Thread: Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize

Originally Posted by Binford

Control of education and health care are simply NOT powers the federal government have in our country.

The way the American government was established, the federal gov't is supposed to be much more limited than the state governments. The designed intent was for the individual states to come up with their own, more locally-controlled, ways of handling such things as education, health care or such. If we had 50 different approaches to these issues, just IMAGINE what would happen! One or two system designs would soon stand out as being the most successful and the other states would adopt them. The principle of competition at play.

So not a lot a president can do about education? Fair point... still shameful tho! How can 50 separate states all get it so wrong? (Or am I naive to be asking that question?)

Originally Posted by Binford

Social security is an unlawful power they have assumed and look what they've done with that! It is near bankrupt because it is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. They've done the exact same thing with Medicare, which is essentially federal health care. It is absolutely rife with corruption and fraud and near bankruptcy. Since the federal government created the Dept. of Education with the good intentions of helping the education of American children, the test levels drop as the billions of dollars go down the ever-widening DOE hole. (Wish. Dream. Hope.)

I respect that people have different opinions about the level of taxes thay should be paying Vs level of government assistance, but sure we all deserve basic requirements to be met? There are many examples of public health care systems that work well without excessive corruption. Sure, many of these are supplemented with a private system for those willing and able to afford it, but most have something in place for those who don't as well.

Originally Posted by Binford

You won't get much argument from me on that point! I did not join the service specifically because the U.S. has become the self-appointed world's policeman! Defense is one thing. Meddling is quite another. I sincerely wish America would be more like Australia or New Zealand in that regard.

– You’ve got the right ideas there, so I’ll be gentle on the following points.

Originally Posted by Binford

I will say, though, that Afghanistan was in response to 9-11 and most of the world agrees it is a just response. Iraq, on the other hand, should have been handled by the UN, since it was the over a dozen or so UN mandates that were being violated following the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War. The UN, however, wouldn't act. It was their responsibility, though, not the US's. The United Nations is another of those Grand Ideas that simply does not, and cannot, work. (Wish. Dream. Hope.)

Perhaps there is a good reason the UN wouldn't act (I don't know)? But why did the US decide to act? If you think the US is in Iraq because it acted "out of responsibility" to make the world a better place with one less tyrant in it, you might find that you're sadly mistaken. Although I won't disagree that few people in Iraq will miss Saddam, how much better off are they? While Saddam was in power the country's wealth was syphoned off and spent on military hardware / installations. Now it's just being syphoned off, period! Yeah, the Iraqis are free of Saddam but at a cost of approximately 100,000 civilian casualties, is it really worth it? Especially considering that the US suported, armed and trained that same Saddam and let him get away with murder while it suited them during the Iran-Iraq war. Speaking of which...

Originally Posted by Binford

The interesting thing is what to do about Iran. They clearly are working toward becoming a nuclear power. There is no doubt they are the primary sponsor of terrorism throughout the world. Should we all just sit back and let them acquire such a deadly weapon? If not, what should be done?

Talks? That won't work with them. We can hope and wish our way through this all we want, but in the end, it is only the use of force, or the threat of it, that will make any difference. It's no different than if a nutty next-door neighbor, who has very seriously repeatedly threatened to burn your house down and kill you, starts building a giant flame-thrower in his back yard. "Oh that?" he says. "It's just intended to be a source of heat for home in the winter." What will you have the police do? (Talk.) And what do the police have to back up what they say? (The promise that he will be taken into custody, with force backed up by firearms, if he persists.)

It’s an interesting analogy... unfortunately far from correct, but interesting nevertheless. You need to do some reading about recent middle eastern history to get some perspective. Recent conflicts in Iraq and Iran have been about securing oil reserves and are likely to be in the near future as well. Keep the following in mind with reference to your question of "What should we do about Iran?":
1953 Iran – CIA overthrow [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mosaddeq"]Mohammed Mosaddeq[/ame], a highly popular democratically elected Iranian Prime minister all because he wanted a share of petroleum profits extracted from Iran for its people. The Shah is put into power in return for lucrative oil deals with British and US oil.

1963 Iraq – CIA organises a coup in which Abdul Karim Qasim is overthrown and executed (Young Saddam has a hand). His crime? Threatening to nationalise Iraqi oil for the same reasons as Mosaddeq.

1979 Iran - Khomeini seizes power from the Shah, expells US oil companies, and the following year Saddam (a friend of the US at this time) invades (with help and support of the US). They didn't have a problem with Saddam invading Iran, didn’t have a problem with him using chemical weapons (they provided finance, arranged for loans from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, even helped build chemical factories for him)... 8 years, a million lives and roughly $300 billion later, both sides are at a stalemate, near bankrupt with little change in national borders.

1991 Iraq - Saddam invades oil rich Kuwait to help pay for his war with Iran. Kuwait happens to be a friend of the US oil - now Saddam’s a villain and needs to be punished (talk about double standards). At the end of the gulf war, Saddam’s war machinery is crippled, he’s subdued and expected to fall into line. Except he doesn’t! Now we need to remove him from power, but assassinations are too hard, coups impossible. What do we do now… enter the 2003 invasion.

In (or around) 2002 George Dubya dubs Iraq, Iran axis of evil (pardon the pun) – It then invades Iraq with it's "coallition of the willing" on trumped up WMD charges, takes control of the country & installs a puppet government. Now US companies are “rebuilding” Iraq, while others are simultaneously pumping oil to "pay for it”, effectively siphoning off all oil proceeds out of Iraq (and probably leaving it in debt too)

Keeping all of the above in mind, if you were an Iranian, and you lived through the last 60 years of this – what would you be doing?
To expand on your analogy - if the reason your next-door neighbor is “nutty” & keeps building the flamethrower (as you so put it) is because you robbed his house, forced yourself on his wife and are now threatening to molest his children (pardon the graphical inferences, but it’s the closest to an equivalent I could think of), what would (or should) you do? Never mind about the things that have already been done, how about stopping threats of further harm? What would you do if the roles were reversed, if you were the neighbour?

The above are not directed at you personally by the way - I only say “you” because of the analogy you used earlier.

Originally Posted by Binford

Again, I have never supported the meddling my government does throughout the world and that is why I avoided military service. (I was ready to sign with the U.S. Coast Guard, however, but they don't offer flight training that I was seeking.) National defense is appropriate, but our military goes far, far beyond that legitimate purpose, in my opinion.

Much to the dismay of the liberals who voted him into office, I don't think what Obama is doing is any different than what Bush was doing. (What else could he do, really....?) Obama is just better at public relations is all.....

Yeah, the thought did cross my mind, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It may turn out to be naïve – I guess only time will tell. In any case, the hawks of the previous administration make him look like a saint.

Originally Posted by Binford

What's wrong with fossil fuels, really?

Errr, it is the root of all evil – never mind the global warming, air pollution and all that jazz?

Originally Posted by Binford

It would be sweet if a viable alternative could be developed and we could say adios to the middle east! But its private industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that is going to bring us out of the dependence on fossil fuels, certainly not anything the government will be able to do.

That’s where we disagree. It’s the private industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that’s keeping us dependent on fossil fuels. Have been for a long time and will continue to do so if allowed to go unchecked. See “[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines"]National City Lines[/ame]” & “[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal"]the great American streetcar scandal[/ame]” for an example of what private industry and enterpreneurial spirit lead to when allowed to go unchecked. Here’s a teaser: NCL was a shell company formed by a consortium of automotive, oil, tyre and truck companies with the sole purpose of destroying light rail public transportation systems in the US, which it did for over 20 years with incredible success. The consortium of companies all reaped huge profits from the demise of light rail public transportation systems at the expense of the US citizens and the environment. What is the incentive for private enterprise to go green? They already hold the monopoly on oil!

Originally Posted by Binford

In energy, health care, pharmaceuticals, insurance, and everything else, what we need is LESS government meddling. Get out of the way and let the private sector continue to blow the socks off these industries, just as it has with the personal computer for example! They've become cheaper, smaller and amazingly more powerful, all amazingly without the help of gubmint! Gubmint meddling doesn't work in international affairs, right? Why should it work any better in business affairs? There are always unintended consequences at play when force is used to alter things.

Why? Because unlike private enterprise, the government is responsible for looking after it’s people and their best interests. Unfortunately the US political system where campaign donations buy political influence is far from ideal in that regard. The corporation’s sole responsibility on the other hand is to make more money for its shareholders. It has no social responsibility whatsoever & I can rattle numerous examples off the top of my head where large corporations were/are involved in practices ranging from unethical to downright criminal to increase their profits at the expense of everyone else. It is (or at least should be) the government’s responsibility to put in place checks and balances to prevent this from happening.

Originally Posted by Binford

Ehhhh.... The media in this country overwhelmingly tend to support Obama and his policies. And I do mean overwhelmingly!

My recollection of the limited exposure I’ve had to “Obama news” in recent months have not been positive - the impression I get is there is a lot of “socialist” or perhaps even “communist” scaremongering going on. But this is just the impression I get from the limited number of news articles I’ve come across – maybe it’s just that those were the ones that stuck.

Originally Posted by Binford

Well, I certainly have not meant any of my response to be taken as a flame. I hope it was not taken so.

Like you, I enjoy and welcome a good, well thought out discussion. “Flames” I was referring to were more along the lines of unsubstantiated criticism (i.e. “you’re an idiot”, or “you have no idea what you’re talking about”, or “that’s a bunch of leftist / socialist propaganda” etc without solid argument to support it). I’m happy to be proven wrong, as I’ll learn and adjust my views in the process. That said, I also hope that my response wasn’t viewed as a flame.

Originally Posted by Binford

Like where? You mean for safety's sake? I remember an evening I walked around Sydney and ended up in a part of town filling fast with biker gangs and police. The taxi driver bringing me back to the hotel was rather surprised I was there! I think the U.S. is no different. There are places one would want to avoid. If that's what you meant.

You must have ended up at the Cross (Kings Cross) – although it may look a bit rough at times with the boys in blue out in force, the area is usually quite safe. I know what you mean though, there are areas you’d rather avoid at night. I had a similar experience driving down through LA – we took a wrong turn on Hollywood Fwy going from Beverly Hills and instead of heading towards North Hollywood, we ended up heading towards downtown LA. In a matter of 2 kms, we went from a “Mansion after Mansion” area to one where all shops had thick bars on them, gangsta rap music blaring from cars around us, and not a single white person in sight… I’m sure we were quite safe, but the feeling of the day was “lock the doors and lets get the hell out of here”.

Originally Posted by Binford

That said, I hope you don't think you're getting a serious picture of America from what the Dixie Chicks have to say and from old Blues Brothers movies!

I think he was referring to the public backlash Dixie Chicks had when they spoke out against Bush.

Originally Posted by Binford

Check their tax rates before you move there!

But also check their standard of living, health, happiness and social well being

Originally Posted by Binford

I've enjoyed the discussion! Cheers.....

You and me both.

Fossil fuels aren't the root of all evil Greed is.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Offender90

Errr, it is the root of all evil – never mind the global warming, air pollution and all that jazz?

oh lets not forget its not sustainable and it is running out...I would consider just as important....hence hy its far more important to find other viable ways

On private enterprise and the health system.

Just compare the cost of any nation's healthcare system as a proportion of their GDP.

Look at countries like the U.K., Canada and Australia, where every citizen is covered under "Socialised" medicine and compare it with the US who pays 1 or 2 percentage points more of it's GDP on healthcare and yet 30 million people don't have any cover at all. US Citizens lose their houses paying the costs associated with illness.

I was (as a healthcare professional, I was also a registered nurse in California) reviewing community resources in the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS in a number of world's cities: New York, San Francisco, Montreal, Cuidad Juarez, Amsterdam and Vancouver to name a few. What struck me was that under California's MediCal (at the time) a California Resident was entitled to free healthcare provided by institutions like "SF General", yet a US Citizen, who was born, lived and worked all their life in California and for whatever reason lost their California job and their California house to become homeless was no longer entitled to MediCal because they had to have an address to be considered a California Resident.

That is supposed to be the World's best health care system! I hardly think so. Good onya Obama, use your Democrat's super-majority and get things done!

Diana

Originally Posted by rmp

Originally Posted by Binford

I would seriously consider moving my family to another country, but there unfortunately is no other that offers the level of freedom that America still does.

An interesting statement. Care to elaborate on why this is the case?

I think olbod expressed my frustration when he wrote this:

Originally Posted by olbod

...My concerns over our ( my ) freedom are personal and petty. In the good ol days, I could travel pretty much where I wanted to, without restriction or requiring a permit ( except in some of the early Aboriginal areas ). I could pretty much roll out my swag anywhere in rural areas without being molested by young hoons or dickheads employed by some Government or council office. I no longer have that freedom.

Some restrictions are absolutely necessary and common-sensical, as vnx205 summed up very well:

Originally Posted by vnx205

As absolute freedom is an unrealistic goal, perhaps I consider myself free if I can understand the reasons for the restrictions placed on me.

I don't really want the freedom to drive on whatever side of the road I want to because I can see that the restriction placed on me to drive on the left has benefits for me and for everyone else.

i might like to be free from the obligation to pay taxes, but I can see the necessity for me and everyone else (except Kerry Packer apparently) to pay their share.

I suppose we all become accustomed to the restrictions we grow up with, but I am sometimes horrified at the impositions placed on residents of other countries, including America.

You see, the founding principle of America is that all people have inherent, inalienable "natural rights," that is, rights that we are born with and cannot be separated from. Rights given to us by God, if you will. We'll start there.

But absolute freedom is completely unworkable. This concept is commonly known as "anarchy."

At the other end of the spectrum is tyranny, be it a Communist gov't, Fascist gov't, or even "majority rule" (i.e., two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner). The element that is equally lacking in all these is any basic rights of the people.

Forget about the "liberal" and "conservative" political model. It's completely flawed. The actual model has absolute rule on one end and absolute anarchy on the other. What people and their governments have been doing since time immemorial has been to find the balance that works best.

The founding principles of America (and I'm not trying to strut around here with an "America-knows-best" condescending air. I just want to point out that this concept is not an original thought of mine, but is rather the foundation of US political thought hardly taught in schools any more) identified the inherent rights of the people. Recognizing that anarchy would prevail were some of these rights not organized for the good of all, government was formed.

I have the right to do whatever I want, so long as it does not harm you. When it does harm you, then you have the right to stop me, impose restrictions on me, or even take my life if the harm I am doing is threatening your very life. So you have the right to protect yourself against harm, be it physical (injury, theft, etc.) or fraud (deception, breech of contract and the like).

Because you can legitimately take action yourself to prevent harm being done to yourself, you are also able to justifiably solicit help from others to do so. This then is the basis of government. Governments are created and exist to protect the inherent rights of the people. The police (agents of the gov't) will take into custody one who has done you harm and the courts (agents of the gov't) will try and convict that person, all in support of your individual right to be free from harm.

What is the basic requirement of a right? (And this is key here!) To be a right, it cannot require anything of anyone else. Your right to life does not require anything of any other person. Your right to freely speak your mind does not require anything of others. Your right to be free from harm does not require anything of others. You get the idea.

No real arguments there, I suspect. But how about this: My right to carry a handgun does not require anything of you. It costs you nothing.

You're probably bristling at that concept, your mind conjuring up reasons why this cannot apply here. But please hear me out, okay? Put aside your negative connotations and walk with me through this pure concept of rights, okay?

You have a real right to your life, correct? If that is so, then you must have the right to defend your life. How hollow would your right to life be if others are able to forcibly deny you the most effective means of that protection? If you decide the responsibility is not worth the risk, then you may choose another means of protection. That is your right too. But if that is your choice, how are you justifiably able to make that choice for me?

Because I might accidentally harm (or even kill) you if I have ready access to a handgun! Well, yes, that's true. Highly unlikely, but yes, you could indeed be accidentally harmed. But if that is really your concern, then to be consistent you will have to also insist that I not drive on public roads because I might accidentally harm you in a car wreck. Eh? Not the same thing? How so.....?

Anyway, back to what are rights and what are not rights. At its basic level here. Something IS a right if it does not require anything of others. Do I have a right to own a Defender? Only if I pay for it myself, correct? But I don't have the money to buy it. I still want one though. But it can't be a right because if I don't have the money to buy it, it would require that others give up their rights to their property (money) so I could get it.

So is "healthcare" a right? It simply cannot be because it demands that others give up their rights to their property.

Likewise is food a right? Is a minimal standard of housing a right? None of these can be considered a true "right" because they all require things of others. Rights are things that occur naturally.

Now, these are all necessary things for people; no argument there. But we need to take a step back and take a good, hard look at what is actually a "right" and what is not. This line has become blurred and it really needs clarification.

At its core, government, in order to act justifiably, can only perform such tasks as any individual may perform. Some things such as forcing people to drive on the left side of the road may seem to contradict this, but every single one of us benefits equally from these rules imposed upon us. Thus such gov't action is justifiable. Anarchy would result otherwise.

But healthcare or "fair" housing are not things that benefit all equally. They both require that resources are forcibly taken from some to be given to others. This gubmint act does not benefit all the parties equally. Therefore it is simply outside the legitimate function of gov't.

Government's job IS to ensure that all people have a equal shot at success, but it's up to the individual to take the necessary actions, on their own or in voluntary cooperation with others, to meet with that success. That doesn't mean educating our children is a legitimate function of government. Government's legitimate role in education is to make sure that no individual or group is prevented from gaining an education. In the same sense that it is to make sure that no individual or group is prevented from gaining a Defender. Get it?

That's all nifty political theory there and there is a whole heap of gray area mucking things up. It's not clear cut all the way through, I realize. But my complaint is that whenever there is a bit of gray area, the assumption has become to lean toward more restrictions on the people by default and to more and more government power and control.

"Global warming" is a good example of this. I believe this is a load of crap that is being embraced by politicians the world over as a means of further grabbing power and money. Yes, there is plenty of interesting scientific evidence supporting the concept of man's use of fossil fuels causing a "greenhouse effect" and effecting world climates. But there is also plenty of serious scientific evidence suggesting that the earth's temperature isn't even rising. (The hottest year was 1998 and has been trending downward since. Notice that as often as not we are now hearing the term "Climate Change," instead of "Global Warming" since their global warming claims seem to be discredited. Pretty sly....) There is also plenty of good evidence that man's action has no effect whatsoever. But we blindly lean toward an expanded role of government anyway. As usual.

Olbod sees this....

Originally Posted by olbod

You have to have a permit to do just about anything these days and I cant help thinking that the day is not far off, when we will require a permit from the comrades, to travel anywhere !!

Originally Posted by olbod

The greenback is still the benchmark for the world economy, yet Wall Street and banking greed and irresponsibility are resposible for the current recession. Lessons are being learnt.

Ah, but they're not! Much of the problem stemmed from controls imposed by the U.S. gov't that required lenders to give loans to those unable to afford it in the name of "fair housing." But only "big business" ever has a finger pointed at it. The role the gubmint played in it is glossed over, if not outright ignored.

Originally Posted by Offender90

So not a lot a president can do about education? Fair point... still shameful tho! How can 50 separate states all get it so wrong? (Or am I naive to be asking that question?)

The 50 states all get it wrong simply because the federal standards prohibit the states from doing their own thing.

Originally Posted by Offender90

I respect that people have different opinions about the level of taxes thay should be paying Vs level of government assistance, but sure we all deserve basic requirements to be met?

See my excessive blathering on above about what are "rights" and what are not.

Government is there to ensure that we all have the opportunity, equally, to have these basic needs met. But it is up to the individual to take advantage of those opportunities. For those unable to, there will be a long line of people ready and willing to volunteer to help them. Key there is "volunteer." Help is offered to those in need all the time, and it is done so with a loving heart. But the help won't be offered to those not really in need. Those not wanting to take responsibility for their lives won't pass muster and won't be helped. When gubmint does the helping, they just pass out the checks to basically whomever is in line. That's not helping people! That's merely enabling them to continue through life making poor choices.

It's like that slacker brother-in-law we all have.... He won't get a job and tends to drink a lot. Like waaaay too much. Getting a handout is a heck of a lot easier than getting a job. But are you likely to give him a monthly stipend for this? He's perfectly able to work, but simply won't. Of course you won't give him money because he is not deserving of it!

But what about that acquaintance you know in your neighborhood who just lost her husband in an accident and has two kids to feed? She will be helped with loving arms about her and supported by her neighbors and friends.

THAT is how things are supposed to work in life. Gubmint meddling mucks things all up. Good intentions, sure, but you know what they say about what the road to hell is paved with....

Originally Posted by Offender90

There are many examples of public health care systems that work well without excessive corruption. Sure, many of these are supplemented with a private system for those willing and able to afford it, but most have something in place for those who don't as well.

"Willing and able?!" It is supplemented by force. Let's be honest here.

By the way, anyone in America, here legally or not, will be treated for any medical emergency whether they can afford it or not. This was a bit of news to some of my Canadian friends, so it may be news to you too. If one is having a medical emergency, they are taken care of and only have to pay as they are able. It's in the preventive realm that we are having issues....

Originally Posted by Offender90

Perhaps there is a good reason the UN wouldn't act (I don't know)? But why did the US decide to act? If you think the US is in Iraq because it acted "out of responsibility" to make the world a better place with one less tyrant in it, you might find that you're sadly mistaken.

The UN imposed 14 or so ultimatums on Iraq, but refused to put any teeth in them. That's what I meant. The US certainly did not act "out of responsibility!" The US took action because Iraq had admitted to having WMDs that they were obliged to show the UN inspectors (which would have more accurately been called "verifiers" as they were there not to inspect, but to verify where the WMDs were or verify documents proving their destruction) and were not showing. The "Bush lied" bit doesn't carry water since the knowledge of Iraq having WMDs was verified by the British and, the clincher for me personally, by the Russians. I would expect the UK to fib with the US, but the Russians wouldn't have played along. Since the Russians also claimed it was true, I accept it as true that the WMDs were honestly thought to have been in Iraq's possession.

Also, I accept arguments against the US action in Iraq as perfectly legitimate, so long as they do not rest on the "Bush lied" concept. The case that Iraq's WMDs were no threat to the US is a perfectly legitimate one and I accept it completely. I am absolutely in the middle on that issue, and always have been. I understand why action was taken and understand why we shouldn't have taken action.

Originally Posted by Offender90

Especially considering that the US suported, armed and trained that same Saddam and let him get away with murder while it suited them during the Iran-Iraq war.

Yup. More of those pesky unintended consequences of government action when it oversteps its legitimate purposes....

Originally Posted by Offender90

It’s an interesting analogy... unfortunately far from correct, but interesting nevertheless. You need to do some reading about recent middle eastern history to get some perspective.

While I have not carefully studied the history of middle east meddling, I am certainly aware that we are where we are today largely because of past interventions by the US (and other Western nations). But the point remains, we're still where we are today. So what do we do now?

Originally Posted by Offender90

Keeping all of the above in mind, if you were an Iranian, and you lived through the last 60 years of this – what would you be doing?

To expand on your analogy - if the reason your next-door neighbor is “nutty” & keeps building the flamethrower (as you so put it) is because you robbed his house, forced yourself on his wife and are now threatening to molest his children (pardon the graphical inferences, but it’s the closest to an equivalent I could think of), what would (or should) you do? Never mind about the things that have already been done, how about stopping threats of further harm? What would you do if the roles were reversed, if you were the neighbour?

Very good point! That really does change the situation, doesn't it. Hmmm..... I'm going to have to spend some time thinking on that one!

Originally Posted by Offender90

The above are not directed at you personally by the way - I only say “you” because of the analogy you used earlier.

Perfectly understood and please know that it wasn't taken at all personally.

So history being what it is, what should the other nations of the world do with regards to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Past wrongs or not, nothing good or justified will come of this. We don't disagree there, do we? So what might the answer be?

Originally Posted by Offender90

Yeah, the thought did cross my mind, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It may turn out to be naïve – I guess only time will tell. In any case, the hawks of the previous administration make him look like a saint.

Well, I think the US is in a pickle. We are stuck having to deal with the situation as it is today. Suddenly packing up and leaving Iraq and Afghanistan now will only result in Iranian-backed "insurgents" and the Taliban regaining power in those respective countries. Would that be better in the long run? I'd give honest consideration to arguments that it would be. I really don't know though.

Originally Posted by Offender90

Errr, [fossil fuels] is the root of all evil – never mind the global warming, air pollution and all that jazz?

That's certainly one way to look at it. But fossil fuels has also been behind what has resulted in an absolutely STUNNING and explosive advancement of humankind. Think about it...even 200 years ago life was a rough, difficult struggle for everyone on the face of the planet. The advancements we have made--for the most part made possible by development of fossil fuels for energy sources and plastics production, etc.--have resulted in an astounding increase in quality of life for most of the world. Those peoples not participating directly at least have the benefit of surplus food and medicines from the nations that do, brought about, I believe, by human freedom in the Western nations.

Originally Posted by Offender90

That’s where we disagree. It’s the private industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that’s keeping us dependent on fossil fuels. Have been for a long time and will continue to do so if allowed to go unchecked. See “National City Lines” & “the great American streetcar scandal” for an example of what private industry and enterpreneurial spirit lead to when allowed to go unchecked.

I just don't see it, mate. As much as anything, I see from the source you cited that it was government regulations and restrictions that choked the streetcars out of existence, which were already suffering because people back then, as now, prefer the freedom of mobility offered by automobiles.

Not that private industry aren't culprits every day of the week! Don't get me wrong. But without government overstepping its proper role, all private industries can do is produce something people want and persuade them to pay money for it. It's when private companies start getting gubmint "favors" that things get messy. And that, once again, only happens when gubmint oversteps its bounds....

Originally Posted by Offender90

The consortium of companies all reaped huge profits from the demise of light rail public transportation systems at the expense of the US citizens and the environment.

Hold the phone now! The US citizens are where the shareholders come from, so they (we) too gained from any profits. You make it sound like a vast conspiracy! Light rail was on the decline due to the increasing availability and decreasing costs of private automobiles. This also resulted in people moving away from the cities to live, which further made light rail unappealing. As for the environment, the increasing numbers of cars resulted in quite a bit of air pollution, which local governments justifiably stepped in to control through the setting of emissions standards. The air quality in most major cities in the US improved dramatically and is cleaner today, with many, many times the number of automobiles, than it was back in the 50s.

Originally Posted by Offender90

What is the incentive for private enterprise to go green? They already hold the monopoly on oil!

Gasoline and diesel are the cheapest sources of fuel. So they should be used. Ethanol production in the US is subsidized quite heavily by the federal gubmint and is STILL uneconomical! Not to mention the unintended consequence of higher food prices that resulted from acreage in the cornbelt being diverted into ethanol production!

When market conditions exist that make alternatives practical, they will come! But unless they are allowed to come about naturally, there will be a mess of things.

My friend, if you come up with a clean, renewable energy source that can seriously compete with fossil fuels, do you not think you would cause the crash of the petroleum companies and become amazingly wealthy, along with your investors? And rightfully so! People the world over would flock to your product! In a flippin' heartbeat!!! Myself included! There's plenty of incentive to go green. It's just not a practical alternative yet.

Yet....

On a related note, which I can't help but see the ironic humor in, I understand hydrogen fuel cells might be the cat's meow as a viable alternative energy source except for the pesky fact that in order to produce this renewable energy source, there is a lot of "carbon emissions." Ooopsy...that's a "greenhouse gas." So that "climate change" BS will be the death knell of this option!

Originally Posted by Offender90

Why? Because unlike private enterprise, the government is responsible for looking after it’s people and their best interests.

Ostensibly, yes. But only when it acts within the scope of its justifiable authority, acting to protect the rights of individuals from fraud or other real harm caused by others.

Originally Posted by Offender90

Unfortunately the US political system where campaign donations buy political influence is far from ideal in that regard.

Thanks for making my case for me! If gubmint were limited to the protection of individual rights from such things as fraud by private companies and the like, this corporate influence would be a non-issue, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Offender90

The corporation’s sole responsibility on the other hand is to make more money for its shareholders. It has no social responsibility whatsoever & I can rattle numerous examples off the top of my head where large corporations were/are involved in practices ranging from unethical to downright criminal to increase their profits at the expense of everyone else.

Yes. How does a company make money, legitimately? By producing something that people find value in and want to pay money for. That alone is the greatest social responsibility and is precisely the reason we have seen that astounding advancement over the past 200 years!

And you're spot on about the numerous examples of corporate fraud and other illegal practices. That's where government steps in! But profits are not evil in and of themselves. If they were obtained through fraud, then yes. But the oil companies are not making fraudulent profits. I make the choice (with complaints, sure) to pay US$3 a gallon (AUD$.87 per liter) for diesel for my pickup because it is still worth it for me to be able to drive that truck. I just make sure my Mutual Fund investments include some oil company stocks.

But as soon as I catch wind that you're ready to come up with your green alternative renewable source that can compete, I'll lead the pack to your door!

Originally Posted by Offender90

It is (or at least should be) the government’s responsibility to put in place checks and balances to prevent this from happening.

I have to be very careful here. Yes, there have to be checks in place (checks against fraud), but "balances" sounds an awful lot like meddling in free trade practices. Again, government's legitimate role is in defense of the rights of We the People to be free from fraud or theft. If there's no fraud or theft, then there's no legitimate action to be taken by government. And a dollar-a-liter fuel ain't fraud unless someone's got a knife at your throat preventing you from going across the street for the 10-cent stuff!

Originally Posted by Offender90

My recollection of the limited exposure I’ve had to “Obama news” in recent months have not been positive...

It isn't always positive, but if one does a fair and honest comparison between media coverage of Obama vs. that of Bush, then the difference is impressive. In a shame-on-you-media sort of way!

Originally Posted by Offender90

Like you, I enjoy and welcome a good, well thought out discussion....I’m happy to be proven wrong, as I’ll learn and adjust my views in the process. That said, I also hope that my response wasn’t viewed as a flame.

Well, I've sure enjoyed it! It's good to be able to stretch my thoughts on this every once in a while and bounce them off someone who will challenge them. Particularly someone from outside the US who brings a helpful perspective to it. I've sure appreciated the discussion.

And hope I haven't been out of line in any of what I've said. I'm not trying to offend. I'm only wishing we could all be as free as we can.

Originally Posted by Offender90

I think he was referring to the public backlash Dixie Chicks had when they spoke out against Bush.

Ehhhhh..... Their target market is a sector of the public that tend to be quite supportive of Bush and didn't appreciate their criticism of Bush, particularly while traveling abroad. It was just a stupid business decision, really. You may feel that way, but ya know what....? People aren't paying for tickets to hear your political views, so just shut up and sing.

Originally Posted by Offender90

But also check their [Scandinavia's] standard of living, health, happiness and social well being

From what I've heard, their system isn't looking too hot for the long run. But hey, if they want it, who am I to say otherwise?!

I would like to ask my fellow Americans who want that Scandinavian system for here to instead just move there. If it were the other way around, as I said, I'd probably make the move. We have our freedom here, so leave it alone for those, like me, who like it here. If you want that sort of socialism, then just move to one of those countries that already offer that! I say that simply because the rule book (our Constitution) says you can't have that here.

Just follow the rules is all I have ever asked of my fellow Americans.

Cheers.......

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

That is supposed to be the World's best health care system! I hardly think so. Good onya Obama, use your Democrat's super-majority and get things done!

People come to the States from the world over seeking healthcare. We must be doing something right, eh?! There are some serious problems with the system, to be sure, but the Democrats' ideas are counter to the proper role of government. Get gubmint out of the way and let the free market solve the problem!!!

As to the supermajority the Democrats enjoy....let's just watch what happens in November 2010! (Not that the Republicans are a half wit better....)

Originally Posted by Binford

...The founding principles of America (and I'm not trying to strut around here with an "America-knows-best" condescending air. I just want to point out that this concept is not an original thought of mine, but is rather the foundation of US political thought hardly taught in schools any more) identified the inherent rights of the people. ...

...I have the right to do whatever I want, so long as it does not harm you. When it does harm you, then you have the right to stop me, impose restrictions on me, or even take my life if the harm I am doing is threatening your very life. .........


People come to the States from the world over seeking healthcare. We must be doing something right, eh?! There are some serious problems with the system, to be sure, but the Democrats' ideas are counter to the proper role of government. Get gubmint out of the way and let the free market solve the problem!!!....

Binford

There is just soooooo much in your post to which I want to take exception. To me indicates a blinkered view of the world or a view with rose coloured glasses (which I guess happens to many of us about the lands of our birth.)

The aims in the declaration of independence, were not yours: true, but they were not original words of the US founding fathers either. Yes they were borrowed from the UK.

On freedom: tell me about jay-walking? Why is that an offence in the US, if I am not obstructing any driver walking from one side of the road to the other?

What about a woman who wants to sell her body to a man who wishes to pay her for the use of her body, prostitution. Under your stated philosophy that should be a right throughout the country. Yet is is a crime in most states.

The not wearing of seat belts is claimed as a right of freedom (yes mandatory in some states like California) yet in a crash a person is likely to suffer injuries that someone else has to pay for - the insurance company.

On Healthcare: Do you think that the US is the only country that attracts patients? Airlines are full of patients criss-crossing the globe to seek treatment, yes even US citizens going to "socialised medicine" countries like Australian and the U.K. - whom do you think developed micro-surgery and the reattachment of severed limbs. That was one of the many achievements of socialised medicine, in fact the very institution where I work.

I could go on but I'll get far too angry about the myopic views some people hold.

Diana

"I could go on but I'll get far too angry about the myopic views some people hold."

Well nobody has a monopoly on myopia, as you kindly demonstrate.

Originally Posted by JamesH

"I could go on but I'll get far too angry about the myopic views some people hold."

Well nobody has a monopoly on myopia, as you kindly demonstrate.

If you choose to "understand" my post you would have realised the error in your statement. Instead what you decided to focus upon and accuse me of, was actually stated by me within the brackets in my first paragraph.

I did not say that this or any other country was superior to any other. What I wanted to present, and possibly my presentation failed, was that no country holds a monopoly on freedom nor the philosphy upon which they are founded.

Most, if not all, fail in practice and legislation, to live up to their founding principles. France is a glaring example and the USA trips up also, as does Australia and many others.

Similarly, no health system in the World only attracts foreign patients without losing it's own patients to another country's health system.

If that is why you accuse me of concurrent myopia then you are sadly mistaken.

Diana