In the USA we elect people to represent us, since it is not practical to have the entire population vote on every issue. So its technicly a republic, or representitive democracy
>>like libya and iraq, who already have nukes...
No they don't.
>>America is a Republic...Not a Democracy.
Republic being a subset of democracy.
libya's goverment does have nukes, but not many...its in the latest issue of time magasine, and iraq, constantly trying to get checked by the un, probably does have them, just concealed unground somewhere like in the movies:p
I havent heard anything about libya having nukes, although it is possible that i missed something about it. Same thing with iraq, but its one thing to have nukes, or bio/chem weapons, it another thing to have a delivery method. Yeah N. Korea has nukes but they dont have a way to hit the USA (not even Hawaii), and its even harder to shrink a nuke down to use as some sort of suitcase terrorist weapon.
>>The marxist idea that people should be paid by need rather than ability, is to put it simply, evil.
OK. So say you have a bad accident and end up 100% disabled. No earning power (or not enough to survive the harsh winter).
So we should just let you die as it would be evil to pay you because you need it? You would be taking our money (taxes) in the form of welfare.
Don't confuse Marxism and Communism. Marxism is the ideal, communism the reality.
It is like saying all religion is bad because a particular church is a flawed entity.
The problem is because humans are fundamentally flawed, not with the idea of sharing.
Well novacain, what i ment was that purely paying all people by that system is evil, there are situations where it may be justified. However, isnt this why we save money, or have insurance. Second, is their really a medical condition that would stop you from earning any kind of a living, even Steven Hawking can still write books to earn money, he doesnt live off government handouts.
>>Second, is their really a medical condition that would stop you from earning any kind of a living
Yes. Down syndrome, autism, muscular dystrophy . . . .quite a few really.
Yes but in those situations, you werent able to make a living in the first place. Second, is it really the governments job to take care of everyone, if people feel bad for those who have it worse, such as these people, why dont they give them money themselves, why does the government need to take money from people to give it to them.Quote:
Down syndrome, autism, muscular dystrophy . . . .quite a few really.
>why does the government need to take money from people to give it to them.
because their welfare would be left to chance handouts. This may be your idea of how a civilised society treats it's disabled, fortunately it doesn't appear to be shared by the majority of people. Communism may be "evil" (whatever that means), but so are plenty of other political beliefs.
The government's job is not to be the parent of everyone, or to take care of everyone. The government is there to police the population, protect the rights of everyone, to protect its citizens from outside invaders, the military, and to handle disputes of law, the legal system. If people want to use their resources to help others let them, but the government shouldnt take money through taxes and use it to play the parent and take care of people. I believe that many people do need help, and i give money to causes i believe in, but that doesnt mean the government needs to take my tax dollars and give it away for me.
>The government's job is not to be the parent of everyone, or to take care of everyone.
I agree. Most people can, and should be encouraged to, take care of themselves.
However, whether you like it or not some people can't. Your charity idea would work if we lived in an ideal world, but like your communist friends you have acknowledge that we don't live in one. People need to be forced to help the ones who can't help themselves just as they need to be forced to take personal responsibility for their own welfare if they are capable.
:Claps after reading Sorensen's post:
I was wondering if someone was going to point out that i was basing it on a ideal world, and your right it has problems in a non perfect world, as all systems do. However I still think Capitalism is better than Communism even in its ideals.
Also, the government seems to go a bit to far, the welfare system is ok, but its not ok to keep giving people money when they dont even try to get a job, or go to school to get one.
Social Sercurity is same way, people get back the same amount regardless of how much they pay into the system, it has really changed from what it was designed as. FDR created it durring the depression to help retired people, and it was never ended because old people vote in large numbers. Social Security has changed in to a quasi retirement plan. And now because of population booms the system is bleeding itself dry.
I believe the current system gives me too little power in the affairs of the United States. A previous member said that he would welcome a semi-annual voting scheme on the issues that mattered most, and after thinking about it I believe I would too. My biggest problem with the government is that the majority of all resources go to the military. We could substantially downsize the military and still be a major player in world issues, though I am in favor of no intervening in global politics.
Our politicians have global ambitions, and are disguising them by saying that destroying a country will help us with this other goal. Such as destroying Afghanistan to supposedly get rid of the terrorist, while secretly Afghanistan has been a target for the US because the Afghanistans refused to allow a oil pipeline through their country. So, we just killed 2 birds with one stone, and frankly I dont think the government cared really if they killed the terrorist bird, because they can use the terrorists as an excuse to invade and demolish other countries. This is real, yet many people dont know, are too stupid to know, or refuse to think that thier country is capable of it.
On top of our military problems is the international problem of using depleted uranium weaponry. The government says it is an effective weapon, and so is a nuclear bomb, but the PEOPLE have decided that it is wrong to use nuclear bombs, and yet people havent come to the same conclusion about depleted uranium. Every missile we fire radiates or bullet for that matter, radiates 10 meters around the impact of the projectile. You may be thinking on terms of that one 10 meter radius, but think of it in terms of this, 300-800 tons of radiactive DU was dumped on Iraq. Our government cares about nothing, not even civilian life in countries we find as our aggressors for whatever reason. This DU will have a half life of 4.5 billion years, meaning cancer rates and childhood diseases and deformities will increase by 200-4500% for the next 4.5 billion years. And this is happening everywhere we have fired shots. Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans... more areas will surely be added as we become the global aggressors and destroy more countries in the future.
I say that America as a country deserves everything that it will get due to this. If every major city in US was destroyed I wouldnt care because as a nation we havent made it a point to our politicians that we arent comfortable with being the global aggressor. We have started something that will only end in a degressive spiral ending in our nation or every other nation that doesnt support us. And our allies. Will our allies be so kind to us when we act without thier approval? We may find ourselves in a pool of sharks and we will be the bleeding seal...
That's not a democracy then. It's a Republic.Quote:
Democracy sucks because the power doesn't really lie with the people.