Socialism

[SirJackRex]

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

Okay, I realize that and agree with it, and I had mentioned it but it's now in the spoilers. Which I guess wasn't clear because of my edit's first sentence.

I was talking about the job to begin with though, because I was confused about what he originally said about the preschooler and the millwright. I never retracted my spoilered statement...

EDIT:
However, it is my understanding that part of socialism is that you get what you give. Never having lived in a socialist country puts me in the position to not exactly know how that works, but to me it seems that if you do not contribute (who dictates a good contribution?) to society you are not just as important.
If you are good friends with a high ranking official, does this make you more likely to have a good contribution? I don't know, that's what I'm wondering.

[Kokowam]

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

The way I understood it is that M00s says people are equally important, and SJR says that a person's innate worth is not based on the job they do but the quality. I mean, if you have two farmers and one does nothing and one works, obviously the worker is the better one. But idk where SJR's point went.

Better workers are more important than the bad workers. I feel as if I"m pointing out the obvious there.

Don't worry; humans have a tendency to restate the obvious. Beyond that, humans tend to forget about the obvious, too.

[SirJackRex]

Aha. Thanks Moo, I've edited it for easy reading. I was at one point actually using the same analogy, but it was using office workers.

[EvilM00s]

I will accept that Socialism takes a WHOLE lot of regulation to make it work, and I will further concede that the larger the scale, the more difficult this task becomes. Bravo, SJR.

I hope for a Socialist state in which this behaviour is at an absolute minimum; how this can be done, as I have stated before, I have no answer to. I do think, though, that if the US gets fed up enough with the current system, the pendulum will swing the other way and Socialist ideals will rise in this country- but only if we can provide for personal freedoms at the same time. I will reiterate that I admittedly have a tough time figuring out how this can be done.

The problem here is that the two of you are arguing different things. Moos is saying that a person, by definition, can not be more or less important than another. Rex, on the other hand, is twisting that theory by implying that a person's innate worth is based on the job that they do.

Presicely what I had in mind, Holk. Thanks for the nod.

[SirJackRex]

I will accept that Socialism takes a WHOLE lot of regulation to make it work, and I will further concede that the larger the scale, the more difficult this task becomes. Bravo, SJR.

And that my good sir, is my problem with it. Regulation leads to Newspeak. 


I'm just rambling here, so excuse me...
My thought is that we seem to be so focused on the shit thing that the last president did, we totally disregard the the good thing(s) they did (Nixon anyone?), making us want the other party, so we vote the Democrat or Republican depending on the last president's party into the majority, automatically assuming that their plans will cure the country of its taint for the opposite party.
Which is why I think this healthcare bill is being passed far to quickly. It's definitely a push while we're still in the after effect (and I think it's fair to say that they, The Democrats, are definitely aware of it and using it to its fullest; you can't blame, it's them smart move!) of Bush's shit storm methinks, considering how little bush did with healthcare companies. Which is when I believe they made their great reform to be to the current Decline motto. Correct me if I'm wrong there, I had heard that that is when one of the big Insurance Companies did their reform, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume the others followed around that time too.
I think if it were to be thrown around a few more terms, more drafts between different parties, it could be much better.
It seems to be quite popular, so I don't think it'd go away all of the sudden if a Republican got voted in next term.

An interesting thing though, I read that when the Constitution was written, it was written in mind that the president wouldn't exercise their power as often as they do nowadays. I heard the example that they (the Presidents) are the Fire Extinguisher behind the Glass.
It seems like the individual states' power has been fleeting over the years in favor of the President's.