ParanoiA

I have no idea where you're going with this argument, what you think you're trying to say, and what in the world it has to do with my post. All I'm making is a philosophical statement that I believe it's wrong to force others to fulfill my moral obligations. And I've partitioned the difference between moral obligations to defend other nations and our own national defense. Now, how you define "moral obligations" and "national defense" is another matter. You're going off on some trip about who decides this, that and the other thing - logistics I never commented about nor even implied in any context. If you want to widen the discussion, fine, but quit acting like you're rebutting something - I've already offered you one chance to bite on that. And what in my post suggests no one in my country should consult with anyone? Also, who else should make the decision about my country's interests except my country? Or are you trying to worm in your aversion to groups and labels argument?

The congress. The people. The country. That's we. Careful opening your mind so much your brain falls out.

That's because it's an obvious issue, without any relation to my point. Unless you were just using my post to push it another direction, that's cool too, but I was under the impression you were retorting. When are we acting on a "moral code set" and when are we just fighting in self defense? We have to make a judgement call. Is preemption really self defense? We have to make a judgement call. None of this has to do with my point, though. If we believe we're acting in self defense, then I accept the idea of forcing folks to fulfill it - they did volunteer for war work. But if we believe we're acting out of moral obligation, then I don't agree that we have a right to force folks to do it. Now whether or not we're really being moral, or we're the aggressor or whatever, that's a different matter. Iraq wouldn't have qualified, in my mind. Afghanistan maybe.

The congress. The people. The country. Who did you think would make that decision?

What? You're actually smarting about someone quoting the constitution...a presidential candidate for the united states of america? How on earth could anything be more appropriate?

I wonder if we could compare a state-controlled/owned chocolate bar to an american one, compare prices and quality. An international politically ideological chocolate test...

No, they have to have the ability to fight wars, I think that's basic sovereignty 101. I'm saying that the decision to go forward with a war should be based on national security, which is a flexible enough refinement.

I'm talking about the guts of the idea. When we fought in WWII, the decision to fight back militarily was forcing our position of retaliation onto other people's sons and daughters to fulfill. I accept that, considering the implications of national security, the basic defense of the nation. But this "moral obligation" doesn't apply. There's no imminent danger at all. So, now forcing our youth to fight our code is flat out wrong, to me. When I use the word persuade, I'm thinking along the lines of a mercenary, or other support that has to do with convincing individuals - not our government entity - to liberate a nation that some feel morally obligated to interfere in. And I'm not saying I'd never actually feel that way myself, I just don't believe I have a right to force your offspring into it.

They certainly used to be. That's why I don't understand why all of the sudden the republican fold, not just the fringe, has turned into a war machine. To be fair, they do believe Islamic terrorists want us destroyed because of our freedom, not because we build bases on their soil and bomb their countries... What if the fix is leaving?

Bascule - You touched on it but I think you underestimate it's harm - printing money. Printing money we don't have dilutes the value of the dollar which hurts the poor and middle class the most, and I know you know this. This is basically a tax by the government since it doesn't want to reign in spending. This is why cutting spending is more important than probably anything else right now. The refusal to live within our means is killing the poor. And tax cuts for the rich is right. They already pay a higher percentage, which is wrong. Even after tax cuts, they still pay a higher pecentage rate than you or I - generally speaking of course - and that's wrong. Plus, I don't know about you, but I've never been hired by a poor person. The poor and middle class don't manage money as well as the rich, so when we give money back to the poor they run out and buy some new electronic gadgets and we see a little spike in the economic growth chart - then right back where it started. But when you give the rich their money back, more of it gets used on investment and expansion, resulting in more long term economic growth. It's a combination of pragmatism and principle. If it were up to me, I'd abolish the IRS and establish a sales tax instead.

Yesterday I called in to a local conservative radio show here in town and found myself on the business end of a radio talk show host's rage. It was about Ron Paul's exchange with Huckabee during the republican debates, that seemed to wake everyone up from the yawn fest it was until that point. Apparently, many republicans, if not virtually all of them, feel we have a "moral obligation" to come to the defense of nations being attacked by an aggressor, or what have you. I don't agree. I asked what was so noble about forcing my sons to go fight for their moral code? Why is it that they feel they have a moral obligation to send other people's sons and daughters for their morality set? So, we have a "moral obligation" to come to the defense of nations, but we don't have a moral obligation to our own youth? The moral obligation to another nation overrides the moral obligation to pursuade rather than force our people into a war of liberation? Of course, this is the same thing I see with government programs. It's the same mindset. The implied "moral obligation" to help those in need - again, where's the nobility in taking my money to fix something you care about? You're taking my money against my will for something that has nothing to do with your's or my rights. This is going beyond the jurisdiction of government power. Why do we feel it's ok to force our moral values on the rest of society? Particularly since the glory of this country is individuality and freedom.

I really loved the tub map. And this:

Exactly! Err...wait a minute.... Well I do. Because stupid people don't know they're stupid. Also' date=' very rarely is it their fault. Which is what makes it all the more fun to poke at them - they don't even [i']deserve[/i] it, ain't that a gas?

This is sick. I know many of you don't believe in the whole liberal media thing, but I do and when I see this it turns my stomach to see the hypocrisy of CBS. Their leftist news station pummels conservatism as heartless and flagrantly promoting the rich at the expense of the poor - while their network blatantly trumps any conservative in this country by directly screwing these families - putting children in danger at a pay barely over minimum wage, in a dangerous environment that may even cause death - just for corporate profit - and on top of all that, these greedy rich bastards won't even allow them the decency of a fair trial if they hurt their kids. Despicable corporate crap. I'd like to see CBS news do a story on their own network - the ole "investigative journalism" technique. I'd like to see them stuff a microphone in the CEO's face on his way to his car... "Sir, would you care to comment on the child labor / endangerment show you're promoting?" "Could you also comment on the ridiculous low wage your paying these children in return for your potential millions of dollars in profit?" "How about the snakey contracts you made these people sign so that if you kill or maime their children, you won't have to pay for it?" Good luck with that. The fact GWB and Clinton both got second terms ought to solve that riddle...

Sisyphus, you naughty boy you... Bettina - why are you taking it so seriously? Why is anyone taking it seriously? Look, I make fun of cripples, fat people, ugly people, gay people, black people, white people, stupid people and smart people and any other class of people and you know what? All of them are still just fine. Nothing bad happened to them. No one was hurt. And I'm happier now that I got a laugh. She was stupid on stage and it's funny to laugh at her. Big deal. Maybe if we quit being all sensitive all the time, life might actually be enjoyable again...

I'm asserting that government can't compete with private business on things that lend themselves to a free market - most goods and services. I can use the failed american education system to support that - private schools run circles around government facilities. Perhaps that's more anecdotal, but the socialism vs capitalism dichotomy is an age old debate. I don't doubt socialism's effectiveness on things, but I simply don't prefer it. In our history, our attempts at government programs are terribly wasteful with little result. The american healthcare system is not a free market system - it is polluted with junk regulation mixed with good regulation, as well as unfair tax laws that keep insurance as a benefit from employers rather than allowing individuals to shop. It's a socialist system in terms of function - it's only private in terms of who walks away with the money. The private sector is enjoying this lobsided profit dump...I am not. That's real cute seeing as how there's no real capitalist education system to reference. What country utilizes the free market for education? Your real point here is brilliant - our capitalist leaning country sucks at socialism. Good. Let's go with what we know and what made us advance and industrialize so quickly and made us a superpower - capitalism. I want an example of efficiency and good quality care. Not just one. Not just the other. Both. Waiting lists are not an example of good care - that's rotten care. The government cherry picking for me what procedures are important and what are not is not an example of good care - that's totalitarian care. I can give the semblance of efficiency by hiring one doctor and one nurse in one room to service the whole damn country - I'll only spend a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in salaries, but the line would stretch from New York to California and be littered with dead bodies - that's horrible care. I want an example of a socialist healthcare system that provides quality - choice, talent and etc - and is efficient. I don't believe it exists. I believe it will exist in a truly free market healthcare system. I've never met anyone horrified by the US system that lived outside of the US. Americans are the spoiled babies that cry about how bad they have everything, trying way too hard to make life way too perfect and smooth for everyone - no bumps, no trials, no hard times - just love and nurturing and perfect life from cradle to grave. I don't consider our spoiled, piggy countrymen a reputable advocate of what's horrible or not. And I find it interesting that there aren't many folks in here living under socialist medicine furiously arguing in your favor. Unless I missed a post, they seem to agree that they have problems and aren't the hands down superior choice. And again, I'm not saying socialized medicine won't work - I'm saying it won't make anything any better. You're just going to swap out one set of problems for another. How is that worth the money and pain switching over? Cold, hard, pragmatism... We do have that obligation. However, we should do this as free citizens, not forced by our government. We have no right to enforce this obligation on anyone else. We have a right to pursuade them. Charter schools perform better, but I'm not sure by how much. That's our only option here in Kansas City, in terms of using your existing taxes to pay for a more private education facility. School vouchers were defeated much to the delight of the Teacher's Union. So, my money continues to be stolen from me and spent on other people's kids to get a psuedo education. And because I don't have any money left for my kids, I have to send them to the same shitty facility. Thank you socialism. No choice. No freedom. You should watch John Stossel's "Stupid in America" on Youtube. It's about 45 minutes and they cover the whole private school, charter school, public school subject. It's truly sad...

Where do you get faith? Economic fairy tales? Capitalism is proven to work - there's no faith needed. Socialism has proven to work too, I'm not sure how you get faith out of any of this. Facts vs. Denial? What facts? My analogy about government's inefficiency has to do with the interface to a free market. I'm not on here advocating a private military. I'm not advocating privatized police forces and FBI. There are things the government should take care of, and there are things things they should not. Healthcare belongs in the free market, in my opinion. It's also about principles. I take taxation quite seriously. I believe we have a duty not to abuse the tax payers - the people. The free market is the ultimate usage sensitive payment plan. Taxes have a tendency to be levied on everyone - not just the people using a certain service or thing. That's not right nor logical. So I resist taxation and expanding government to do things that would require more taxation. This is the preference thing I was getting at.

Oh no kidding! What a load of crap that is. That scenario is repeated to me all the time. I'm living it too. My wife's business has the potential to do really well, but she can't get good, dependable labor and it's the kind of work I did while I was going to college. I love the work, but I can't quit my corporate whore job due to the medical insurace fear. The whole concept of medical insurance here is twisted. With people paying so much of their paychecks for insurance premiums, no one goes to the doctor without filing a claim. They may not realize that's what they're doing, but that's the rub. It's an insurance product that's designed to be claimed on over and over again. Think how much your auto insurance would be if you filed several claims a year on it. No one is going to shell out 300 bucks a month on insurance premiums just to turn around pay cash for the doctor so they don't file a claim - that's unheard of. This is that socialized bubble I was talking about. That bubble needs to be bursted.

That's pretty interesting. I'd personally like an in depth look at regulations and laws concerning drug companies and so forth - look at the historical picture, how these laws came to be. It's not like private medicine was cute and innocent and full of promise and wonder until the big bad government got involved - there are reasons for this involvement.

It's a well-reasoned argument for why it would not, but it's not an argument that addresses whether or not they should stand alone - or fall as it may be. That was my statement, but since I basically robbed the guts of it from your statement, you probably missed the "should" in place of "could". Not sure if you're referencing my post or not here, so I'll just say that my post concerns whether or not they deserve support, not what will happen as the result of removing it. I don't take any issues with your assessment here, sounds thought out to me. I'm just not convinced we would support any other country in the world under the same circumstances. Seems wrong to me. But since it dates back to WWII and we were countering a previous isolationist psychology, it was allowed to happen and now we're content to keep it going. I think Israel needs to deal with this on their own. But I will admit I'm split on trade. I'm a free trade guy, but I do see the problems with selling arms to one country and not another - a pseudo market alliance. My ideology would dictate selling arms to every country or no sales at all, to be fair, but my sense says that's stupid - and fair is subjective. Yeah, I was widening a little. Because at this point it seems truly unconditional. I don't know what Israel could do to get us to turn our backs on them, with our present policy leaders anyway.

My contention is that things the government doesn't bother itself with stays reasonable. If the government started manufacturing chocolate bars, they would be 10 bucks a piece and would be dry and flaky. The problem I see with government getting in on something like this, is that it creates a low bar of competition. A government run agency or program doesn't compete with private institutions - well not really anyway. So if some government run hospital sucks, the private hospital nearby only has to better than them. So, while competition does a small bit of service, it's potential is not realized in the least. However, if that government hospital were privately run, then they'd both compete more completely, realizing the better potential for care and efficiency. I believe this happens on a local level, although dynamically a bit more complex than I'm letting on. Also, consider what standards and regulations do. This is a big problem that I think people overlook way too much. The day the federal government came up with standardized tests is the day education took a fall, previously stumbling backward already. Now, the only thing the schools teach is what is directly on that test - the bare minimum. That's what federal eforcement of parity and standardization of the union buys you - the lowest common denominator. Now, private schools can lower their standards because they can easily master those tests, and now that becomes a barometer of their performance, not actual results. Before they may have had to actually teach your kids some things you'd be impressed with, but there was no standardized test in order to measure this. Now, they have this standardized bar, low to the ground, easy for private institutions to master, a struggle for state run institutions - but neither is as impressive as otherwise could, and should be. The same is true for Healthcare and weighty regulations. Many of these laws that we think have good intentions, actually create the socialist-like system we have in place today. Consider how insurance works, HMO's, the costs of drugs and care, lack of "out of network" choice, procedures covered and not covered - that whole mess is exactly like a government program. Fueled by law, it's a kind of socialized bubble within a capitalist framework. And gee...ain't it interesting that nobody likes it and everyone is calling it a failure? Again, both sounds good on paper, but I don't see it working as good as it could if we would quit punishing business like it's 'evil until proven otherwise'. And it doesn't address the real problem - I would like to see the price for medicine and care fall, not change how we afford it.

Well what's your definition of standing on its own? I don't see them surviving as isolationists in every sense of the word. Selling military stuff and other forms of trade is just trade. I guess you could call that support, I just call it trade and as long as we can trade with them I don't see why they need our military support. That's my hold up, this blanket military support obligation - and insultingly to a nation that perpetuates racism, albeit in a sea of nations that perpetuate racism. I've yet to hear a single reasonable argument in this thread for how Israel should not "stand on its own". Why do they deserve our essential unconditional support? Why do we deserve theirs? If we're just going to internationally group-up irreverantly and push agendas then why do we bother with right or wrong? If we're going to support and commit to a group of people with an insane preference in real estate location, who uses force to install themselves and racism to perpetuate themselves, then why bother with ethics and morality? I don't see where Israel gets off forcing themselves a homeland, ridiculously outnumbered, within a region of the world who's people have equal historical, traditional claim to that territory and who's religion utterly declares Jewish hatred - and expect the West to support this. I really don't get it. Hey, if they insist on being surrounded by millions upon millions of people who hate them, then let them face the consequences. Why should we sacrifice anything for an insane decision like that?

It's not knee-jerk. But it is dogma, using the 'principled' definition of the word. It's an ideological position based on appreciation for the free market and the principle of fair taxation. It's not that the government "can't do anything right", it's that they can't compete with the free market. When people are free to say "screw you, I'm going somewhere else", it naturally places the burdens where they belong and we get better service and price. Socialist systems don't motivate anybody. No reward for working hard. No reward for efficiency. No reward for quality. No reward. People work as good as they feel like it, not as good as they can. Most of us get their second or third best effort, which is why everything related to the government is slow and sloppy. So, you're right in that it's the mere "idea" of the government running it that turns my stomach. We have plenty of examples in place today. Systems that pale in comparison to Healthcare - look at Education and Welfare. Boy, those are two proud examples of government beaurocracy. Welfare has only gotten worse and education is a joke - I think we rank 25th in the world, under some third world countries, in education. Where is the empirical evidence of socialized medicine spending less money with more efficient and good quality care? Lines and unreasonable waiting lists, such as the one my Canadian co-worker's father is on for a kidney surgery (6 months he told me, still waiting right now...) doesn't count as cost reductive efficiency. I have yet to hear any cold, hard pragmatism considering socialized medicine.

But their taxes won't go up. There is no way in hell their taxes are going up 300 bucks a month. Pre or post mature it makes no difference. The rest of your paragraph reads like privitized medicine and in a way, the status quo. You say we can spend our own money to upgrade our level of care. So what do you think is going to happen with the "generic" level? And how is that any different than sending the poor to the free clinic today, while I go to a carpeted and air conditioned doctor's office? Without the dramatic expense, healthcare can be far more reasonable. Personally, I've been on the hunt for what I'm calling "Catastrophic Health Insurance". Insurance to be accessed for horrendous medical expenses only - heart bypass, cancer treatment and etc. This insurance should be fairly cheap, considering it's only for catastrophies. With the benefit of falling prices pending removal of unreasonable (and market corrupting) regulation, I can pay for my own doctor visits with no HMO nor government handout - nothing. You have to wonder about a service that most people have to have insurance for ANY little access to it. Think about that. You don't tap into your car's auto insurance claims to change the tires or give it a tune up. But every little trip to the doctor's office requires an insurance claim. We shouldn't need to tap into insurance unless we're really freaking broken. To me, that's the problem - the costs. Not, how we're going to make everyone pay them. It isn't that 16% that's causing an aspirin to cost 25 bucks.