Phi for All

This is for everyone in every country. I'd like to discuss the best use of government tax revenues. Personally, I think there are some areas where people in a society can get the best benefits for their money by pooling it via taxes. As I've mentioned before, things like medical insurance, prisons and education don't fit the standard business models. Maintaining a growing customer base for prisons is antithetical to what you want prisons for. I think welfare is a great investment in your citizens. Too often, people only look at the smaller percentage of people who abuse welfare systems, and fail to see the greater percentage of people who truly need them, so we end up not wanting to help anyone. Welfare helps in many unseen ways as well, like reducing the reasons people turn to crime. Scientific research is something that almost never fails to benefit everyone in a society. Public roads, parks, libraries and community centers are all great investments as well. Subsidies can help business get a start in a new sector but there has to be a cutoff point where the subsidies stop. It's crazy to spend taxpayer dollars to make profitable businesses even more profitable ad infinitum. Certainly not a comprehensive list but I wanted to start with some areas that have been discussed lately.

I think Google is a great example of a company that's breaking with corporate trends of the past fifty years or so. Not only in the way they empower their employees, but also the way they approach their business dealings. Small profits per deal attract an enormous amount of clients. You don't have to gouge your customers when everybody wants to use you.

Oh, I don't think it undermines free market concepts either, nor does it preclude the quest for profit. I think this new paradigm simply incorporates more of the people who make up the businesses, and empowers them in a way they aren't being empowered in standard corporations. Let's face it, when we have a vested interest that goes beyond protecting a job by working so the company is successful, when we actually have a quantifiable reason to reach down and do our absolute best, people are motivated in ways standard employers only dream of.

You were the one who brought up not modeling any one country's system. Pre-existing conditions are an important sticking point with many people, so what's your problem with the introduction of some discussion on it?

Are you kidding me? Bush gutted most of the environmental agencies and reduced their effectiveness in protecting us from polluters. Obama hasn't been able to take much ground back after a very effective GOP campaign to equate further regulations with job loss. But somehow, less regulation did NOT increase jobs like the GOP said it would. Score one for the corporations, they get to save money, dump more junk on us and increase our health risks. Oh, sorry, you don't give a shit about people's health, I forgot. Freedom to pollute, freedom to be polluted, I get it. This whole social movement, as you put it, is citizens being vigilant about freedom being taken away. I know you equate anything to do with the government with loss of freedom and general badliness, but some of us still think our democracy is better when it's not tampered with by people who just want more of our money. We pay taxes and we want them used for better things than making rich businesses richer. Contrary to what Reagan thought, IT HASN'T BEEN TRICKLING DOWN.

Bad argument, Slippery Slope fallacy. Just because it could be stretched doesn't mean it would be. And there is ample evidence that lack of pollution regulation leads to unacceptable levels of pollution. Vigilance to avoid going down that slippery slope is one of the responsibilities of freedom, imo. Environmental pollution is just the kind of thing I want government intervention for. Especially when polluters are fouling my children's future for some extra money. Finding more profit elsewhere is preferable to the known dangers of environmental negligence, so where's the government tyranny in that?

Part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 would protect you from being rejected for a pre-existing condition. Prior to that (or if it's overturned), you'd either be denied coverage, be charged higher premiums or have a waiting period before your coverage kicks in. Waiting periods are typically six to eighteen months. Just another reason why healthcare doesn't fit the for-profit business model, imo. How much more difficult and costly is it going to be to treat you after letting your condition go untreated during the waiting period?

It's still on-topic. I responded to John's question about how well choice works. If the Swiss system is being chosen strictly because it offers more choices, I wanted to show how choice is often used to make people think something is better when it really isn't. The top two best selling ice cream flavors at Baskin-Robbins are still vanilla and chocolate. You just pay more for all of it because they have to stock all 31 flavors in every store all the time.

Speaking from my personal encounters, my hypothesis is that men and women are equally rational, but they're focused differently. Stemming from our pre-civilized hunter/gatherer roles, I think men are focused tactically to find game and hunt it down. Women, in their much broader role of gatherers, tend to be focused more strategically, watching for everything all at once. There is evidence that we still have some of those hunter/gatherer genes in us today. One study suggests that women can see more shades of red than men, and they have fewer instances of color blindness. This would have been of great use looking for berries and other indicators of edible and poisonous plants. Men's logic tends to be more tactically oriented. "See a fire, put it out." Women are perfectly rational but within a broader strategic framework. "Perhaps it would be better in the long run to let the forest burn." Maybe the extra emotions come from having to explain their logic to men who don't get it and just want to put the fire out, but I think the emotions come from worrying about everything simultaneously all the time.

Choice is a marketer's panacea. If I have only one version of my product, no matter how efficient it is at what it does or how well it's priced, your decision on whether to buy is always yes or no. But if I give you an array of versions (which increases costs and therefore price), you're much more likely to choose one of them. Your decision on whether to buy is almost automatically yes, followed by your secondary decision of which version to choose. It works really well for the seller, and the buyer is happier at the point of purchase and feels empowered because he got to choose. But much of the time, choice can actually make us unhappier in the long run. Here's a very eye-opening TED talk about The Paradox of Choice.

I'm going to comment a bit (or rather, in bits) on freedom before I actually attempt to personally define it. I think various "freedom" concepts get pushed on us by those with special interests. "Free market" actually has little to do with American freedom, for instance. Businesses can prosper AND be well-regulated at the same time. Many sectors are are but too many aren't. The concept of freedom gets used to lend patriotic emotion where it can often be detrimental, overriding common sense and rational discourse. Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and the guy who turned "propaganda" into "public relations", devised a campaign to double the consumption of cigarettes for the American Tobacco Company. He got women to defy social norms and take up smoking as a sign of feminist liberation, calling each little Lucky Strike a "Torch of Freedom". Freedom should include being free to do what you want to your own body and anything within your own body (including potential life). As long as you're willing to pay the consequences for your personal actions, that seems like a basic part of being free. But I hate that we can't have freedom from manipulation. We get played even when we're sure we can't be played.

We have ample recourse for punitive measures when corporations break the law but we're not using them. Part of the responsibility that corporations are shirking is built into their state and federal charters, to act ethically with regard to their business dealings. This is, to a large degree, the fault of this corporate personhood movement that gives them the power to flout the law and escape indictment. We know who caused our current financial crisis; why aren't these people on trial? Corporations may be started by a few people, but it's everyone who works there that builds the company (to use your own words). Even though employees are compensated, without them the corporation goes nowhere. Both are needed but you seem to argue that only the starters matter (even though many major corporations change their C-level executives completely every 5-10 years). Owners, executives and shareholders reap many benefits already and always will, but in order to stop what's been happening to our economy, our manufacturing base, our economic stability, we need to have employees more vested in corporate success. In order for that to happen, the focus needs to broaden beyond just the bottom line. And in order for THAT to happen, we need to end this spiral that's creating such a gulf between the ephemeral, short-sighted, money-moving people at the top whose personal investments are protected by charter and the people at the bottom who want stability, longevity, loyalty and integrity in exchange for their commitment and hard work. As normal People, their investments aren't protected by charter and they stand to lose the most when the beans don't add up this quarter.

Perhaps I'll come at it from a cost-effectiveness point of view, with the idea that it's unethical to spend taxpayer dollars on something that's known to cause waste. There are four separate branches of the military in the US who each have command and administrative departments who all vie for every dollar appropriated by Congress. This represents an immense expenditure that would be unnecessary if our military was a single Defense Force. And if you don't think there's a detrimental rivalry between branches at the Pentagon level, you're living in a politically imaginative fairy tale. Further, there is a hideous amount of waste in hardware as well. The A-10 Thunderbolt is a great example. Originally an Air Force asset assigned for use in close air support of ground troops, it's been so successful that the Army wants its own squadrons under its own command. They love the plane but don't like the way the Air Force drives it. They have to furnish reams of reports costing millions of dollars in order to get something that a cohesive Defense Force would've been able to assign based solely on strategic mission requirements.

! Moderator Note Last warning before suspension.

The real tipping point was when Steven Hawkins requested the ban himself via private message. Best idea yet, Steve.

Absolutely. Labor unions helped set the standards other businesses had to meet to compete with. And corporations have been instrumental in allowing economic growth for many to remain separate from personal finances. But there are different pressures now and society has changed in one direction where unions and corporations have changed in others. Both are working for the betterment of a few while society needs betterment for many. We can all flourish but we need to stop doing so at the expense of each other. Old paradigms aren't blueprints anymore, they're just old. Where near-instantaneous rebuttal is at least possible. Hey! No need for that.

Symington pushed hard to make the Air Force separate from the Army, and then saw first hand what it did to morale structure and cohesiveness. He spent the latter part of his life trying to correct his error (and JFK agreed with him, and made Symington his first pick as VP). I can't imagine how converting four separate branches of military into a single defensive force would create any kind of "pansy". If anything, it would eliminate having kids follow their parent's footsteps into what may be an inappropriate branch of service for them. How many grunts lost their lives (and possibly those of fellow grunts) because taking a much better suited assignment in the Navy wouldn't have been sanctioned by their families? How ethical is it to expect someone to take a job they may not be suited for because of tradition? Because if you're not a swabby, you're a moral derelict, right?

Did I say "improved"? I meant "impaled". And I do have a new sticker for you.

Actually, I think we should move beyond both maniacally profit-focused corporations and overly rigid labor unions as well. Neither serve the people of this country as they once did. As for campaign financing, I don't even like campaign committee involvement (though I can't imagine a viable alternative). It all seems to favor the party with the most money, which shouldn't be such a huge part of a representative democracy. It sickens me to think of the billion dollar campaigns that are vying for what will inevitably be more of the same old non-working solutions to ever-evolving problems. I'd like to see all candidates be granted free media exposure as long as it's debating with their opponents or that what they air speaks only about themselves and their representation. If they want to trash their opponents instead, even by implication, they can pay for it from their own warchest. At twice the going rate. Which is another reason why corporations shouldn't be considered people, imo. If they don't treat their companies like a democracy, they shouldn't enjoy the personal benefits of one.

What does freedom mean to you, as a member of your society? Are government controls necessary to preserve it or do they stifle it?

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

One of the things that bothers me about our military structure is the rivalry among our own branch command structures. The sailors resent the jarheads, the grunts resent the flyboys, and instead of a cohesive military force we have splintered groups at troop level, and multiple hands at command level all reaching for the same appropriations dollar. I don't think this is conducive to either efficiency or moral structure. I often wonder how much more effective (and less costly) our military would be today if Senator Symington's proposal for a cohesive military structure, with defenders who can fly, defenders who can sail, defenders who can ground-fight and defenders who can specialize in various combinations, hadn't been shot down by Robert McNamara. Perhaps a consistent ethical message would be more effective when applied to a single Defense Force as opposed to four different branches.

I never said he wasn't a bad guy. But if you call him a monster to justify invading his country, then we should've expected invasions when the US did virtually the same thing to Native Americans at Wounded Knee. Who were the monsters then, and where were the military ethics?

Which is being written up officially as we speak. Hey, those aren't sashes, those are the baldrics we hang our swords on! You're still claiming I stole the Cheese Nips out of your grocery bag?! Ingrate! Who will do it if we don't? Probably the most improved member we've ever had, but he was more fun to pick on when he was in high school. And since he's stopped pestering the Admins for a staff position, he may get one someday. Ahem, I started this one and this one just this morning. Ahem, I started this one and this one just this morning.

I get tired of Hussein's attacks using gas against the Kurds being held up as proof he was a monster. The Kurds in question were near the Iranian border, they were overrun by Iranian forces at the time, and the gas that was used was for area denial, meant to flush out the Iranians who were entrenched in the city. When the enemy runs out coughing, you shoot them with bullets. It can be argued that Hussein's troops didn't know if the Kurds were aiding the Iranians or not. It can be argued that if the Kurds had fled their homes when the gas was lobbed in that they would've been recognized as non-combatants by their lack of Iranian uniforms. The gas Iraq used is only deadly if you continue to breath it. Hussein had no love for the Kurds, it's true, but the stories about him using a deadly gas (which most people confuse with some kind of Hollywood "one whiff and you're dead" type of substance) to kill the Kurds is media spin at it's finest. Hussein was a dictatorial strongman and I'm certainly not unhappy he's no longer in power, but he is dwarfed by some of the African monsters who are allowed to ethnically cleanse their non-oil-rich countries using machetes with clearly immoral, blatantly premeditated intent.