Thread: Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize

Originally Posted by Binford

.. ... ..
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.
... ....

What is the basic requirement of a right? (And this is key here!) To be a right, it cannot require anything of anyone else.
... .... ...

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.
.. ....
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.
.... ....

So if I apply your arguments to something that sometimes is discussed in terms of people's right, it seems to me that you would have to be a strong advocate of a complete ban on smoking.

As there is now incontrovertible medical evidence of the harm caused by passive smoking, then it definitely isn't a right because it harms others. The most recent medical research had some alarming things to say about the effects on the unborn.

Even if passive smoking was not a problem, someone else's smoking requires something of me, so it can't be a right. The cost to the community of health problems caused by smoking is huge. Everyone's taxes increase because some people smoke. The medical resources tied up treating those self inflicted conditions mean they are not available for others in the community.

According to your definition, there can be no such thing as a right to smoke because smoking does not occur naturally. There is a right to breathe smoke free air because that does occur naturally.

As everyone would benefit equally from a ban on smoking, according to your argument, it is appropriate that the government should prevent people from smoking.

Or if I take the first of your paragraphs that I have quoted, perhaps I should just shoot the smokers as their actions are threatening my health and my life.

Have I followed your argument correctly?

Originally Posted by Binford

Certainly, from the Magna Carta on, the concepts of which Australia shares as well. And I was careful to point out that these were not my original thoughts. But so what...? I miss your point here, I guess....

My issue at this point, was not that you disowned authorship of the "Declaration of Independence" but that it appeared you were claiming them as original ideas of the US founding fathers. If this is wrong of your intent I apologise. Further my intent, which I attempted to clarify in the next post, was that the notion of freedom as a basic human right is found in a variety of philosophers writings and the foundations of various nations. I hinted at the "Magna Carta" which you understood and I would suggest the French "liberté, égalité, fraternité" although that took from the end of the French Revolution until the 3rd Republic to be institutionalised. (Not very well I may add.)

Originally Posted by Binford

<snip> ... You apparently missed the main point of my lengthy blathering: I am upset with the encroachment of my rights by my gubmint. But at least in this case it is left to the states rather than another one-size-fits-all federal mandate. This is perfectly in line with the US Constitution. ...

That is the problem of lengthy posts, ideas get lost. We too have a federal system were only certain state functions have been ceded to the Commonwealth Gubmint (as you so quaintly state it! ).

Originally Posted by Binford

...<snip - seatbelt stuff> It's all about personal responsibility.

The problem about preventable injuries like the non-wearing of seatbelts, is that there is not just a financial cost to be born by the individual. Princess Diana would likely not have died in the Paris road tunnel if she were wearing her seat belt. There are other consequences of personal freedoms like that one. Should an individual have the freedom to commit suicide, knowing the impact that action will have on their family and friends? Similarly with the potential consequences of non-seatbelt wearing, relating to death and permanent incapacity where the individual no longer has the ability to pay for their incapacity and care. Are we getting into the philosophical areas of "Civil Disobedience" (Thoreau) and "On Liberty" (Mill) here, but interesting debates none the less!

Originally Posted by Binford

<snip> ...I never said the US was the only one, did I? The only one or not, though, fact is, we do attract patients. Despite our reportedly screwed up healthcare "system." ....

It seemed to me that you did, however it is not the entire US Healthcare Industry that is screwed up. There are some very good things that come out of the US Healthcare Industries, that is not my point.

People with money have choices, they have the choice to pay for the healthcare they want where-ever it is to be found. However what I see as a problem is that the US spends more (per capita) on it's healthcare system than almost, if not, all other countries yet there are millions of its citizens who either have no cover or are sent to the poor house by the onset of illness. That is what I see as the problem in the US System.

If market forces were working then the US would have one of the lowest cost healthcare systems in the World, and every US citizen would have access to the healthcare they need at a cost they can afford. That is clearly not the case and the seeming oligopoly of healthcare providers and HMO running rampant with their profit motive have created a system where the poor and lower working classes have minimal if any access to affordable healthcare.

I am not suggesting that the Obama Administration and Congress should apply a broad brush approach to healthcare and apply a one size fits all system. I am suggesting that in a just society the poor and the working classes would have affordable access to healthcare. Most particularly that access would not be able to be terminated by the HMO/Insurance company and a system where treatment decisions are decided by the patient and clinician, not by some insurance company actuary.

Originally Posted by Binford

... Why would you have cause to be angry by anything I say? I'm the one being called myopic, not you! ...

Experience, remember that I have, been to your country, in fact studied there. And while many people are good, fair minded people the mass lack of understanding about the rest of the World is overwhelming.

I was at a trauma and emergency medical conference in the US, when one of my colleagues was talking about healthcare systems in Australia. My colleague was presenting aspects about the federal/state Gubmint interactions of Australia, when a Yankie moron stood up in the middle of the presentation and started shouting that how dare this foreigner should talk about the Federal Government (meaning the US Federal Government) with statements that were lies. This apparently college educated woman, had no understanding that there are federal systems throughout the world, including their next-door neighbour Mexico.

It is this lack of a balanced view of the outside World on behalf of a significant proportion of US citizens that frustrates me to the point of anger. Maybe it is the reportagé that is provided by US mainstream media, particularly organisations like Fox, or it is a lack of personal experience of the World outside the US and it's local neighbours who's cultures have been contaminated by the US tourist dollar. But many US citizens appear to have a insular understanding of the US whilst their military is out invading and other US agencies are corrupting the internal workings of sovereign countries.

This is the myopia that angers me and I attributed it to you, whether that is justified or not.

Originally Posted by Binford

<snip> ... Well, if you ever do visit, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised to learn that the average Yank is pretty much the same as the average Aussie!

Cheers!

I have, I have been, they are - but geez I wish some more would get off the Continential US landmass and see, or more importantly experience and understand the rest of the World and the US impact upon it.

Cheers

ABC

Originally Posted by Binford

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

The impression you gave me earlier is that the federal government is powerless to do anything about education - now you're saying the states can't do anything because federal standards prohibit them?

Originally Posted by Binford

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.

What opportunities? In theory, the US is the land of opportunity, in practice the opportunity doesn't exist for those not priviledged. If you're born disadvantaged (to poor and lower working class parents), there is in practice very little you can do to better yourself. I'd recommend reading William Finnegan's "Cold New World" for an insight of what life is like for disadvantaged teenagers and what "opportunities" are available to them. Let me warn you, it's not a "feel-good happy ending" kind of book.

Originally Posted by Binford

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.

Once again, the comment above seems to lack perspective on the issues of poverty. The endemically disadvantaged live amongst other people like themselves who are also struggling to keep their head above water. They can hardly help themselves, let alone helping someone else.

What you seem to be advocating is that its their fault they were born poor, and they shouldn't be helped / don't deserve to be helped? I both understand and accept that you have the right to think only of yourself and to not care about others, but please don't allude yourself that the system you're advocating is either fair or "for the people". If anything, its for the "people that have".

Australians pay a higher tax rate then the US, but we take much better care of our disadvantaged.

Originally Posted by Binford

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.

Government helping can take many forms - in order for the help to be effective, the disadvantaged must have real (if not equal) access to education. You can get an idea of where I'm coming from here - What I'm advocating is helping the disadvantaged help themselves by providing them with an opportunity for education (teach a man how to fish sort of thing). Social security "payments" help relieve financial pressure on low income earning families, so their children don't have to work from an early age to help make ends meet. Something the US system lacks in both regards.

Originally Posted by Binford

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!

Yes, there will always be people who abuse the system, but in my experience, there are just as many (if not more) who are in genuine need & are very motivated to change their circumstances (especially if provided by the right conditions).

Originally Posted by Binford

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....

This just proves my earlier point - in your example, the woman was priviledged to live in a neighbourhood of "well off" people who are able and willing to help! That is simply not the case in neighbourhoods where poverty is endemic, and it is precisely there that the "needy" are concentrated.

Originally Posted by Binford

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....

That depends of your definition of being "treated" - You'll get a band aid measure, so you can walk out of the hospital sure... and then you'll get kicked out the door.

Originally Posted by Binford

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.

Can you provide some evidence of the above (it is the first time I hear of it).

Originally Posted by Binford

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.

On the question of legitimacy, the UN did pass Resolution 1441, however if any evidence of WMDs was found by the inspection team, another resolution was required to decide on any action. Pursuing the matter through the UN was abandoned by the US and UK when France let it be known it will use its veto power to block any proposal involving invasion. instead US and UK circumvented the UN before any "discoveries" of WMDs were found. This is a direct quote from Wikipedia - full article here
"Whether Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction or not was being investigated by Hans Blix, head of the Commission, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Inspectors remained in the country until they withdrew after being notified of the imminent invasion by the United States, Britain, and two other countries."

Originally Posted by Binford

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?!

I believe that's already been covered by others.

Originally Posted by Binford

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!

Based on earlier part of your post about "rights" reproduced below:

Originally Posted by Binford

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).

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 apply the above concept of "constitutional rights" to countries, Iran would not only have the right to build nuclear weapons, but also to use them against the US, given its past and present activities in the region. - just something to ponder on.

Originally Posted by Binford

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?

Based on my understanding of history, Iran has not been the aggressor - if anything, it has been a victim, and any ambition it may harbour towards becoming a nuclear power is (in my opinion) a direct consequence of being backed into a corner. Bush wasn't very subtle when he named Iran, Iraq and North Korea the "axis of evil". ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil"]2002 Bush coins "Iran, Iraq, axis of evil[/ame]) Interesting to note that in the last few years Venezuela has also been added to that list. And its real crime?

Originally Posted by Binford

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.

Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but your arguements, although well intentioned, lack perspective.

Originally Posted by Binford

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....

Hold the phone now! The US citizens are where the shareholders come from, so they (we) too gained from any profits.

taking from the poor and giving to the rich

Originally Posted by Binford

You make it sound like a vast conspiracy!

That's because it is! And if you don't see it for what it is, then I'm wasting my breath, and I shall say no more!

Originally Posted by Binford

Light rail was on the decline due to the increasing availability and decreasing costs of private automobiles.

Light rail was dismantled in over 40 cities in the US so that people were FORCED to buy more cars, consume more petrol etc, - while these companies didn't literally put a knife under their throat, they may as well have for the alternatives were non-existant.

And these "US Citizens" that profited? - It's the rich taking from poor, and if you can't see that, or how its wrong on so many levels, then I'm really wasting my breath.

Originally Posted by Offender90

<snip - lots and lots> ....Light rail was dismantled in over 40 cities in the US so that people were FORCED to buy more cars, consume more petrol etc, - while these companies didn't literally put a knife under their throat, they may as well have for the alternatives were non-existant.

And these "US Citizens" that profited? - It's the rich taking from poor, and if you can't see that, or how its wrong on so many levels, then I'm really wasting my breath.

Many years ago I read a book titles "The Gnomes of Zurich" this was a fascinating read and if I find it again I have another read of it. The book looks at Swiss bankers and their machinations with global enterprises before and after WWII. It focuses in a large way on General Motors and how they were subsidised by the US Government to build war materiel, for which they also got paid, it also investigated how Opel a German Division of GM was subsidised by the NAZIs in the same way for war materiel and how that funding got back to GM through the Swiss banks. It also discussed that the US Government paid reparation to Opel for damage to its plants caused by US servicemen dropping GM made bombs out of GM made planes onto the GM Opel factories, sounds very much like the plot of Catch 22.

Anyway back to light rail, the book also touched on GM's activities within the USA, throughout the inter-war and post WWII years. GM had promotions where it would provide GM buses at very cheap prices with guaranteed contract prices arrangements for 20 years into the future. The deals were so good it didn't make economic sense to continue maintaining and the then ageing light rail fleets. The interesting thing was that cities that didn't have light rail didn't get the same deals. Many of the cities took up the GM deals switching to buses. At the end of the 20 year contracts the price of replacement buses went up to commercial rates and the cost of fuel rose, but by then the light rail systems had been dismantled and until very recently these cities have been locked into bus fleets.

Originally Posted by vnx205

So if I apply your arguments to something that sometimes is discussed in terms of people's right, it seems to me that you would have to be a strong advocate of a complete ban on smoking.

Interesting. I used to be a smoker and always recognized my smoking to be an action I chose to take and that I had the responsibility to avoid affecting others around me.

As for the "incontrovertible evidence" about the harm caused by 2nd hand smoke, I've seen conflicting estimates. But nevertheless, it isn't going to be good for anyone, which is why I took the personal responsibility to avoid being around any nonsmokers when I smoked.

I cannot advocate a complete ban on smoking because there are plenty of opportunities for smoking that harm no one but the smoker. And since he alone is responsible for his own medical expenses through his higher medical insurance rates offered in this land of freedom I've been talking about, the costs associated with his care will be completely borne by him. The only areas in which I can support banning smoking is where others congregate who may not want to be around the smokers. But even then a complete ban, such as that which Washington state recently imposed, is wrong because it leaves no opportunity for those who all, 100%, choose to be around smoking, say in a bar or such.

Originally Posted by vnx205

Even if passive smoking was not a problem, someone else's smoking requires something of me, so it can't be a right. The cost to the community of health problems caused by smoking is huge.

You missed something! There are no costs to the community because the smoker pays his own higher insurance premiums because he chooses to engage in this self-destructive habit. Why should his choice cost you or me anything? Let's require those who make poor choices to pay for their own poor choices rather than punish the rest of us with either having to pay for the smokers' healthcare or else suffering a further loss of our own freedom of choice.

Originally Posted by vnx205

According to your definition, there can be no such thing as a right to smoke because smoking does not occur naturally. There is a right to breathe smoke free air because that does occur naturally.

You've almost got it! There is certainly a right to smoke, so long as that act does not harm the rest of us by 1) having to breathe the smoke or 2) having to pay for their extra healthcare costs. Your statement assumes that we all must be forced to pay for each other's care. If that's the case, then you'd have the right to control all areas of their lives. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at the individual: You want to engage in self-destructive behavior? Then you must suffer the consequences of that behavior, be it financially or otherwise. Harsh? Sure. It's called "tough love." You make the choice, you live with the consequences. It's the ultimate in fairness.

Originally Posted by vnx205

As everyone would benefit equally from a ban on smoking, according to your argument, it is appropriate that the government should prevent people from smoking.

Those who choose to smoke lose their freedom of choice in the matter, therefore it is not an equal benefit.

Originally Posted by vnx205

Or if I take the first of your paragraphs that I have quoted, perhaps I should just shoot the smokers as their actions are threatening my health and my life.

Cute!

See my outline of the three requirements for the use of lethal force below.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

We too have a federal system were only certain state functions have been ceded to the Commonwealth Gubmint (as you so quaintly state it! ).

I generally use the term "gubmint" when the actions it takes are beyond their legal scope and "government" when their actions are just.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The problem about preventable injuries like the non-wearing of seatbelts, is that there is not just a financial cost to be born by the individual. Princess Diana would likely not have died in the Paris road tunnel if she were wearing her seat belt.

What gives you the right to force another to make wise choices? Diana made the unwise choice to not wear a seatbelt and paid for that choice with her life. Three, in fact, did. The only who survived was the seatbelt wearer. That should be a lesson in why seatbelt use is wise. Not an excuse to force others to do what you and I know to be wise.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Should an individual have the freedom to commit suicide, knowing the impact that action will have on their family and friends?

Sadly, yes.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? There are infinite poor choices an individual can make that negatively affect others. Are you going to attempt to control them all?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Similarly with the potential consequences of non-seatbelt wearing, relating to death and permanent incapacity where the individual no longer has the ability to pay for their incapacity and care.

That person better have had the higher cost insurance that allowed them coverage for the choice not to wear their seatbelt, or long-term disability insurance that allows for such. Otherwise, I expect I'd see them show up at my church to ask for help. And I expect that help would be lovingly provided. Or do you think that people only care to help others when they are forced by gubmint to pay for it?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

However what I see as a problem is that the US spends more (per capita) on it's healthcare system than almost, if not, all other countries yet there are millions of its citizens who either have no cover or are sent to the poor house by the onset of illness. That is what I see as the problem in the US System.

That's part of the problem--a big part.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

If market forces were working then the US would have one of the lowest cost healthcare systems in the World, and every US citizen would have access to the healthcare they need at a cost they can afford.

And if gubmint would get out of the way and allow insurance companies to fully compete with a variety of coverage offers throughout the nation rather than state-by-state, I am confident that the market forces would be working to darn near that level you seek.

And for those of you poised to point out an inconsistency in that I am not allowing states to make their own rules: One of the few clearly enumerated functions allowed to Congress is to "regulate" interstate trade. The term "regulate" meant "to make regular." That is, Congress was to ensure that one state would not interfere with the trade of other states. The states making their own rules applied to government action. I'm talking about private companies offering a service across state lines.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

I am not suggesting that the Obama Administration and Congress should apply a broad brush approach to healthcare and apply a one size fits all system.

Well, that's exactly what they're fixing to do!

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

I am suggesting that in a just society the poor and the working classes would have affordable access to healthcare. Most particularly that access would not be able to be terminated by the HMO/Insurance company and a system where treatment decisions are decided by the patient and clinician, not by some insurance company actuary.

Yes, this is the big problem here. However, I insist that the problem is not enough gubmint, rather too much.

But don't worry. Your way of thinking will prevail in the United States and probably soon.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

My colleague was presenting aspects about the federal/state Gubmint interactions of Australia, when a Yankie moron stood up in the middle of the presentation and started shouting that how dare this foreigner should talk about the Federal Government (meaning the US Federal Government) with statements that were lies.

Sounds like in this case the woman simply misunderstood that it was the Australian government being discussed. But I quite agree about the lack of international understanding by the typical American. Its sad.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

It is this lack of a balanced view of the outside World on behalf of a significant proportion of US citizens that frustrates me to the point of anger.

Perhaps we need to plough even more money into our failed education system?

Originally Posted by Offender90

The impression you gave me earlier is that the federal government is powerless to do anything about education - now you're saying the states can't do anything because federal standards prohibit them?

What I said was that the federal government in the US has no authority to act in the realm of education. Yet it does, and in so doing it destroys the states' ability to bring their own unique approaches to the situation.

Originally Posted by Offender90

What opportunities? In theory, the US is the land of opportunity, in practice the opportunity doesn't exist for those not priviledged. If you're born disadvantaged (to poor and lower working class parents), there is in practice very little you can do to better yourself.

Do you really believe that? Your own story in the other thread you referenced is repeated time and time again here in the US. With or without gubmint aid. Is it easier to make something of your life if you start out with more resources? You bet it is. No surprise there! But to say that if you have little to start with, you're stuck there? I'm afraid that's simply not the case.

Originally Posted by Offender90

The endemically disadvantaged live amongst other people like themselves who are also struggling to keep their head above water. They can hardly help themselves, let alone helping someone else.

The "endemically disadvantaged" is a very interesting way of putting it! This suggests exactly the type of person that giving automatic help to (welfare) does far more harm than good. The only "endemically disadvantaged" people are the ones who are enabled by government to continue making the poor choices that keep them in poverty by giving them the resources to continue living at this level!

As for your excellent point about the poor living among the poor so no help is available, let me ask you this: If you were there (as your family originally was) and no "public assistance" was available, would you just starve and die? Or would you have gotten yourself to another part of town to seek help from those better able to offer that help? Just because you're poor and in a poor area doesn't mean you can't get help in another area if you need it.

Originally Posted by Offender90

What you seem to be advocating is that its their fault they were born poor, and they shouldn't be helped / don't deserve to be helped?

No idea where you got that. What I am saying, however, is that if there is an easy way out (welfare), there are a good number of those in poverty who will take it and be satisfied with that. Well, not "satisfied" to the point of being happy with what they get, but they'll seek to get more welfare rather than seek to make better choices for their lives.

I'm not talking about being "born" poor as much as I am about staying poor. There are plenty of opportunities in both Australia and the US where anyone poor can get ahead, even without welfare. Your family is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You aren't still poor and it wasn't because you received welfare, though you suggest that it could be. I submit to you that you'd be in the same financial place you are today without having received welfare because you and your family made wise choices. For the majority of those in poverty today, they are stuck there because they are making unwise choices (namely, chosing welfare over the harder choices such as your family made).

Originally Posted by Offender90

I both understand and accept that you have the right to think only of yourself and to not care about others...

Hey, that's not fair. Maybe that's why you call yourself "offender?!"

I won't take it personally though. Let me be clear: I DO care about others. Enough so to advocate requiring them to make the hard choices in life that welfare denies them the opportunity to make. If my children make poor choices--be it overuse of alcohol; refusal to work despite being able-bodied; whatever--would I be looking out for their best interests by enabling them to continue making those choices by paying their way for them? Absolutely not. Because I take the time to help them with love, I require of them to learn to make better choices for themselves. Welfare denies the chronic poor this lesson. That is why, as a rule, it is a failure.

If welfare actually helped pull people out of poverty, the US would not have the poverty levels we have today. Do a quick bit of research about how many billions of dollars have been put into Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs to "fight poverty" and see what the percentage of poor there were when the program began in 1964 compared with the percentage of poor today. Gubmint welfare programs simply do not work.

On the other hand, the widow with three hungry children and one of them handicapped, has no choice, does she? Assuming there is NO gubmint welfare, do you really think she wouldn't find all the loving help she'd need? If not in her immediate community, then "across the tracks" in the "better" part of town. Those in true need will always have their needs met, with love--something no gubmint program is able to offer.

Originally Posted by Offender90

Yes, there will always be people who abuse the system, but in my experience, there are just as many (if not more) who are in genuine need & are very motivated to change their circumstances (especially if provided by the right conditions).

It's clear you are convinced that gubmint welfare is the only way (or at least the best way) to help the poor. No arguments on my part will change your mind. But please remember this: I am willing to help those in need (and indeed I do donate considerable resources to PRIVATE charities that help the homeless and poor in my community, through my church, through Boy Scouts of America activities for which I am very active with my sons, and through personal donations of time and food and money). The poor will be served, with or without gubmint bureaucracies that do more to enrich themselves than the poor they purportedly serve. But I refuse to advocate, as you do, that money be forcibly taken from my fellow citizens to help the poor. That, my friend, is the only area in which we really disagree.

Originally Posted by Offender90

Can you provide some evidence of the above (it is the first time I hear of it).

I cannot find the original source of it; only references to it by Bill O'Reilly, which you will probably dismiss out of hand, but who takes his accuracy more seriously than any other source I know since his entire credibility rests on it. But since you probably still won't accept that source, here is something similar:

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received ... information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." -- Russian President Vladimir Putin as quoted by CNN on June 18, 2004

Also, please remember that former President Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, also believed Iraq had WMDs and no one is accusing them of lying about that. Besides, the clincher for me is the Hans Blix interview where he himself said he was certain Iraq had them and was just stalling with their cat-and-mouse games.

Originally Posted by Offender90

If you apply the above concept of "constitutional rights" to countries, Iran would not only have the right to build nuclear weapons, but also to use them against the US, given its past and present activities in the region. - just something to ponder on.

My personal right to use deadly force against another requires three elements be present in the situation:

1. The attacker must have the ability to cause me death or severe bodily harm (Grandma with her fist lacks the ability).

2. The attacker must have the opportunity to cause me harm (a man with a knife 30 feet away and with a table between us has the ability, but lacks the opportunity to harm me, until he closes the distance).

3. There must be a reasonable assumption of jeopardy (a fellow hiker walking in the woods with a holstered sidearm has the ability (the gun) and the opportunity (draw and shoot), but he is not behaving in a way that any reasonable person would perceive as being threatening as he walks past with a smile and a wave.)

For Iran to be justified in any attack on the US or any other nation right now, these three conditions would have to be met, internationally speaking rather than interpersonally, in this case. If you see satisfaction enough in these criteria for Iran to vaporize the US, okay....

Originally Posted by Offender90

taking from the poor and giving to the rich That's because it is! And if you don't see it for what it is, then I'm wasting my breath, and I shall say no more! Light rail was dismantled in over 40 cities in the US so that people were FORCED to buy more cars....

Forced?! Do you honestly believe people were forced into something that gave them more flexibility and freedom of mobility than humankind had ever known?!

There is no taking from the poor and giving to the rich, so yes I guess you are wasting your breath on me! But before you leave, go find out what percentage of taxes the top 4% in the US pay and what percentage the bottom 50% pay. Something I'm sure Michael Moore left out in any of his "documentaries."

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

...It also discussed that the US Government paid reparation to Opel for damage to its plants caused by US servicemen dropping GM made bombs out of GM made planes onto the GM Opel factories, sounds very much like the plot of Catch 22.

This is exactly the sort of stuff I expect to happen when gubmints are involved. Stories like this come up all the time, and are generally mostly true. But the common element of the stories that is always missed is the fact that, while the corporations are always blamed, no responsibility is ever laid on the gubmint for their role, without which the fraud could never have occurred in the first place! These things happen only because government oversteps its bounds.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

...At the end of the 20 year contracts the price of replacement buses went up to commercial rates and the cost of fuel rose, but by then the light rail systems had been dismantled and until very recently these cities have been locked into bus fleets.

And by then a suburban living pattern had emerged exactly BECAUSE Americans loved the automobile and the freedom it offered, which all conspired to make light rail less attractive.

For the record here, if I had a commuting job (I'm a regional sales/service guy covering the western US), I'd take a bus or light rail in a heartbeat, IF it could meet my needs (i.e., not make me wait 45 minutes on each end before I could even begin my trip, etc.) despite my love for the automobile. Land Rovers in particular!


Listen, folks, I've been spending waaaay too much time with this! It's been genuinely interesting and I've learned quite a bit from your perspectives and had a lot of fun bantering ideas about. I'm not really out to change anyone's mind about these things; I just wanted to bring new light to an idea that all too often is not given any serious consideration, and that is the idea of human freedom.

I wish you all the best and look very much forward to my trip to Australia in early 2012!

Cheers.....

-- Tim Taylor
Port Orchard, Wash.