Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Toussaint · Feb 27, 2004, 06:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Well, I think america is closer to a civil war than europe ...

As for the american system , I live in Canada, and would not share any system for the one I'm in . You may consider, from your point of view , that a a system based on individual rights can only the one in US. Canada give importance to civil liberty , but also to equity, among everyone, as a way to control human nature and keep the social peace.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So you believe that the government's duty is to control human nature outside of simply protecting individual rights. We're simply in a fundamental disagreement. As to Canada giving importance to civil liberties, I guess freedom of speech doesn't count as a civil liberty- at least when it comes to the Bible.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
It is a choice the majority of Canadian made that they care about helping the poorest of us, and giving equal chance to everyone.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
There is no such thing in US . The american system do not take in consideration the human nature.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The poorest are starving while the rich drinks champagfne , and no one seems to care.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest.

The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
48 millions are without any health coverage but you hide under civil liberties to hide from this horrible constatation that 4/5 of american look dyiing and starving 1/5 of the population and do absolutely nothing to help that .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Hmmm... 1/5 of the population starving... can you cite this? I do know that the top health problem of the poor here is obesity... this just doesn't add up. Where did you get your stats?

Mathieu · Feb 27, 2004, 06:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So you believe that the government's duty is to control human nature outside of simply protecting individual rights. We're simply in a fundamental disagreement. As to Canada giving importance to civil liberties, I guess freedom of speech doesn't count as a civil liberty- at least when it comes to the Bible.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You said it , a disagreement about our opinion. As for the freedom of speech, it is enforced as everything on the chart of rights and liberty. There is freedom of religion , and Bible or other text are in free circulation thank you.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to.
You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security. As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ? So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ? There is 9 million illegal workers n America, who do gain high salary, are those include in your equation or they are just not american ? I beleive in the right of every individual to have the same chances and opportunitys in life, ans social system help that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest.

The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument . Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth ...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Hmmm... 1/5 of the population starving... can you cite this? I do know that the top health problem of the poor here is obesity... this just doesn't add up. Where did you get your stats?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well there is 48 millions of uninsured american. If they can't pay for their service, it is pretty much starvation in my book. I know many american mothers who work very hard, and are sometime owner of their entreprise, who still need to prevent herself from going to the doctor even when tey are really sick in order to be able to pay for her kids. f that is the expression of equity and civil liberties for you, no thank you.

commonsense · Feb 27, 2004, 09:18 pm

All you poor, misguided, misinformed Socialists...

Or is it that you work for the government?

Mathieu · Feb 27, 2004, 09:21 pm

If you have the numbers, bring them here, else keep your comments for yourself, please.

laserkid · Feb 27, 2004, 09:46 pm

Mathieu - yes theres a lot of diffrent liberetarian views. But I'm not 100% Liberetarian, to describe one person as an exactnes swithin an ideology does disservice to the individual and the ideology. Not all liberals agree on everything nor all conservatives either. Most people are a mixture of diffrent ideals.

And yet I wonder, why do you want to attack people personally over beliefs they hold? I vote, I voice my opinion, and I have an idea of where I think things should be. Thats no diffrent from you. The only diffrence is in opinion on where things should be. And your original asessment that I should move - why don't you move? You're the one attacking an ideal here, if you hate that ideal so much why not go somewhere where it isn't there? None of us are acting that way, but you are.

commonsense · Feb 27, 2004, 10:19 pm

There IS a difference. The Socialist's (which includes both U.S. parties) MORALITY ACCEPTS THE USE OF FORCE TO ACCOMPLISH HIS AIMS!!!

The Libertarian does not, beyond the most strictly circumscribed government roles constitutionally outlined, and believes that an unfettered human soul is what can only honestly attain greatness.

The Founding Fathers culminated humanity's greatest, most hopeful philosophy.

May it not take revolution to understood by the vast majority, as it was in our nation's earliest days.

Kyran · Feb 27, 2004, 11:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Why don't you all go there to make your utopist society, what stop you from doing so ??

You will never have a better one in USA ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You am not even from USA! SHhhHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh about libertarian!

What stop YOU from going Haiti? You no like anarchy either? Me thought so.

DEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee. This guy's an admin? WTF he doesn't even speak english; how is he gonna look for rule violations?

Mathieu you can just STFU. No libertarians ever suggested what you are saying. Don't put words in their mouths. That's rude. That's TWICE rude for telling them to defend it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
How libertarian can aspire to establish their idea if they can't even agree on the most crucial issues ?

You are very good to call people straw men, while you choose selectively the statement I do to do your own straw man attack . You see I am able to call people like that too.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No one called you a straw man, Mister Obvious. Learn our language before trying to communicate. A straw man argument is that RUDE thing you do to people. It's when you setup someone's argument for them and then ask them to defend it.

Of course it LOOKS like "many different" libertarians have different views. You included NON-LIBERTARIANS with the original; just because they called themselves libertarian. Neo-cons think they're conservative; does that make it true? No.

So what's an original libertarian? Look at Bentodd. He gave you a basic specific example. Libertarians are generally against social programs, pro-capitalist, and pro-individual rights. They expect a justice system that respects the rights of a man; and a government that is not above the law. Anarchists, by definition, would oppose even a justice system on the grounds that it is a form of government.

You wanted a fight. Now you got one.

Gee? Why don't libertarians run into the middle of somebody else's revolution and tell them how to build their government? DEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee. I don't know. Maybe they have some common sense! Yeah. Let's go tell some Americans today to leave their own country. It's FUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNN.

Libertarians believe in non-intervention. They do not believe in meddling with foreign affairs. If you had read the LP's website, you would have known this. You didn't. Why? Because you're not even seriously objective about the matter. You don't LIKE libertarianism. That's what you WANTED to show everybody. This topic is your way of lashing out at others.

Minarchy is not a word. Libertarianism is not "minarchy."

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Continue in your diatribe against the system. The only arguments you have to offer is blind faith in your opinion. No one of you here is interrested in fact, they prefer to cultivate anger agianst the system . It is easier to stay out and whine than to get in and change it in a proactive way . Just attack me , it is easier than to try to demonstrate anything, continue to throw the party line<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Logical Fallacy #1: Libertarian ideals are based upon blind faith.

It is a historical fact that prohibition doesn't work, in any theocracy or government. Seeing is believing. Libertarians in my personal experience are a variety of people who, for the most part, reject any collectivist idealism or faith as nonsense.

Logical Fallacy #2: No one here is interested in fact.

Mat, you're one to talk. You don't even comprehend english let alone libertarianism; how can you possibly argue against it?

Logical Fallacy #3: Government can reduce in size without angry people.

Those Haitians sure aren't singing Dixie.

Logical Fallacy #4: Libertarians aren't trying to change the system proactively.

Spreading libertarian philosophy directly changes the system. These forum posts are a political action: conversion. Those who begin accepting libertarian values will support the LP.

For all you know, the libertarians on this forum could be 13 years old. You expect them to give you a friggin video of what they're doing? STFU jerk.

Logical Fallacy #5: Libertarians are taking the path of least resistance.

The fact that you have to make your arguments based upon assumptions, dirty straw man tactics, and poor English proves that you are wrong. It takes more brainpower to spot bad debate tricks than it does to pull them off.

Several people have told you what you are wrong on and yet the Communication Barrier between us (your ego) is preventing you from understanding. Don't tell us what libertarians are about, are doing, or are going to do. You didn't invent the concept and don't want to learn anything about it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security. As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ? So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ? There is 9 million illegal workers n America, who do gain high salary, are those include in your equation or they are just not american ? I beleive in the right of every individual to have the same chances and opportunitys in life, ans social system help that<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Logical Fallacy #6: Poverty is flagrant in the US.

The average poor person in America owns two TVs, a cell-phone, and brand new Nikes; has electricity, air-conditioning, food and water. Don't believe me? Go to our public schools and ask the children yourself. I didn't come up with the concept that Poverty is in the US, so YOU are the one who has to back up your claim. Define POVERTY clearly first, then start backing it up with some actual PROOF.

After you've done that, take a look at Bill Gates' Foundation and see how much money he is spending on his own social program. Toussaint is correct; people DO choose to give money away without government coersion.

Logical Fallacy #7: Private charity enforces liberty.

You don't HAVE to get help from charities. You can go knock on everybody's door in a neighborhood asking for help if you want to. You can even panhandle unless the local government has a law against it.

Logical Fallacy #8: Religious charity discriminates against the poor.

Some poor people try to come to the homeless shelter drunk. Obviously, these people do not need help as badly as others who get crippled or maimed. If charity didn't turn it's back on deadbeats, there would be no money left for others. Show me one private charity that successfully gets away with being indiscriminate.

You cannot prove that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. I, however, can prove that Government gets bigger and Freedom gets smaller.

You cannot prove that the women you know actually own their enterprise. At very best, you can prove in % of income how MUCH of their own businesses they own and how much the government owns. As long as governments use property tax, income tax, luxury tax, and social program taxes...nobody completely owns anything they possess.

Your beliefs put you into the Socialist bracket, Mathieu. As you should be able to tell by now, we are absolutely and directly opposed. You believe in the power of the Social System to provide equal opportunity to everybody.

48,000,000 Americans have decided NOT to buy that Insurance you're talking about. Maybe they needed other things that year. Maybe they're in college. Maybe they're going to start a business tomorrow. Maybe they don't give a crap. You do not know what their income or spending habits are today, tomorrow, or yesterday. I know that if I had a million bucks in the bank, I would not buy ANY medical insurance. So who's to say those Americans aren't extremely wealthy?

Everybody just SEEMS to be starving who isn't drinking the lifeblood of the taxpayer. Why are you silly Americans not drinking from the fountain of infinite wealth with us Canadians?! We have equality, and thou art lacking. Taketh, thou, from the rich and eat. And know the Lord Thy God Of Forces gave it to thee.

When someone gives you something, you're supposed to thank them. Do you thank Government, Mathieu? Do you thank those who died making Canada's Health Care System possible? Oh wait, nobody died pushing the government pen. Is that what we have to do to be your friend? If I go put a gun to someone's head, take their money, and give it to you...will you like me just as much? Oh Government doesn't DO THAT does it? No, everyone FREELY gives to the government, without fear of jailtime or being Janet Reno'd.

At this point, I'm going to give you a chance to respond or run away; the choice is yours. You do NOT, however, have the option of winning this argument. You're going to have to WORK and EARN that. Evading the points I've made is equivalent to admitting I'm right, btw. I WILL use that against you if you do not argue against EACH AND EVERY SINGLE point I brought up.

Good luck; and don't feel bad if you aren't up for the challenge. I wouldn't argue with me either.

Mia · Feb 27, 2004, 11:25 pm

Kyran, you need a Xanex, first of all. Second, you show an American flag but said "we Canadians?" Where are you from and where do you live now?

Mia · Feb 27, 2004, 11:36 pm

Kyran,

Obesity is a problem for some poor people because they eat low-cost high-fat crap and also probably because they are depressed, etc.

Of course you are correct that anyone who has enough money to eat too much could divert some money elsewhere, but it doesn't prove whatever point you are trying to make. But then, you usually don't have much in the way of anything logical or factual to back up your highly-charged-with-emotion opinions.

My aunt has been a teacher for 35 years in a district that's not very poor, and every year she has several students in her class that cannot afford enough food to eat or have proper clothing. So imagine what it's like in more rural or inner-city guettos.

There are people who live in shacks with no running water or electricity.

You take a lot of snapshot phrases from Time magazine or something and try to make a point about a whole segment of a population which you know absolutely nothing about.

Toussaint · Feb 28, 2004, 12:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
You said it , a disagreement about our opinion. As for the freedom of speech, it is enforced as everything on the chart of rights and liberty. There is freedom of religion , and Bible or other text are in free circulation thank you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually certain verses in the Bible are banned from TV- namely, any of those having to do with homosexuality.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to.
You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you look at the quote above, I never said there was "more poverty" in either country. Therefore, your assertion that something I said was "False" is unfounded.

That people in America give more out of their own free will is a well-known fact.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I dont quite understand your question, but I'll take a stab anyway. People in America have more liberty to give their own money probably because the government takes less of it in comparison to Canada and western Europe.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, the religious organizations themselves do alot for the poor in this country. If you can find an example of people being "forced" to listen to a sermon or something else in order to get help, then bring it out.

This may happen, but it'd be the exception rather than the rule. There are also many non-religious organizations to which Americans donate their money. What do you say about those?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest.

The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Do you have any statistics/references on social mobility in Canada? I have a reference for US statistics.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The issue isn't how much more someone has than someone else; the issue is whether the people's living standard is rising- a phenomenon which helps the rich get richer and the poor get richer. This is what has been happening in the United States. Real incomes have been rising for all income earners in this country. I guess your government is telling you that the "poor" are "getting poorer"?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Well there is 48 millions of uninsured american. If they can't pay for their service, it is pretty much starvation in my book.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

By the way, I'm one of those "poor people" with no health insurance, and most of these people fit my profile- young folks in their 20s. For many of them, health insurance would be a waste at this point.

Also, if you're suggesting that we go to Canada's style of health program, no thanks. What do you have maybe 3 MRI machines in your whole country? Your technology is about 20 yrs behind ours, and the gap is growing.

There are other ways to make health care more affordable for everyone. We need not simply use the government to hide the true costs of what we are using.

Mia · Feb 28, 2004, 01:03 am

In what country are parts of the Bible relating to homosexuality not allowed on TV? If you mean the US, please explain where you get that idea. I don't believe it's true.

Mathieu · Feb 28, 2004, 09:30 am

Quote:

Actually certain verses in the Bible are banned from TV- namely, any of those having to do with homosexuality.

That's untrue, I don't know where you heard that.

[/quote]If you look at the quote above, I never said there was "more poverty" in either country. Therefore, your assertion that something I said was "False" is unfounded.

That people in America give more out of their own free will is a well-known fact.[/quote]

Well that is still hypothetic, as someone poor certainly do not have the ressource to move out .

[/quote]I dont quite understand your question, but I'll take a stab anyway. People in America have more liberty to give their own money probably because the government takes less of it in comparison to Canada and western Europe.

Actually, the religious organizations themselves do alot for the poor in this country. If you can find an example of people being "forced" to listen to a sermon or something else in order to get help, then bring it out.

This may happen, but it'd be the exception rather than the rule. There are also many non-religious organizations to which Americans donate their money. What do you say about those?[/quote]

I'm just saying that that it is a less uniform system. A social system is rule by the chart of right and apply it. And for the tax principle, well, in Canada, you get Tax deduction for any charity gift. So people are as free to give as they are in US.

The social security is uniform for everyone, and so it reduce the neccesity of such help.

Here is a study on Social mobility in Canada :
pdf

Social Mobility in Canada in Quite comparable to the one in Us. Social system have helped a lot to bring everyone an equal chance to improve their status

Quote:

The issue isn't how much more someone has than someone else; the issue is whether the people's living standard is rising- a phenomenon which helps the rich get richer and the poor get richer. This is what has been happening in the United States. Real incomes have been rising for all income earners in this country. I guess your government is telling you that the "poor" are "getting poorer"?

Well if you want to make a comparaison with Canada, then the argument fails, with a social system , The poor in Canada have the same advantage than in US,+ Health Care coverage, free school and social security.

Quote:

By the way, I'm one of those "poor people" with no health insurance, and most of these people fit my profile- young folks in their 20s. For many of them, health insurance would be a waste at this point.

I would like to see you explain that to my 20-something mother friend ...

Quote:

Also, if you're suggesting that we go to Canada's style of health program, no thanks. What do you have maybe 3 MRI machines in your whole country? Your technology is about 20 yrs behind ours, and the gap is growing.

False, there is 3 MRI only in my small region, Our technology is pretty muchthe same as in US and a lot of research is done. Montreal is seen as a leader in Cardiology for example .

Quote:

There are other ways to make health care more affordable for everyone. We need not simply use the government to hide the true costs of what we are using.

Well it cost us 9.8% of our GDP, and this is the real cost, and in US in is 14% of the GDP and still 48 million have no coverage.

Kyran · Feb 28, 2004, 03:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Kyran, you need a Xanex, first of all. Second, you show an American flag but said "we Canadians?" Where are you from and where do you live now?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh great idea...let me use drugs to enhance my mental performance. Whatever.

Mia, if you can't read and comprehend the context I use then don't infer conclusions about it. I am from the US. I live IN the US. My parody was intended to provoke laughter. It is largely my opinion, so just accept it as that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Obesity is a problem for some poor people because they eat low-cost high-fat crap and also probably because they are depressed, etc<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Now this is something I can agree with. I have had discussions with psychologists before (offline) and believe depression is one of the ugliest mental health problems we have today.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
My aunt has been a teacher for 35 years in a district that's not very poor, and every year she has several students in her class that cannot afford enough food to eat or have proper clothing. So imagine what it's like in more rural or inner-city guettos<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Okay. I believe you are sincere about this. So I will be sincere as well. There are charities out there who can help. If people do not get the help they need at those charities, then it is up to them to get help otherwise.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
There are people who live in shacks with no running water or electricity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes there are. There are people living in apartments with no furniture either. I know. If I can survive as a gas station attendant with one roommate then others can do the same. I didn't have two jobs or kids to feed. People WITH KIDS who do not have a living income I can only pity. But they created their own problem; and can create their own solution.

One major difference between my position and others is that I refuse to believe anyone is completely helpless. I believe each and every individual can attain great success if they apply themselves. This is one of the core purposes of my guild. You've got to understand that in my personal experience most cases of poverty are due to bad decision-making. Do I go around beating people with that fact? No, but facing the truth is a necessary step to solving one's own problems.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
You take a lot of snapshot phrases from Time magazine or something and try to make a point about a whole segment of a population which you know absolutely nothing about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mia, you do not know the last 10 years of my life or how many times I have been in the gutter. It is extremely offensive to toss around such accusations about strangers. I do not live in the lap of luxury; but I figured out a long time ago that if I want to be on top I have to stop listening to people who are at the bottom (or middle). I have been fortunate enough in my days to have met beggar and businessman, middle-class and millionaire. No one is a stranger to me.

Start a Help the Poor topic and we can really get into detail. This is branching off.

Mia · Feb 28, 2004, 06:55 pm

Kyran, you acted like this segment didn't really exist - my only point was to argue that it does. I do disagree with you on a lot of what you say, but posted these disagreements in the appropriate board. Maybe you should do a little more reading and conprehension before you fire off one of your always-too-long replies.

Mozart1220 · Feb 29, 2004, 09:28 pm

It is because I love America so much that I feel the need to critisize what I feel is wrong. It is not only my right, but my RESPONSIBILITY to do this.

There are certain things that are always wrong. Murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc. But alot of what is against the law in this country are not only harmless, but unconstitutional as well. Marijuana for example. Gay marraige, "foul" language, even certain books in various states have been banned. Not exactly the America the founders envisioned eh? (most of them "took hemp" as well.)

As a Libertarian, I do not advocate anarchy. I just wish the government would pay more attention to the constitution when it decides for itsself what is or is not legal.

boxcar99 · Mar 5, 2004, 01:36 am

Why not Haiti? Sure, fine for Haitians. But I ask, why not in America? Good points by Mathieu and Ben.

Libertarians are not the ones looking for the utopia. It's the statists who believe that if only there were more government programs, more laws, more police, more regulations, more restrictions, more tax revenue, more encroachment on liberty and freedom then, then we would all be happy, safe and secure.

Utopia is for statists, those of us who love liberty understand that the world isn't perfect, and actually is only more perfect when people are generally left to their own devices.

RebelWithanAK · Mar 5, 2004, 12:28 pm

A more perfect trainwreck, to be sure.

boxcar99 · Mar 5, 2004, 02:35 pm

If given the preference over a tyrannical government or a tyrannical neighbor, I'd choose the neighbor. The problem with the American mindset these days is its your neighbors that want laws passed for the benefit of themselves, but not laws that make sense. They want to tell everyone else what is best for them but recoil at the thought of being told what to do themselves. I see it everyday as a reporter.

Statism is statism, whether wrapped in the cloak of republican democracy or handed down by a monarch. A government needs to be limited, lean and ineffectual in certain matters, otherwise the line between public and private will continue to be blurred.

Libertarianism is not a dirty word. If you think so, then do you disagree with Jefferson?

AnonT · Mar 8, 2004, 02:12 pm

"In 1995, when the international community decided to wash its hands of Somalia and the last United Nations peacekeepers left the country, Mogadishu was a Hobbesian horror show. It remains a miserable and unstable place, a city where taxi drivers ruin their own vehicles, denting the body work and smashing the windows, so that thieves will not bother to steal them. But it is less dismal than it used to be, and better times may be on the way, owing to a new generation of businessmen who are determined to bring the lawless capital back to life....
"....and the three [local cellular phone companies in Mogadishu, Somaliland] recently entered into a joint venture and created the first local Internet-service provider. Not all battles here are resolved by murder....
"Mogadishu also has new radio and television stations (one night I watched the Somali equivalent of Larry King Live, in which the moderator and his guest, one of the city's leading Islamic clerics, fielded questions from callers), along with computer schools and an airport that serves several airlines...."
"Mogadishu has the closest thing to an Ayn Rand-style economy that the world has ever seen—no bureaucracy or regulation at all.... the very absence of a government may have helped to nurture an African oddity—a lean and efficient business sector that does not feed at a public trough controlled by corrupt officials."

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/05/maass.htm

Somalia still isn't a great place to live, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was when the UN and USAID were involved. As for the UN article, every problem they list with modern day Somalia began under their control, and every one of those problems is less prevalent now than it was 15 years ago.
In northern Somalia, two mostly stable provincial governments have been set up, neither of which does much more than police the streets and protect the borders. In southern Somalia, there are no formal governments, just warlords, which makes it basically what most people would consider anarchy (although any of the anarchists on this board will tell you that warlords constitute leaders and it's therefore not their version of anarchy). In spite of the fact that the northern governments give absolutely no help to the poor (outside of basic protection) and the southern part has no governments through which to help the poor, the entire country has been improving to the point that the poor are actually better off than they were under Barre's regime and the mass of foreign aid that poured into the country. They're nowhere near as well off as we are, but give them a couple of decades and they'll be one of the wealthiest countries in Africa.
Besides, since the UN caused many of Somalia's problems, can you really trust them to be honest about the situation there? They are an almost purely political organization, after all.

Okay, so, as for the whole poverty thing....
Being someone who made under $15,000 last year while trying to put myself through college, I speak from experience - and even poor Americans are far wealthier than the poor in most of the rest of the world. The poor here not only have enough money to eat more than they should, they have enough left over for a house, car, television, cell phone, and computer. I recently gave up my health insurance because, even though it was easily affordable, I just don't need it and never use it. As long as you don't need surgery or end up staying overnight in a hospital, medical care here is pretty cheap, and if you do need emergency or overnight care, you can generally get medical insurance for under $50/mo (mine was about $30/mo through work).

I wish I had the numbers in front of me, but I do remember one analysis of the 48 million Americans without "medical coverage." Between people who can afford medical care but choose not to get insurance, people who had access to volunteer care/free clinics, and people who could get medical help through charities, I think only around 5% of those 48 million were actually unable to get medical care. Since I don't have the actual numbers in front of me right now, you can kind of discount this, but keep in mind that just because someone doesn't have health insurance doesn't mean they don't get health care.

As for whether or not religious charities are good for taking care of the poor, I think Mathieu explained the difference somewhat well: "I'm just saying that that it is a less uniform system. A social system is rule by the chart... and apply it." Under a social system, everyone whose income is below a certain amount gets the exact same amount, or everyone who falls into the same group gets the same kind of help, even though some of them may need it more or less than others.
For example, one of the largest problems among the poor is mental insanity or mental defect - something that often prevents them from breaking out of poverty. Under a uniform system, a person who is poor because they are mentally unstable and are unable to hold a job just gets a check and maybe a place to live and/or free food, depending on the system. Under a charity based system, when charities seek out people to help, they do so on an individualized basis, meaning that people who need counseling in order to help them get back on their feet will get it, those who need training in order to manage their lives will get it. Under a uniform system, the government writes them a check and stops there.
Even with socialized medicine, someone who's poor because of a mental defect or mental instability isn't going to seek out help; someone has to come to them. Charities are far more able to find and help people in their communities who need help than governments are. Having a uniform system only restricts things, it doesn't improve them.

Anyway, another of Mathieu's quotes:
"You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument . Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth..."

I can deny that the poor get poorer at the expense of the rich. I'll grant you that the rich get richer under capitalism, but that does not mean the poor get poorer. As has been mentioned in this thread many times, even the "poor" in the US have far more than the poor in most other countries, and yet the rich here also have far more than the rich in other countries. The poor here may be poorer relative to the rich here than the poor in other countries are relative to the rich in their countries, but if the poor here are as well off as the rich in most countries, I'd say we're still doing better.

Okay, so let me give you a hypothetical:
Say in country A, 99% of the population lived in a $100,000 home, drove a sports car, owned a big screen tv, had a cell phone, and could afford to eat 3 meals a day, while the other 1% of the population owned multiple $10,000,000 mansions, had multiple sports cars and SUVs, had in-home movie theaters in each of their mansions, a fancier cell phone, and could afford to eat caviar and lobster and drink champagne 3 meals a day.
In country B, 99% of the population lives in a rough shack, no phone, no car, with a portable radio in every third house or so, and could only afford one meal a day. The other 1% of the population lives in a slightly less rough shack, also no phone or car, but each owns a radio and can afford 3 meals a day.

Which country would you say was worse off for the poor? The argument that you're making, that "the poor get poorer as the rich get richer", only stands up if you mean that the poor are poorer relative to the rich, rather than relative to what they need to survive. If that's what you mean, then country A has poorer poor - the richest 1% there has more than the other 99% put together, while in country B the richest 1% aren't much better off than the other 99%, so that 1% controls only 2-3% of the country's wealth.

Admittedly, I don't think that's exactly what you meant. However, I do think it illustrates how you're somewhat deluded if you think that the rich being richer always harms the poor.

Feb 27, 2004, 05:38 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	and?

Feb 27, 2004, 06:07 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
Toussaint Molten Ash Posts: 43	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Well, I think america is closer to a civil war than europe ... As for the american system , I live in Canada, and would not share any system for the one I'm in . You may consider, from your point of view , that a a system based on individual rights can only the one in US. Canada give importance to civil liberty , but also to equity, among everyone, as a way to control human nature and keep the social peace.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So you believe that the government's duty is to control human nature outside of simply protecting individual rights. We're simply in a fundamental disagreement. As to Canada giving importance to civil liberties, I guess freedom of speech doesn't count as a civil liberty- at least when it comes to the Bible. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by It is a choice the majority of Canadian made that they care about helping the poorest of us, and giving equal chance to everyone.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by There is no such thing in US . The american system do not take in consideration the human nature.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The poorest are starving while the rich drinks champagfne , and no one seems to care.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest. The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 48 millions are without any health coverage but you hide under civil liberties to hide from this horrible constatation that 4/5 of american look dyiing and starving 1/5 of the population and do absolutely nothing to help that .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Hmmm... 1/5 of the population starving... can you cite this? I do know that the top health problem of the poor here is obesity... this just doesn't add up. Where did you get your stats? "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat "Now go and sin no more!" - Jesus Christ

Feb 27, 2004, 06:58 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So you believe that the government's duty is to control human nature outside of simply protecting individual rights. We're simply in a fundamental disagreement. As to Canada giving importance to civil liberties, I guess freedom of speech doesn't count as a civil liberty- at least when it comes to the Bible.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You said it , a disagreement about our opinion. As for the freedom of speech, it is enforced as everything on the chart of rights and liberty. There is freedom of religion , and Bible or other text are in free circulation thank you. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to. You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security. As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ? So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ? There is 9 million illegal workers n America, who do gain high salary, are those include in your equation or they are just not american ? I beleive in the right of every individual to have the same chances and opportunitys in life, ans social system help that. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest. The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument . Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth ... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Hmmm... 1/5 of the population starving... can you cite this? I do know that the top health problem of the poor here is obesity... this just doesn't add up. Where did you get your stats?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well there is 48 millions of uninsured american. If they can't pay for their service, it is pretty much starvation in my book. I know many american mothers who work very hard, and are sometime owner of their entreprise, who still need to prevent herself from going to the doctor even when tey are really sick in order to be able to pay for her kids. f that is the expression of equity and civil liberties for you, no thank you.

Feb 27, 2004, 09:18 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	All you poor, misguided, misinformed Socialists... Or is it that you work for the government? The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Feb 27, 2004, 09:46 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
laserkid Molten Ash Location: Sore Wa Himitsu Desu Posts: 80	Mathieu - yes theres a lot of diffrent liberetarian views. But I'm not 100% Liberetarian, to describe one person as an exactnes swithin an ideology does disservice to the individual and the ideology. Not all liberals agree on everything nor all conservatives either. Most people are a mixture of diffrent ideals. And yet I wonder, why do you want to attack people personally over beliefs they hold? I vote, I voice my opinion, and I have an idea of where I think things should be. Thats no diffrent from you. The only diffrence is in opinion on where things should be. And your original asessment that I should move - why don't you move? You're the one attacking an ideal here, if you hate that ideal so much why not go somewhere where it isn't there? None of us are acting that way, but you are. "That is a Secret." -Xellos

Feb 27, 2004, 09:21 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	If you have the numbers, bring them here, else keep your comments for yourself, please.

Feb 27, 2004, 10:19 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
commonsense Igneous Magma Posts: 333	There IS a difference. The Socialist's (which includes both U.S. parties) MORALITY ACCEPTS THE USE OF FORCE TO ACCOMPLISH HIS AIMS!!! The Libertarian does not, beyond the most strictly circumscribed government roles constitutionally outlined, and believes that an unfettered human soul is what can only honestly attain greatness. The Founding Fathers culminated humanity's greatest, most hopeful philosophy. May it not take revolution to understood by the vast majority, as it was in our nation's earliest days. The Porcupine is a great symbol. READ THOMAS PAINE, "RIGHTS OF MAN" TO A KID

Feb 27, 2004, 11:06 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Why don't you all go there to make your utopist society, what stop you from doing so ?? You will never have a better one in USA ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You am not even from USA! SHhhHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh about libertarian! What stop YOU from going Haiti? You no like anarchy either? Me thought so. DEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee. This guy's an admin? WTF he doesn't even speak english; how is he gonna look for rule violations? Mathieu you can just STFU. No libertarians ever suggested what you are saying. Don't put words in their mouths. That's rude. That's TWICE rude for telling them to defend it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) How libertarian can aspire to establish their idea if they can't even agree on the most crucial issues ? You are very good to call people straw men, while you choose selectively the statement I do to do your own straw man attack . You see I am able to call people like that too.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No one called you a straw man, Mister Obvious. Learn our language before trying to communicate. A straw man argument is that RUDE thing you do to people. It's when you setup someone's argument for them and then ask them to defend it. Of course it LOOKS like "many different" libertarians have different views. You included NON-LIBERTARIANS with the original; just because they called themselves libertarian. Neo-cons think they're conservative; does that make it true? No. So what's an original libertarian? Look at Bentodd. He gave you a basic specific example. Libertarians are generally against social programs, pro-capitalist, and pro-individual rights. They expect a justice system that respects the rights of a man; and a government that is not above the law. Anarchists, by definition, would oppose even a justice system on the grounds that it is a form of government. You wanted a fight. Now you got one. Gee? Why don't libertarians run into the middle of somebody else's revolution and tell them how to build their government? DEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee. I don't know. Maybe they have some common sense! Yeah. Let's go tell some Americans today to leave their own country. It's FUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNN. Libertarians believe in non-intervention. They do not believe in meddling with foreign affairs. If you had read the LP's website, you would have known this. You didn't. Why? Because you're not even seriously objective about the matter. You don't LIKE libertarianism. That's what you WANTED to show everybody. This topic is your way of lashing out at others. Minarchy is not a word. Libertarianism is not "minarchy." </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Continue in your diatribe against the system. The only arguments you have to offer is blind faith in your opinion. No one of you here is interrested in fact, they prefer to cultivate anger agianst the system . It is easier to stay out and whine than to get in and change it in a proactive way . Just attack me , it is easier than to try to demonstrate anything, continue to throw the party line<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Logical Fallacy #1: Libertarian ideals are based upon blind faith. It is a historical fact that prohibition doesn't work, in any theocracy or government. Seeing is believing. Libertarians in my personal experience are a variety of people who, for the most part, reject any collectivist idealism or faith as nonsense. Logical Fallacy #2: No one here is interested in fact. Mat, you're one to talk. You don't even comprehend english let alone libertarianism; how can you possibly argue against it? Logical Fallacy #3: Government can reduce in size without angry people. Those Haitians sure aren't singing Dixie. Logical Fallacy #4: Libertarians aren't trying to change the system proactively. Spreading libertarian philosophy directly changes the system. These forum posts are a political action: conversion. Those who begin accepting libertarian values will support the LP. For all you know, the libertarians on this forum could be 13 years old. You expect them to give you a friggin video of what they're doing? STFU jerk. Logical Fallacy #5: Libertarians are taking the path of least resistance. The fact that you have to make your arguments based upon assumptions, dirty straw man tactics, and poor English proves that you are wrong. It takes more brainpower to spot bad debate tricks than it does to pull them off. Several people have told you what you are wrong on and yet the Communication Barrier between us (your ego) is preventing you from understanding. Don't tell us what libertarians are about, are doing, or are going to do. You didn't invent the concept and don't want to learn anything about it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security. As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ? So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ? There is 9 million illegal workers n America, who do gain high salary, are those include in your equation or they are just not american ? I beleive in the right of every individual to have the same chances and opportunitys in life, ans social system help that<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Logical Fallacy #6: Poverty is flagrant in the US. The average poor person in America owns two TVs, a cell-phone, and brand new Nikes; has electricity, air-conditioning, food and water. Don't believe me? Go to our public schools and ask the children yourself. I didn't come up with the concept that Poverty is in the US, so YOU are the one who has to back up your claim. Define POVERTY clearly first, then start backing it up with some actual PROOF. After you've done that, take a look at Bill Gates' Foundation and see how much money he is spending on his own social program. Toussaint is correct; people DO choose to give money away without government coersion. Logical Fallacy #7: Private charity enforces liberty. You don't HAVE to get help from charities. You can go knock on everybody's door in a neighborhood asking for help if you want to. You can even panhandle unless the local government has a law against it. Logical Fallacy #8: Religious charity discriminates against the poor. Some poor people try to come to the homeless shelter drunk. Obviously, these people do not need help as badly as others who get crippled or maimed. If charity didn't turn it's back on deadbeats, there would be no money left for others. Show me one private charity that successfully gets away with being indiscriminate. You cannot prove that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. I, however, can prove that Government gets bigger and Freedom gets smaller. You cannot prove that the women you know actually own their enterprise. At very best, you can prove in % of income how MUCH of their own businesses they own and how much the government owns. As long as governments use property tax, income tax, luxury tax, and social program taxes...nobody completely owns anything they possess. Your beliefs put you into the Socialist bracket, Mathieu. As you should be able to tell by now, we are absolutely and directly opposed. You believe in the power of the Social System to provide equal opportunity to everybody. 48,000,000 Americans have decided NOT to buy that Insurance you're talking about. Maybe they needed other things that year. Maybe they're in college. Maybe they're going to start a business tomorrow. Maybe they don't give a crap. You do not know what their income or spending habits are today, tomorrow, or yesterday. I know that if I had a million bucks in the bank, I would not buy ANY medical insurance. So who's to say those Americans aren't extremely wealthy? Everybody just SEEMS to be starving who isn't drinking the lifeblood of the taxpayer. Why are you silly Americans not drinking from the fountain of infinite wealth with us Canadians?! We have equality, and thou art lacking. Taketh, thou, from the rich and eat. And know the Lord Thy God Of Forces gave it to thee. When someone gives you something, you're supposed to thank them. Do you thank Government, Mathieu? Do you thank those who died making Canada's Health Care System possible? Oh wait, nobody died pushing the government pen. Is that what we have to do to be your friend? If I go put a gun to someone's head, take their money, and give it to you...will you like me just as much? Oh Government doesn't DO THAT does it? No, everyone FREELY gives to the government, without fear of jailtime or being Janet Reno'd. At this point, I'm going to give you a chance to respond or run away; the choice is yours. You do NOT, however, have the option of winning this argument. You're going to have to WORK and EARN that. Evading the points I've made is equivalent to admitting I'm right, btw. I WILL use that against you if you do not argue against EACH AND EVERY SINGLE point I brought up. Good luck; and don't feel bad if you aren't up for the challenge. I wouldn't argue with me either.

Feb 27, 2004, 11:25 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, you need a Xanex, first of all. Second, you show an American flag but said "we Canadians?" Where are you from and where do you live now? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 27, 2004, 11:36 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, Obesity is a problem for some poor people because they eat low-cost high-fat crap and also probably because they are depressed, etc. Of course you are correct that anyone who has enough money to eat too much could divert some money elsewhere, but it doesn't prove whatever point you are trying to make. But then, you usually don't have much in the way of anything logical or factual to back up your highly-charged-with-emotion opinions. My aunt has been a teacher for 35 years in a district that's not very poor, and every year she has several students in her class that cannot afford enough food to eat or have proper clothing. So imagine what it's like in more rural or inner-city guettos. There are people who live in shacks with no running water or electricity. You take a lot of snapshot phrases from Time magazine or something and try to make a point about a whole segment of a population which you know absolutely nothing about. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 28, 2004, 12:53 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
Toussaint Molten Ash Posts: 43	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) You said it , a disagreement about our opinion. As for the freedom of speech, it is enforced as everything on the chart of rights and liberty. There is freedom of religion , and Bible or other text are in free circulation thank you.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually certain verses in the Bible are banned from TV- namely, any of those having to do with homosexuality. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by People can make such "choices" on their own, without the government's forcing them to do so. This is probably why Americans give to charity out of their own individual decisions more per capita than any other industrialized nation. Same goes for private foreign aid. Unlike people in socialist states, we give without the government forcing us to. You think this is about the system, I say it's about people-individuals. Another fundamental disagreement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> False, Poverty is more flagrant in US than it is thanks to social security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you look at the quote above, I never said there was "more poverty" in either country. Therefore, your assertion that something I said was "False" is unfounded. That people in America give more out of their own free will is a well-known fact. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As for personal charity, can you tell me how it enforce liberty when one choose to give to religious fundation ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I dont quite understand your question, but I'll take a stab anyway. People in America have more liberty to give their own money probably because the government takes less of it in comparison to Canada and western Europe. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So the poor is discriminated over is religion, or he have to listen to speech to get the care ?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, the religious organizations themselves do alot for the poor in this country. If you can find an example of people being "forced" to listen to a sermon or something else in order to get help, then bring it out. This may happen, but it'd be the exception rather than the rule. There are also many non-religious organizations to which Americans donate their money. What do you say about those? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You're basing all your opinions on what the government is doing. For this reason, the analysis is shoddy. Meanwhile, the "poor" in this country have many more amenities and other important items (such as air-conditioners for example) than many non-poor in other countries. The standard of living continues to rise here and so does that of the poor. Not to mention, people in this country do not stay poor for long. People in the lowest income quintile are more likely to be in the highest quintile after 15-20 years than they are to stay in the lowest. The poor are by and large not a static class in the US. Something to think about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Do you have any statistics/references on social mobility in Canada? I have a reference for US statistics. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth ...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The issue isn't how much more someone has than someone else; the issue is whether the people's living standard is rising- a phenomenon which helps the rich get richer and the poor get richer. This is what has been happening in the United States. Real incomes have been rising for all income earners in this country. I guess your government is telling you that the "poor" are "getting poorer"? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Well there is 48 millions of uninsured american. If they can't pay for their service, it is pretty much starvation in my book.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> By the way, I'm one of those "poor people" with no health insurance, and most of these people fit my profile- young folks in their 20s. For many of them, health insurance would be a waste at this point. Also, if you're suggesting that we go to Canada's style of health program, no thanks. What do you have maybe 3 MRI machines in your whole country? Your technology is about 20 yrs behind ours, and the gap is growing. There are other ways to make health care more affordable for everyone. We need not simply use the government to hide the true costs of what we are using. "Government is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat "Now go and sin no more!" - Jesus Christ

Feb 28, 2004, 01:03 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	In what country are parts of the Bible relating to homosexuality not allowed on TV? If you mean the US, please explain where you get that idea. I don't believe it's true. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 28, 2004, 03:47 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Kyran, you need a Xanex, first of all. Second, you show an American flag but said "we Canadians?" Where are you from and where do you live now?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh great idea...let me use drugs to enhance my mental performance. Whatever. Mia, if you can't read and comprehend the context I use then don't infer conclusions about it. I am from the US. I live IN the US. My parody was intended to provoke laughter. It is largely my opinion, so just accept it as that. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) Obesity is a problem for some poor people because they eat low-cost high-fat crap and also probably because they are depressed, etc<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Now this is something I can agree with. I have had discussions with psychologists before (offline) and believe depression is one of the ugliest mental health problems we have today. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) My aunt has been a teacher for 35 years in a district that's not very poor, and every year she has several students in her class that cannot afford enough food to eat or have proper clothing. So imagine what it's like in more rural or inner-city guettos<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Okay. I believe you are sincere about this. So I will be sincere as well. There are charities out there who can help. If people do not get the help they need at those charities, then it is up to them to get help otherwise. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) There are people who live in shacks with no running water or electricity.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes there are. There are people living in apartments with no furniture either. I know. If I can survive as a gas station attendant with one roommate then others can do the same. I didn't have two jobs or kids to feed. People WITH KIDS who do not have a living income I can only pity. But they created their own problem; and can create their own solution. One major difference between my position and others is that I refuse to believe anyone is completely helpless. I believe each and every individual can attain great success if they apply themselves. This is one of the core purposes of my guild. You've got to understand that in my personal experience most cases of poverty are due to bad decision-making. Do I go around beating people with that fact? No, but facing the truth is a necessary step to solving one's own problems. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) You take a lot of snapshot phrases from Time magazine or something and try to make a point about a whole segment of a population which you know absolutely nothing about.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Mia, you do not know the last 10 years of my life or how many times I have been in the gutter. It is extremely offensive to toss around such accusations about strangers. I do not live in the lap of luxury; but I figured out a long time ago that if I want to be on top I have to stop listening to people who are at the bottom (or middle). I have been fortunate enough in my days to have met beggar and businessman, middle-class and millionaire. No one is a stranger to me. Start a Help the Poor topic and we can really get into detail. This is branching off.

Feb 28, 2004, 06:55 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, you acted like this segment didn't really exist - my only point was to argue that it does. I do disagree with you on a lot of what you say, but posted these disagreements in the appropriate board. Maybe you should do a little more reading and conprehension before you fire off one of your always-too-long replies. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 29, 2004, 09:28 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	It is because I love America so much that I feel the need to critisize what I feel is wrong. It is not only my right, but my RESPONSIBILITY to do this. There are certain things that are always wrong. Murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc. But alot of what is against the law in this country are not only harmless, but unconstitutional as well. Marijuana for example. Gay marraige, "foul" language, even certain books in various states have been banned. Not exactly the America the founders envisioned eh? (most of them "took hemp" as well.) As a Libertarian, I do not advocate anarchy. I just wish the government would pay more attention to the constitution when it decides for itsself what is or is not legal. Big Jr is watching you!

Mar 5, 2004, 01:36 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
boxcar99 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	Why not Haiti? Sure, fine for Haitians. But I ask, why not in America? Good points by Mathieu and Ben. Libertarians are not the ones looking for the utopia. It's the statists who believe that if only there were more government programs, more laws, more police, more regulations, more restrictions, more tax revenue, more encroachment on liberty and freedom then, then we would all be happy, safe and secure. Utopia is for statists, those of us who love liberty understand that the world isn't perfect, and actually is only more perfect when people are generally left to their own devices.

Mar 5, 2004, 12:28 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	A more perfect trainwreck, to be sure. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Mar 5, 2004, 02:35 pm	#79 (permalink) (top)
boxcar99 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	If given the preference over a tyrannical government or a tyrannical neighbor, I'd choose the neighbor. The problem with the American mindset these days is its your neighbors that want laws passed for the benefit of themselves, but not laws that make sense. They want to tell everyone else what is best for them but recoil at the thought of being told what to do themselves. I see it everyday as a reporter. Statism is statism, whether wrapped in the cloak of republican democracy or handed down by a monarch. A government needs to be limited, lean and ineffectual in certain matters, otherwise the line between public and private will continue to be blurred. Libertarianism is not a dirty word. If you think so, then do you disagree with Jefferson?

Mar 8, 2004, 02:12 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	"In 1995, when the international community decided to wash its hands of Somalia and the last United Nations peacekeepers left the country, Mogadishu was a Hobbesian horror show. It remains a miserable and unstable place, a city where taxi drivers ruin their own vehicles, denting the body work and smashing the windows, so that thieves will not bother to steal them. But it is less dismal than it used to be, and better times may be on the way, owing to a new generation of businessmen who are determined to bring the lawless capital back to life.... "....and the three [local cellular phone companies in Mogadishu, Somaliland] recently entered into a joint venture and created the first local Internet-service provider. Not all battles here are resolved by murder.... "Mogadishu also has new radio and television stations (one night I watched the Somali equivalent of Larry King Live, in which the moderator and his guest, one of the city's leading Islamic clerics, fielded questions from callers), along with computer schools and an airport that serves several airlines...." "Mogadishu has the closest thing to an Ayn Rand-style economy that the world has ever seen—no bureaucracy or regulation at all.... the very absence of a government may have helped to nurture an African oddity—a lean and efficient business sector that does not feed at a public trough controlled by corrupt officials." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/05/maass.htm Somalia still isn't a great place to live, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was when the UN and USAID were involved. As for the UN article, every problem they list with modern day Somalia began under their control, and every one of those problems is less prevalent now than it was 15 years ago. In northern Somalia, two mostly stable provincial governments have been set up, neither of which does much more than police the streets and protect the borders. In southern Somalia, there are no formal governments, just warlords, which makes it basically what most people would consider anarchy (although any of the anarchists on this board will tell you that warlords constitute leaders and it's therefore not their version of anarchy). In spite of the fact that the northern governments give absolutely no help to the poor (outside of basic protection) and the southern part has no governments through which to help the poor, the entire country has been improving to the point that the poor are actually better off than they were under Barre's regime and the mass of foreign aid that poured into the country. They're nowhere near as well off as we are, but give them a couple of decades and they'll be one of the wealthiest countries in Africa. Besides, since the UN caused many of Somalia's problems, can you really trust them to be honest about the situation there? They are an almost purely political organization, after all. Okay, so, as for the whole poverty thing.... Being someone who made under $15,000 last year while trying to put myself through college, I speak from experience - and even poor Americans are far wealthier than the poor in most of the rest of the world. The poor here not only have enough money to eat more than they should, they have enough left over for a house, car, television, cell phone, and computer. I recently gave up my health insurance because, even though it was easily affordable, I just don't need it and never use it. As long as you don't need surgery or end up staying overnight in a hospital, medical care here is pretty cheap, and if you do need emergency or overnight care, you can generally get medical insurance for under $50/mo (mine was about $30/mo through work). I wish I had the numbers in front of me, but I do remember one analysis of the 48 million Americans without "medical coverage." Between people who can afford medical care but choose not to get insurance, people who had access to volunteer care/free clinics, and people who could get medical help through charities, I think only around 5% of those 48 million were actually unable to get medical care. Since I don't have the actual numbers in front of me right now, you can kind of discount this, but keep in mind that just because someone doesn't have health insurance doesn't mean they don't get health care. As for whether or not religious charities are good for taking care of the poor, I think Mathieu explained the difference somewhat well: "I'm just saying that that it is a less uniform system. A social system is rule by the chart... and apply it." Under a social system, everyone whose income is below a certain amount gets the exact same amount, or everyone who falls into the same group gets the same kind of help, even though some of them may need it more or less than others. For example, one of the largest problems among the poor is mental insanity or mental defect - something that often prevents them from breaking out of poverty. Under a uniform system, a person who is poor because they are mentally unstable and are unable to hold a job just gets a check and maybe a place to live and/or free food, depending on the system. Under a charity based system, when charities seek out people to help, they do so on an individualized basis, meaning that people who need counseling in order to help them get back on their feet will get it, those who need training in order to manage their lives will get it. Under a uniform system, the government writes them a check and stops there. Even with socialized medicine, someone who's poor because of a mental defect or mental instability isn't going to seek out help; someone has to come to them. Charities are far more able to find and help people in their communities who need help than governments are. Having a uniform system only restricts things, it doesn't improve them. Anyway, another of Mathieu's quotes: "You can't deny the poor get more poor to the expense of an always smaller class of rich . The same people have the same advantage in Canada so it does not constitute an argument . Also, considering the highest quintile is biased. In this quintile, there is a one % of the population owning 90% of the wealth..." I can deny that the poor get poorer at the expense of the rich. I'll grant you that the rich get richer under capitalism, but that does not mean the poor get poorer. As has been mentioned in this thread many times, even the "poor" in the US have far more than the poor in most other countries, and yet the rich here also have far more than the rich in other countries. The poor here may be poorer relative to the rich here than the poor in other countries are relative to the rich in their countries, but if the poor here are as well off as the rich in most countries, I'd say we're still doing better. Okay, so let me give you a hypothetical: Say in country A, 99% of the population lived in a $100,000 home, drove a sports car, owned a big screen tv, had a cell phone, and could afford to eat 3 meals a day, while the other 1% of the population owned multiple $10,000,000 mansions, had multiple sports cars and SUVs, had in-home movie theaters in each of their mansions, a fancier cell phone, and could afford to eat caviar and lobster and drink champagne 3 meals a day. In country B, 99% of the population lives in a rough shack, no phone, no car, with a portable radio in every third house or so, and could only afford one meal a day. The other 1% of the population lives in a slightly less rough shack, also no phone or car, but each owns a radio and can afford 3 meals a day. Which country would you say was worse off for the poor? The argument that you're making, that "the poor get poorer as the rich get richer", only stands up if you mean that the poor are poorer relative to the rich, rather than relative to what they need to survive. If that's what you mean, then country A has poorer poor - the richest 1% there has more than the other 99% put together, while in country B the richest 1% aren't much better off than the other 99%, so that 1% controls only 2-3% of the country's wealth. Admittedly, I don't think that's exactly what you meant. However, I do think it illustrates how you're somewhat deluded if you think that the rich being richer always harms the poor.