address certain domestic failures within the federal government.

---

The government isn't responsible for providing financially for American families. We come back to personal responsibility. Anyone is capable of surviving on wages made form working the most menial job, they simply have to budget their money. If they are uneducated, unskilled, and unable to find a decent paying job they shouldn't have children. It is not the tax payers responsibility to pay for someone's kids.

Quote:

---

The reality is that there are millions of Americans out there with no health insurance, no life insurance, and no savings. These are honest hard working people who are simply unable to make the money needed to take care of themselves. What are they supposed to do? How are they supposed to take care of their families? The government is not helping these people in any way. Yet they pay taxes. They pay money to the federal government in the hopes that they will use it to provide for the common people.

---

If they don't have health insurance they need to look for a job that will cover them and their family or buy a private plan. If health insurance is important to them they can sell their tv, downgrade their car, move into a cheaper apartment, eat less, etc. I don't have a fucking savings account, but I also don't think anyone else should provide me with one! If saving money were important to me I would not smoke weed, buy so many books, drink beer, and have an HDTV.

I also disagree with the current tax code, however, why should they get more from the government than the average citizen?

We also have charity hospitals in most major cities. Free health care is already being provided in the form of these free hospitals and clinics. No, they aren't great and the lines are ridiculous, but it is far better than nothing. If you can't afford to pay it on your own, you can't complain about the charity already being extended by the tax payer.

Quote:

---

A lot of people forget why we pay taxes. We don't pay it for the privilege of simply living in this country, we pay it so that the government can make things better. We pay it so that the jobs we pay them to do get done. Its not just some gigantic bank account that the members of our government can use as they please. But nowadays that's what it seems like. Hundreds of billions of our dollars are spent on things that wont even effect us.

---

No, we pay taxes for protection in the form of a military, the postal service, interstate road's (which was only allowed under the constitution under the argument of military transport in the case of war) , police stations, fire departments, schools etc. These are the common good programs our taxes are meant to support. We don't pay taxes so a certain portion of the population can get special benefits. How do special benefits for some fit into the common good?

And yes, the federal government squanders a lot of our tax dollars, most of which is pumped into social programs that don't accomplish a goddamn thing.

Quote:

---

Saying that things like the unemployment program, medicare, and section 8 housing, are a waste of money is just plain fucked up. Millions of people rely on that money to survive and that's a fact. These people have done nothing wrong, they have tried to do everything they could and because of failures within our government there is a wall they cannot climb.

---

Actually many of them have done things wrong. They pop out children like they are going out of style, many don't have jobs, a portion are illegal immigrants who have never paid taxes other than sales tax. Have you ever thought that if we pulled the funding slowly they would find a way to survive? Yes, some are good people who have simply gotten a few bad breaks, but to assume they are all good and deserving people is ludicrous.

Quote:

---

In the end it all comes down to empathy. The ability to feel any sort of connection to your fellow man. If you can eat lobster every night while your neighbor starves, then I don't know what to tell you. Its all apart of this idea that the government is not responsible for the well being of the American citizens. Think about what this country would be like if everyone simply had the "chance" to live a peaceful life. Apparently that's what America used to be like.

---

"Empathy" is the reason people donate to charities. I don't think anyone opposes charitable contributions, however it should be up to the individual who they give their money to. I don't want to support some crackhead with 10 children and I should not have to, nobody should be required to do so.

Everyone does have a "chance" to live a peaceful life. I think you misunderstand what "chance" means. It doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a peaceful and easy life.

You say that is what America used to be like, but I get the impression history isn't your strong point. Our country used to be made up of small and hard working farmers and merchants whoworked hard on a daily basis for their necessities and lived simple lives. These people did not think they were entitled to things they were not able to afford. Today, many of the poor have cell phones, cars (with massive stereo systems and rims) and/or nice clothing etc. Do you really believe the poor of American past had luxuries?

The owner of the convenience store across the street is a Vietnamese immigrant who had to live with 20 other people in a 2 bedroom apartment when he first came over. He now owns two stores and is doing well and providing for himself, his children went to college, etc. The difference between him and the people you are speaking of is that he realized he had to work in order to achieve the "American Dream." He didn't believe the "American Dream" should be given to him gift wrapped in $100 bills!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramulux

I think that a lot of you are unfairly bashing socialism.

---

it has never been my intent to "bash" socialism. it is a perfectly viable alternative to the free-for-all of capitalism and there are many people in this world that are content with its restrictions. i do, however, think we should be honest about the ramifications of living under such a system. socialism is about the destruction of the individual. it is a system which demands by its very nature that an elite few maintain control over the masses. all this talk of the corporate elite and the undue influence of the wealthy may have some validity, but socialism does not change any of that. it merely codifies who maintains that power. the concepts of democratic socialism and a classless society are pipe dreams or even outright lies, there will always be an elite. it is merely a matter of how we determine who is in control.

the beauty of capitalism and a free market is that anyone, no matter their background, may attain the power needed to influence the society. of course few will, but the possibility is always there. there are no guarantees and the risks are great, but there is no artificially imposed ceiling on how high one might rise. the downside is that failure is a possible outcome. without government's parental hand to even out the playing field, the vagaries of a market in the control of the people may squash the budding entrepreneur and send him into poverty. with such freedom comes risk.

the positive side of socialism is that risk is eliminated and mediocrity becomes the standard of excellence. for most of the society it is a straightforward existence, with little demand and a guarantee of survival. within such a society everyone has his place and poverty may even be eradicated, but at the loss of the individual and his potential. only the extremely driven few ever seek excellence under such a system and they are usually shunned unless their work provides some immediate use for the society.

the entire purpose of this poll is to see how many of you believe that the possibility of excellence is worth the risks involved. i have my doubts as to whether its outcome will be of any use, so many seem not to understand the meaning of the term "individual" and others are too involved with the details of our political mess to see a broader picture.

Jagged Edge, your completely misinterpreting what I was trying to say. This isn't about the government giving people whatever they want or giving them handouts. I don't understand how you think that everyone has the ability to survive financially in this country. Have you not heard about the tent cities popping up everywhere? Are you not aware of the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs? Do you honestly think that there are people out there with HDTV's and expensive apartments who are complaining about not having health insurance? So many people are already barely scraping by with the basic necessities and they aren't wasting their money on superfluous crap. You are really not understanding the situation that many people find themselves in today.

You are also trying to make it seem as if all welfare recipients are crack heads with 10 kids, what the fuck is wrong with you? Could you buy into a stereotype any harder? Obviously there are going to be assholes who try to abuse the system but to just decide that everyone who receives government aid is doing something wrong is ignorant. I understand that you think its all about every man for himself, and that would be fine if every man had the same opportunities as everyone else.

You seem to be stuck in the 50's. I am sure that at that time the common man was perfectly capable of working a job and living a decent life. But its not like that anymore. Can you honestly tell me that you think someone could survive nowadays on minimum wage? There are millions of people making less than 20 grand a year and some of them have families. I realize that if your poor you probably shouldn't have kids, but what about people who have to support their parents, siblings, or grandparents. Also, think about people with illnesses or disabilities. Medicare is absolute shit, and disability checks are never enough to provide the treatment that so many of these people need. I realize that this is hard for you to understand because you have everything you need, you have shelter, food, and entertainment so it is very easy for you to judge these people and say they aren't working hard enough or that they don't deserve any help.

If it is possible, I suggest going to one of these tent cities or even a welfare office and preach your selfish bullshit to them and see what they think. Seriously you need to talk to some "real" poor people and get some sort of understanding of what these people are going through.

My dear D. of N.

I'm the, so far, single other vote.

Why is that?

Well, someone I respect said it for me.

"the entire purpose of this poll is to see how many of you believe that the possibility of excellence is worth the risks involved. i have my doubts as to whether its outcome will be of any use, so many seem not to understand the meaning of the term "individual" and others are too involved with the details of our political mess to see a broader picture. "

You just may be fishing in the shallow end of the gene pool, my friend.

If I had a clear, and objective view of our shared reality, I would be tickled to toss out an either/or, answer.

My only consolation?
Knowing that I do not know.
Hey! It's a start.:D

Try just bein' nice to each other and see if that don't help.
Aloha,
Weezard

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa . Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento., as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up. sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL
and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

My dear D. of N.

I'm the, so far, single other vote.

Why is that?

Well, someone I respect said it for me.

"the entire purpose of this poll is to see how many of you believe that the possibility of excellence is worth the risks involved. i have my doubts as to whether its outcome will be of any use, so many seem not to understand the meaning of the term "individual" and others are too involved with the details of our political mess to see a broader picture. "

You just may be fishing in the shallow end of the gene pool, my friend.

If I had a clear, and objective view of our shared reality, I would be tickled to toss out an either/or, answer.

My only consolation?
Knowing that I do not know.
Hey! It's a start.:D

Try just bein' nice to each other and see if that don't help.
Aloha,
Weezard

---

you leave me a bit confused here (as does most of humanity, i have to admit). i thought i had made it quite clear that the question was not whether the individual should put the welfare of others ahead of his own, but whether he should be allowed to make that decision on his own. we seem to have reached a point where many people believe that compassion and empathy should be legislated into existence, we all know that there are many folks out there that just aren't capable of seeing the world that way and many more whose resentment at being coerced will drive them from what would otherwise be a natural inclination. being "nice" to each other is really the only way that a society can hope to survive more than a few hundred years without collapsing under the weight of its own disgust.

as for the pond i've been sampling from, it is large and varied. some of the most intelligent people i've ever met have been incredibly ignorant, being too focused on the minutiae to even realize the philosophy behind their ideals, and true individuality is so out of style that many believe themselves to be unique though they are merely mimicking the latest trends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veggii

capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !!

---

greed is a part of humanity and has nothing to do with the economic or political system under which we live. we see greed every day (everyone does), but we also see good will and charity unless we turn a blind eye to it. the people of this country give a higher percentage of their wealth to charity each year than any other country on earth and you have the audacity to claim that we are a morally corrupt nation?

Quote:

---

we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa .

---

we must work, starve or seek charity. those are the options. those have always been the options. effort brings a chance of success and indolence brings poverty and death, these too have been constants since the beginnings of man. the creation of wealth brings with it the possibility of charity so that those unable to provide for themselves may be given aid, but only effort can create that wealth. somebody's gotta do it. if not you then who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

you leave me a bit confused here (as does most of humanity, i have to admit). i thought i had made it quite clear that the question was not whether the individual should put the welfare of others ahead of his own, but whether he should be allowed to make that decision on his own. we seem to have reached a point where many people believe that compassion and empathy should be legislated into existence, :lol5:
we all know that there are many folks out there that just aren't capable of seeing the world that way and many more whose resentment at being coerced will drive them from what would otherwise be a natural inclination. being "nice" to each other is really the only way that a society can hope to survive more than a few hundred years without collapsing under the weight of its own disgust.

It's not that hard to do.
Comes naturally, if allowed.
I think that is because caring for each other is in everyone's rational self interest.
Lot less work than carryin' grudges, yah?

as for the pond i've been sampling from, it is large and varied. some of the most intelligent people i've ever met have been incredibly ignorant, being too focused on the minutiae to even realize the philosophy behind their ideals, and true individuality is so out of style that many believe themselves to be unique though they are merely mimicking the latest trends.

---

In truth, each is unique, just, probably not in the way they imagine.;)

I can see you've given this some thought.
So, let me get serious for a moment.

I had to vote other because I did understand the question.

He is "allowed" to choose, that "allows" himself to choose.
Or, more simply.
Most non-physical limits are self-imposed.

And, I fear that our tribal mind is no longer rational enough to be trusted.
So self determination is just NOT a yupnup.
There are as many degrees of "freedom" as there are definitions.

OK, nuff o dat.
Gonna put my :D back on.

Just my random thoughts.
I'm not actually advocating anything at all, y'all.

Though I do recommend more love.

:stoned: Wee Zard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veggii

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa .

---

You my friend are actually pissing me off. How the hell is doing an honest day's work equivalent to slavery? Your post is ignorant beyond retaliation...

Quote:

---

Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento.,

---

My state seems to be fine. Maybe the liberal agendas in California have caused the poverty. Has that ever crossed your mind? I live in a very conservative state and our economy is doing very well. The only tent's I have seen are in the woods... Perhaps your state needs to rethink their values and politics.

Quote:

---

as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up.

---

First of all, if things are so bad how are you using the internet to post on this site? Secondly, if it is so bad, why the fuck are you hiding from the police? If homelessness is illegal and you are homeless, why not accept the free room and board?

Quote:

---

sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL

---

Yes you can change your situation. Bitching about how much your life sucks and how horrible our country is won't accomplish shit though. Clean your self up and go look for a decent fucking job. Mexicans can seem to find work, go pick some goddamn grapes at a wine vineyard for less than minimum wage if you have to. Instead of complaining go do something!

Quote:

---

and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

---

Really, that's what America has become? Why don't you try living in Africa for a few years, or fucking Cuba. Your ignorance has pissed me off beyond belief. I'm sick of people acting like they aren't in control of their own life. Get off this fucking forum and go find a goddamn job! If you have one and can't afford to live: MOVE!

Has it honestly never occurred to you to maybe save up a few bucks, hop on a train, and take a chance in a new state? You act like you have nothing to loose, so be proactive and stop fucking bitching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weezard

He is "allowed" to choose, that "allows" himself to choose.
Or, more simply.Most non-physical limits are self-imposed.

So self determination is just NOT a yupnup.

---

though i have to agree that choice cannot really be denied by anything other than the self, the system under which we live will effect our tendency toward self-determination and direct the path our society follows. a restrictive environment that denies the importance of the individual breeds a people whose imagination is stunted and who will be more prone to follow the will of others. those living under a system that cherishes individual accomplishment above the actions of the herd are more likely to strike off in different directions and expand the pool of common knowledge and experience. one glorifies stagnation, the other growth.

Quote:

---

There are as many degrees of "freedom" as there are definitions.

---

can a man in shackles be free? some would say it's entirely possible, but it's a difficult proposition. a man beaten long enough may begin to enjoy the pain and even to find a sort of freedom in his abuse, that doesn't mean he can find his full potential in such misery.

Quote:

---

Though I do recommend more love.

---

love, kindness, empathy, charity. none of these are really affected by the tawdry world of politics, but our tendency toward them is. without the outward freedom to express them as we see fit, they cease to have any true meaning.

its not so much i believe we are cogs in the wheel but to maintain an orderly society some personal rights must be put aside.

for example if someone were till murder my daughter should it not be my right to seek vengence and justice with my own hand and make the individual suffer the way i see fit? but i give up that right to live in an orderly society and hope that justice will be carried out according to the rules of society.

now or justice system is another debate for another place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yokinazu

its not so much i believe we are cogs in the wheel but to maintain an orderly society some personal rights must be put aside.

---

there is a tacit agreement we all concede to in order to live in a society. we put aside such things as vengeance in order to reap the benefits of an organized community. we do not kill the murderers with our own hands nor do we steal our belongings back from the thieves, instead we depend on the law to bring us our justice. you have no right to kill and torture as you see fit. that is not justice but petty revenge. the question is not whether we should be free to follow our every whim, but how far those restrictions should be taken.

we have gone from a few restrictions that protect the masses from the deviant behavior of the few to countless restrictions that supposedly protect us from ourselves and further protect the few from the vagaries of life. we place restrictions on success and normal behavior for the sake of some imagined safe and fair society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veggii

find yourself in my shoes and find the realilty of USA !! capitalism sucks it breeds greedy selfish morally corrupt people !! we are slaves in the USA in 2009!! there is no freedom anymore,, you must work (SLAVE) for someone else to live in usa . Redding california as many other cities across the USA are passing laws that is ILLEGAL to be HOMELESS .. OMG!! wtf has happened to our country Tent cities are popping up all over I am considering myself going to the one in sacramento., as its a daily battle to get food and hide from police, cant even begin to think about healthcare WTF!! I was supposed to be in a 1yr treatment program in 2007 I was kiked into street with nothing and could'nt take INTERFERON SHOTS living in streets, shit is fucked up. sure I can change my situation but I have to throw my morals all my pride and LIE\CHEAT\STEAL
and not give a fuck about anybody but myself !! steal their money and laugh all the way to bank !! thats what america has become ,,common petty theives shame shame on you!!

---

This post kind of disturbs me a little, and also backs up my thoughts that people are starting to become more and more unaware of their own responsibilities. Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are blaming capitalism for your misfortune instead of blaming yourself. You create your own reality by the decisions you make in life. No one creates your reality for you, and tells you that this is the life you have to live. Greed has always been in society since the beginning of man. Greed has been in existence before capitalism was ever an idea. It is part of human nature to have greed, some just have more greed than others. Greed is not always related to money. Greed can be anything that you make more important than others. I know I could live a wealthier life if I would work harder and save, but I don't, and I have no one to blame but myself. I am the only one holding myself back from achieving the riches in life. Some of the riches I just don't care about, and then there are some that I would like to achieve some day but, if I never achieve them it is my own fault, not societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yokinazu

its not so much i believe we are cogs in the wheel but to maintain an orderly society some personal rights must be put aside.

for example if someone were till murder my daughter should it not be my right to seek vengence and justice with my own hand and make the individual suffer the way i see fit? but i give up that right to live in an orderly society and hope that justice will be carried out according to the rules of society.

now or justice system is another debate for another place

---

How many of your personal rights are you willing to put aside? Also, what personal rights need to be put aside to maintain an orderly society? I think that if we have laws that forbid one from murdering another, and causing any other loss, then we have created an orderly society. Federal programs do not create orderly societies, but create unruly societies. They allow for the separation of people by class, and makes it acceptable to label others. I for one do not believe that any of my personal rights should be trampled for the betterment of society. Really, does that make much sense when you actually think about it?