If you could...

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

Oh shit you just got toppled, Masacree.

[Mister Schmidt]

105.... not so bad.

On-topic posts? Ikr.

[Sachaztan]

It is people with your attitude that cause the great divide between the rich and the poor.

If you truly and honestly believe this I feel sorry for you. I'd like to think you said that because you were angry at massacree and wanted to insult him but I truly don't know.

[Groundfire]

Yeha I bet they would absolutely LOVE for the state to seize all their assets and nationalise all their companies ^^. Sounds like a wet dream for them <3

Lol, you fucking kidding me?

Depending on which politician you are able to bribe, you might just get a bail out instead.

You are not thinking of the big picture. The companies that get nationalized are not if ever owned by the ruling classes. There is not a single fortune 100 in the US that does not get some kind of government assistance, subsidy, or favorable regulation.

State sponsored capitalism is a fallacy in itself. I believe Mussolini said it best himself that:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. -Benito Mussolini

This is currently what the United States is right now. All it takes is for a socialist government to start running the economy and you have a textbook definition of Fascism.

The big guys, if they are nationalized, just run away with all the tax payer's money while the little guys get crushed, and the wealth is just put elsewhere, ie. buy a new company or something, invest elsewhere, etc.

Nationalization only just confiscates the engine of wealth, not the wealth it self, which is why the upper classes love Socialism/Fascism/Communism because 9/10 they control the guns of the government and can direct them where they wish.

[tank130]

If you truly and honestly believe this I feel sorry for you. I'd like to think you said that because you were angry at massacree and wanted to insult him but I truly don't know.

Mostly out of anger tbh.
Our tax system causes more issues. We should have a flat tax on all income, regardless of the amount of income. Both business and personal should be taxed the same.

For example: My corporation made a fuck ton more money than I pulled out personally. Yet my personal income tax paid was almost triple (percentage wise) then what the corporation paid. The governments theory is that by reducing my corporate tax, I will use it to hire more people and simulate the economy. But Tank's theory is: reduce my personal income tax and I will spend it on more useless shit and stimulate the economy.

However: Useless fucks like Massacre QQing that I should share my wealth with him just because I have it is complete bullshit. People living in poverty expecting a hand out piss me off. I was raised in a poor family, I have very little education (just barely made graduation) and I was able to build a successful carrier with no hand outs. Get off your lazy ass.

[Smokaz]

I enjoyed the movie "Too big to fail" and would recommend it to others as a gateway movie into the overall discussion.

Its simplified and probably popularized and not enlightening at all but it gave some insight into the whole nationalization issue in the US. It's about banks, bailouts and nationalization.

Once you've seen that I've heard that the "Inside job" documentary really shakes up your viewpoint. I'm watching it today I think. Last night's "The thing" w/carpenter needs a counterpiece.

[Groundfire]

Last night's "The thing" w/carpenter needs a counterpiece.

I fucking love that movie. Have you seen the new one, or did you watch the 80's version?

[Smokaz]

the most recent one, i watched it while downing jagerbombs enroute to kiel three weeks ago

[jackmccrack]

kindness is a handout.

[Groundfire]

kindness is a handout.

Can a government force you to be kind under the penalty of jail time?

[Mister Schmidt]

Out of curiosity tank, what does your business do?

[Smokaz]

Harvest human organs.

[Sachaztan]

I would punch whatever idiot designed the American electoral college voting system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFUb-WBnpwU

[jackmccrack]

Can a government force you to be kind under the penalty of jail time?

Yes

[Groundfire]

Yes

Should they? or would that just be completely immoral? Would you really want to live in a system that is that draconian?

Be kind and pay it forward or go to jail.

No, it just doesnt work like that. A government cannot and should not try to enforce personal morals. If a person wants to give charity there are other roads to do that aside from government dependency programs.

That is the problem. Not that there are "hand outs" or that hand outs exist, but it's that the government does it with literally a gun to your face.

[Smokaz]

With respect, I believe personal morals is not nearly regulated strictly enough in the US. Specifically, I am thinking of the polarized debate about sex education for teens in the US. My impression here is that "Abstinence" only programs have been allowed to be the only kind of sexual information through schools in certain states. And, that parents have been able to refuse their children to receive modern education about contraceptives and sexuality.

All young adults should at some point before reaching adulthood legally (vote drinking drive) be taught about contraception and sexuality in a instructive and neutral manner. There can be no personal moral without information here. It's time for politics to start diversifying itself entirely from religion. Religious freedom should be secondary to the teaching of facts and research on the very objects of study which "personal morals" establish rules and guidelines toward.

It's not the sole role of the parent to imprint moral values on children. Individual freedom as many people would boast about it in high-hanging terms does not exist, individuals are a part of society and derive their rights and plights from it.

As long as the idea of the state having the right to intervene in cases of child abuse, prevent sexual bigotry and discrimination and neglect is legitimate, and it is for many many resasons, a rational person cannot be arguing that morality belongs to the individual alone. If homosexuality and condoms are legal the information regarding its finer points should be illegal to keep children from partaking in.

And if the State is unwilling to enforce personal morals, it's duty to for example give a proper health and medical care oriented information about contraceptives and sexuality the arguments for giving information at all becomes hollowed out since forcing parents to accept this would be "enforcing personal morals".

[Groundfire]

When I refer to "government enforced morals" I was doing it in the context of hand outs and redistribution of wealth.

I want to state my position that I hate blanket labels, as these issues are quite complex. I have no problem paying my government to provide certain social programs.

Government schools directing the sex ed curriculum is not an "enforced moral" but an individual body's enforced opinion. The "Abstinence only" program you referred to probably originated from the department of education (just like D.A.R.E.) and if you have such a problem with morals in schools not being regulated "strictly enough" then my suggestion to you would be to get the government out of this area of education all together, because the US department of education is anything but objective. (but then again, this isnt "your" government, Smokaz so shouldnt comment)

We have school boards for a reason, and on issues such as Sex Ed, it would probably be best to let the community do the heavy lifting in this area. Some young people are going to be sexually repressed no matter what the public school teaches them about it, or how much information they have access to.

[Smokaz]

Is there in your view, any existing justifying argument for why parents should be able to choose whether or not children receive education in sexuality and contraceptives?

And its not at all a enforced opinion to know that condoms can prevent disease and pregnancy or learn about the human biology and how it all works.

Whats a enforced opinion is parents being able to ram their moral views down the throats of children by the force of their connection because children depend on their parents for their basic needs regardless of the specific moral nature, and go as far as to prevent the access to established knowledge?

The difference here between sex ed and loan politics is that when the state governs loans in a way that allows you to gamble on performing better than you probably will, a option is being opened to you. However with no legal requirement for parents to refrain from obstructing their child's education in sexuality and contraceptives a possible avenue is being CLOSED - with the state's passive blessing. I'm sure you can see which regulative line of thought which is the worse.

[Sachaztan]

Is there in your view, any existing justifying argument for why parents should be able to choose whether or not children receive education in sexuality and contraceptives?

Doesn't matter really what goverment schools do or do not do when parents are allowed to just say "fuck off" to public education and enroll their kids in a fundamentalist school where they are taught that the earth is 6000 years old. Or what about homeschooling? Truly one of the most bizarre forms of education in a modern society.

[Smokaz]

Which is why it should be illegal. Mein herr, sometimes when I read up on whats considered controversial in the US I want to violently vomit into a bowl and then drown in it.