Sollie Citizen Rights Compared To USA Today ...

peke wrote:
Don't you EVER joke about that, Dilandu. That bastard Castro the Elder turned my country into his personal fiefdom. Can you envision what it's like to live with 21 bucks per month?

Castro'ing a country is the surest way to send it down the drain in very short order. Just look at Venezuela, it's already well on its way.

You can comfort yourself by remembering, that it could have been worse. Cuba could have remained a US pseudo-colony under a dictator.

Sure, wages might be higher, but so would prices, and Cuba would likely have remained yet another little vacation island.

Be proud that nowadays, almost the whole world uses the Cuban method of eye surgery to fix cataract, and that Cuba has doctors as a national export, while other Central American nations have educational systems up to a century out of date.

Lots of crappiness, but it could be MUCH worse.

PeterZ wrote:
Since this corrupt state of affairs is true for almost every nation in existence, the obvious solution is to limit how much a corrupt government can actually accomplish. Communism and socialism would appear to expand what governments can accomplish and hence take advantage of in their corruption.

How about you explain then why, pricetags on healthcare and education, for example, has literally skyrocketed when it was privatised?

Ah yes, for the gain of a little bit of extra choice, we now pay up to more than double, yet the quality has overall gone down.


And no, governments have repeatedly proven very capable of running things effectively, claims of otherwise are just scaremongers unwilling to face reality, that oh dear, socialism might actually not be an evil concept, how horrifying!

Michael Everett wrote:Perhaps all taxes should be voluntary with the right to vote being linked to payment of taxes (or having them paid by a family member/partner for you). Add a rider that anyone who claims benefits (as opposed to paychecks) from the Government is banned from paying taxes and you get voters who believe in the value of work and are willing to make the required financial sacrifice to attain the ability to guide the path of the country.

Of course, since this would mean that all those unable to find work would be unable to vote, the government would try to get as many people into work as possible in order to maximize the number of voters able to vote for them. Easiest way to do that? Red tape slashing.

No, that´s most definitely not what would happen. This promotes making sure only the right people gets jobs and that all of those nasty folks who keeps voting for the "evil" party are kept from voting.

And of course, the people with plenty of money are going to want the votes to be done on the basis of how much tax is paid, and that ends up in an extremely sick place.

This idea is a huge step backwards, to a more discriminating and primitive voting system, back towards when only landowners and people with enough money were allowed to vote.

E, by your standards, America wasn't a democracy until after the Civil War due to having slaves who couldn't vote...

Obviously not.

in fact, with all the illegal immigrants there, America would not actually count as democracy now by that standard.

ILLEGAL, they are not allowed to vote because they´re technically not there, and it wasn´t the government who forced them to "be there".

(gender may have a partial link with jobs that require specific physical attributes such as brute strength).

Only if whoever is hiring is an idiot. Most people tend to adjust their physique according to their jobs. Or choose jobs according to existing physique.

AND, if you look at some jobs that are heavily dominated by females, like nurses and similar, well duh, that´s some of the worst jobs there is due to the excessive need for doing frequent heavy lifting.
So, are you going to get those replaced by males?

But oh dear, males are inferior when it comes to language, so will you then demand that all judges and politicians are female?

Michael Everett wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:Too many people vote. They also vote their own self interest.

Perhaps all taxes should be voluntary with the right to vote being linked to payment of taxes (or having them paid by a family member/partner for you). Add a rider that anyone who claims benefits (as opposed to paychecks) from the Government is banned from paying taxes and you get voters who believe in the value of work and are willing to make the required financial sacrifice to attain the ability to guide the path of the country.

Of course, since this would mean that all those unable to find work would be unable to vote, the government would try to get as many people into work as possible in order to maximize the number of voters able to vote for them.

Wow...

Just... wow.

Have you been living on another planet your entire life? There is no incentive for politicians (particularly politicians of one particular party these days) to get more people to vote. They do not get elected by larger numbers of voters, only higher percentages than the competition. The incentive is not to have the highest possible level of voter participation the incentive is to have maximum participation among YOUR voters and minimum participation among the OTHER GUYS voters.


Which is why the GOP in particular (due to being on the losing end of the demographic shifts the nation has undergone over the last half a century) has spent the last several decades in coordinated systematic legislative efforts to make it harder for certain demographics to vote. Specifically, those demographics less likely to vote for them. And you want to hand over the nuclear weapon of voter suppression tools? Just stop the other guys voters from being able to get jobs, stop them from being able to vote? Yeah that'll be *brilliant* for the economy when the party in power is constantly trying to figure out ways to un-employ the voter base of the entire other party so they won't be able to vote in the next election.

Sarcasm??
What's to be sarcastic about?

Ancient Greek city-states were not democracies,
for the reason you state, that they denied the vote
to too many groups of people.

Of course, "ancient Greece" was never a single polity,
so a singular pronoun does not apply to it.

The USA was not a democracy either.
It was a republic. Before the Civil War, after it,
and up until today, the USA is a republic not a
democracy, and anyone who calls it "democracy" is
using rhetoric that is not accurate.

As for "limited democracy," there is a technical term
for that: "aristocracy!"

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

Michael Everett wrote:[Sarcasm] Hey everybody! Ancient Greece wasn't actually a democratic society despite formalizing the concept and using it in their government! After all, they had women, slaves and workers who couldn't vote due to the land-requirements, so they weren't a democracy! [/sarcasm]
No. It may be a limited democracy, but a democracy it still is.
E, by your standards, America wasn't a democracy until after the Civil War due to having slaves who couldn't vote... in fact, with all the illegal immigrants there, America would not actually count as democracy now by that standard.

Or oligarchy. Thanks for beating me to correcting the US form of government.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Sarcasm??
What's to be sarcastic about?

Ancient Greek city-states were not democracies,
for the reason you state, that they denied the vote
to too many groups of people.

Of course, "ancient Greece" was never a single polity,
so a singular pronoun does not apply to it.

The USA was not a democracy either.
It was a republic. Before the Civil War, after it,
and up until today, the USA is a republic not a
democracy, and anyone who calls it "democracy" is
using rhetoric that is not accurate.

As for "limited democracy," there is a technical term
for that: "aristocracy!"

HTM, Pointy-Headed Liberal

Michael Everett wrote:[Sarcasm] Hey everybody! Ancient Greece wasn't actually a democratic society despite formalizing the concept and using it in their government! After all, they had women, slaves and workers who couldn't vote due to the land-requirements, so they weren't a democracy! [/sarcasm]
No. It may be a limited democracy, but a democracy it still is.
E, by your standards, America wasn't a democracy until after the Civil War due to having slaves who couldn't vote... in fact, with all the illegal immigrants there, America would not actually count as democracy now by that standard.

Tenshinai wrote:
How about you explain then why, pricetags on healthcare and education, for example, has literally skyrocketed when it was privatised?

...snip...

Um you have this bachward.

US government began creeping into health care and education in a big way with President LBJ in the 60's.

Since that time the cost of both have skyrocketed.

Especially since the US Department of Education Under President Carter and the Emergency room bill passed under President Reagan.

For the record back before divorce step kids went to private parochial school because even in a middle class area the private education was much better.

Just like now here in the US students are getting out of college with huge amounts of debt because the Government offers them guaranteed loans. Many of whom don't even graduate.

I have little clue how it works there but for here what you posted is factual wrong. Goverment gets involved prices go up and quality suffers, usually.

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:
How about you explain then why, pricetags on healthcare and education, for example, has literally skyrocketed when it was privatised?

...snip...

Um you have this bachward.

US government began creeping into health care and education in a big way with President LBJ in the 60's.

Since that time the cost of both have skyrocketed.

Especially since the US Department of Education Under President Carter and the Emergency room bill passed under President Reagan.

For the record back before divorce step kids went to private parochial school because even in a middle class area the private education was much better.

Just like now here in the US students are getting out of college with huge amounts of debt because the Government offers them guaranteed loans. Many of whom don't even graduate.

I have little clue how it works there but for here what you posted is factual wrong. Goverment gets involved prices go up and quality suffers, usually.

T2M

Mostly happens in the US only I'm afraid. And the prime cause for this is usually special interests groups lobbying (ie bribing) politicians.

Daryl wrote:Difference between an optomist and a pessimist. I believe that most western societies are much better now than 1900.
In our case we now have universal health care, a welfare net to ensure no one starves, protection of minority rights, racism is banned, workers have legal rights, access to guns is controlled, universal voting for all adults (not just rich white males), and women can participate fully.
From RFC the curse of big business having too much power still remains in the Honorverse, otherwise things are good there as now for most citizens.

LOL, and these are all *GOOD* things?

"Universal Health Care" merely takes "natural selection" out of the equation, which means undesirable characteristics survive to propagate, rather than die off.

The "welfare net" keeps the population growing at the expense of those still willing to work.

*All* people's rights should be preserved, it shouldn't matter if one is part of a minority or a majority. Equal rights are equal rights - no matter what race, creed, gender, or whatever. On the other hand, limiting one to give another preferential treatment isn't equality. Unfortunately that happens all too frequently as well.

As far as racism, I don't condone it; but all too often it seems it's not a question of depriving someone of something or some opportunity as forcing oneself on someone or group that doesn't want your association. Freedom *TO* associate with those you desire to should also entail freedom *FROM* associating with those you do not.

Workers have for a long time in this country had at least *one* basic right - namely, if they didn't like their employer, they could try and find one that they did. I think things like workplace safety standards and most of the other regulations from OSHA and some of the other regulatory agencies have their place. However, I also don't think any worker should be *FORCED* to join a union in order to have a job. *ALL* states should be "right to work" states.

LOL, since being armed is the *only* way to ensure any "rights" we have remain ours, "limiting access to firearms" doesn't exactly seem like something desirable. Now, I'm firmly on the side of those who want to keep arms out of possession by felons or those with mental problems. And to have laws with strict punishment for those who use a firearm recklessly or in commission of a crime. Some folks say that because of the *kinds* of arms the military has the citizenry having arms is futile. I suspect few of those have ever really shot someone. The US armed forces aren't likely to find opening fire on average civilians something easy to do. A racist militia group or some domestic terrorist cell is one thing. A park or city square full of demonstrating civilians is quite another. The vast majority of the military aren't psychopaths.

And voting is just another right *any* CITIZEN of legal age and sound mind should have equality in.

Joat42 wrote:Mostly happens in the US only I'm afraid. And the prime cause for this is usually special interests groups lobbying (ie bribing) politicians.

I'll take your word for local conditions.

Quibble a bit about reasons. Local school board responding to affected parents. Compared to a Reprsentative working up to 3,000 miles away for 700,000 plus people of which only a small percent is spent on any particular issue. Much worse for Senators one for every 3,000,00 on average. Which is why our Bureaucracy is so out of control.

Reading back through not sure if it is a qubble or an expansion of how dpecial interests get their power.

Same applies in a lot of ways to Health Care. Most countries are smaller than most of our states.

Don't get me too wrong both on those things I mentioned from the 70's and 80's I supported, at that time.

Now when I look at the numbers and results I cringe. Then again I used to cringe thinking about Florida public education in the 60's when it had a lot of retirees and less parents.

Really wish there were easy answers to any of it.

Enjoy,
T2M