[theolein]

As most of the threads in this section of the board almost without exception turn into the same flame fest, with the same people taking the same positions and never resolving anything apart from becoming more entrenched in their opinions of other members, I thought I could start a thread where people could post their specific attitudes and points of view without having a specific topic to fight over.

Some of us get accused of being European socialists with an anti-American agenda, and some of us get accused of being American liberals with an anti Bush agenda. Some of us get accused of being conservative Americans with a deep suspicion of anything liberal and some of us get accused of being conservative Americans with an anti Foreigner agenda. I suspect that these distintions are too simple and superficial.

I know, or at least assume, that within a few posts it will degenerate into the usual MacNN Infighting�, but I suppose it's worth a shot anyway.

Me personally, I tend to believe in personal responsibility, but accept that sometimes in life one needs help. By this I mean that I feel that one is largely responsible for one's own destiny i.e. that life is what you make of it and that one is chiefly responsible in life for one's successes and failures. But at the same time, as someone who was born with inherited hip defects and would not be walking today were it not for the aid that the Swiss state gave me in getting artificial hips implanted on both sides. Those operations would have been practically impossibel for me to get in South Africa, my home country, and the operations and physiotherapy would have been so expensive ($60000) that I would never have been able to afford them at that time. The medical insurance that I had refused to pay for the operations as they had a clause not to pay for medical ailments resulting from birth defects. Switzerland is not in the EU, is very capitalistic and there is no state medical aid. I only got the aid after I literaly could not walk anymore and would have become a case for welfare for the rest of my life (theoretically at least).

Nevertheless, I up until that point in my life, had never applied for unemployment money, although I had been out of a job from time to time and would usually do some odd job instead of hoping for aid. In the past couple of years however, as I got a bit older, I found it harder to sustain the energy needed to do any old job that came around, and after having some bad luck in the dotbomb days, have ended up applying for unemployment benefits, although I found myself feeling like dirt for having to be dependant on money from the state.

This isn't my whole story, but it reflects some of the attitudes and feelings I have. I feel that, while people in poverty and war stricken parts of this world are in some way also responsible for their own destiny that the great majority of those people are not simply lazy or hoping for handouts, but simply have no or little choice given their circumstances. I've always been a relatively timid person until pushed beyond my limits, and have never really innately understood organised violence and war or people who use aggression as a solution to all problems and obstacles in life. I have often noticed that being aggresive in the sense of taking risks to get to ones goals seems to be healthiest attitude in life and that life itself knows no good or bad.

From that point of view I understand why corporations and nations are so aggressive in their pursuit of territoy, marketshare and resources. But at the same time, the shrinking size of our world means that, in a global sense, either we cooperate (ha ha, look at this board for an example of cooperation) or we fight until there is only one nation/person/corporation/winner standing. I can also see why other nations/corporations/losers in previous conflicts etc have an attitude that is different in that they feel that there are often no winners in conflicts i.e. today's winner is tomorrow's loser, and that they pursue a more cooperative approach.

One can apply these thoughts, feelings etc to the current situation in Iraq or Africa, or the continual argument between conservatives and liberals or the American European debate. I personally am not ( I feel, YMMV) anti American or pro European per se, because I feel that there are some fundamentally good things in the USA i.e. The American tendancy to feel that one can say one's mind on any topic at any time for instance and the personal freedom that many claim while at the same time feeling that the EU has far too much bureacracy and too little direct democracy. At the same time I feel that America has some very idiosyncratic tendancies that are not healthy for the rest of the world in the short run and America itself in the long run. I also really like the European integration process that is happening as it's the first time in history that this process is happening here without armed conflict.

O.k. That was my piece. What's yours?

[davesimondotcom]

I didn't realize we finally got the tradmark on Infighting�, SWEET!

I'll explain my politcal leanings in a few breaths, which will, I'm sure, be misinterpreted by many:

"The government that governs least, governs best."

Basically, I don't want the government getting into a cradle to grave situation (too late.) I think that the government's job (speaking of my federal government, in the USA) is very specific. Protect the people. Only do what is in the Constitution, anything else is left to the States.

Keep the government out of my wallet & my bedroom, and I'll be happy. Basically.

[MacGorilla]

I believe the government should serve and protect its citizens. I believe in a strong millitary and that every citizen should have free, universal health care. I believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage and that public lands are for the public, not public companies.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
I believe the government should serve and protect its citizens. I believe in a strong millitary and that every citizen should have free, universal health care. I believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage and that public lands are for the public, not public companies.

So who pays for this utopia?

[christ]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
So who pays for this utopia?

You - cash - I don't take cheques.

[Logic]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
So who pays for this utopia?

Are you calling the European system utopia?

Interesting.............

[Logic]

I could probably write a few pages about my politica and social leanings but I'll try to be as brief as possible.

Economy
I believe in the free market but I think that competition is even more important. No one benefits from companies like MS and others that do everything they can to keep their market share above 90% and keeping the dividents up. Therefore I think it is important that the government steps in and protects both the competition and the consumer. I think no company should have over 40-50% marketshare. I would like to see the government monitor every company that has a marketshare over 40% and makes sure that they don't start to keep small competitors out of line by underprizing their products. If a company steps over 60% in marketshare I think that the government should take steps to help the "little" ones on the market. This would allow competition to flourish and therefore keep the companies on their toes.

So overall I would like to see a free market with the focus on competition rather than a totally free market. Our system was good when we started it but now it is just a tool for the big players to keep the small players in line. I would like the governments to set some rules about environmental issues as well as I don't trust the companies to do that by themselves.

I also think that the governments should not be on the market but should only be an observer and have what it takes to "control" the marketflow.

Military
I think every nation should have a strong military since we live in a fragile world. But I would like to see those militaries being capable of handling humanitarian crisis as well as fight the traditional wars. And I don't think more is needed on that. Perhaps that I would like to see a powerful European military but that's a whole other story.

Social issues
I think that the government should handle three things. Healthcare, education and security. I think the governments should provide full services and the best money can get for all three. This should be the main focus of the governments. This should be "free" for all - taxes - and social status should not reduce your chance of getting one of these three. I support private persons starting medical centers and schools but they should not recieve a single euro from the governments and those who choose to use their services should pay the full price. I think that people on unemployment benefits should work for their benefits in a place the governments decide. No one should get unemployment benefits unless he works at least a couple of hours per day for them.

Resources of the nation
The resources the land and oceans offer should be the nations and not private operators. Fish, oil, water and more companies should pay rent for. These are resources that the nation should benefit from and not a select few.

I think this is about it but if I think of more I'll just drop a post here and there.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
I would like to see a powerful European military but that's a whole other story.

I agree. As an American, I'm tired of European nations leaching off of our military and making us foot all the bills (unappreciatingly, I might add).

They've had a free ride for 60 years thanks to the American taxpayer. Time to build your own war machine.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I agree. As an American, I'm tired of European nations leaching off of our military and making us foot all the bills (unappreciatingly, I might add).

They've had a free ride for 60 years thanks to the American taxpayer. Time to build your own war machine.

Yep, we are just a bunch of greedy freeloading leaches and you didn't gain at all from having troops here. Oh and we should also support you in anything possible since you were so kind and gentle to save us.

Oh, praise America!

[Logic]

I of course forgot one thing.

Taxes
I believe in a flat tax percentage, a transparent tax system and to reduce "double taxing" as much as possible.

Damn Alzheimer light!

Religios freedom
Separation of religion and state I think should be obvious. No religion should be prefered over another and religious courses in schools should teach all major religions and not just what the majority in nation believe. Religious freedom and tolerance.

Homosexuality
Didn't know what to call this particular topic so anyway. I think that homosexuals/bisexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexuals and there should be no discrimination. And preferably not even mentioned in laws and restrictions since that promote intolerance. Basically that all people should be treated equal.

And because of the above(religous freedom) I think that churches or any other religious institutions should have the right to decide for themselves if they are willing to marry homosexual couples.

[mathew_m]

So "logic" I'm supposed to pay the medical bills of a 3 pack a day smoker with lung cancer.

So "logic" I'm supposed to assume that a corporation that has more than 50% of the marketshare is doing something wrong and should be punished for this.

You believe success should be punished?

[Logic]

Good questions and I'll describe what I want to be done, OK? Shall we try to keep this civil for at least a while?

Originally posted by mathew_m:
So "logic" I'm supposed to pay the medical bills of a 3 pack a day smoker with lung cancer.

Yes, since I feel there are better ways for the smoker to pay the cost back to society, I'll explain.

Smokers tend to be in low income and low education brackets of society and therefore they seldom have the money needed to actually pay money back. Now what can be done about that? One idea of mine is that the smoker makes a deal with the government. He gets his treatment just like anyone else, but since he knew the consequences he must do something in return. The deal can be something like this: He stops smoking after/during the treatment. He then must take an active part in the education of children against smoking. He must go to schools and talk about his experience, he would show photos of him before, during and after treatment. Basically he would educate the kids and show himself as a real life example of what could/will happen if the kids start smoking. Now what is the benefit of all this? First, he will recieve the best treatment he can possibly get and therefore can continue to work and pay taxes. Second, he will probably be able to convince a few kids to stop smoking and perhaps he will make such an impact that several kids might never start smoking. This will definatly be cost effective for the government and thereby the nation as a whole.

So "logic" I'm supposed to assume that a corporation that has more than 50% of the marketshare is doing something wrong and should be punished for this.

I never said that they were doing something wrong or that they should be punished. I said that I believe competition is more important than marketshare, and I said that the smaller companies should recieve help from the government so that they can increase their share. Markets are always expanding and therefore you wouldn't have to actually punish the bigger player but just create such a system that improves the chances for smaller companies to survive and increase their marketshare => increase competition.

Society doesn't benefit from companies like MS having +90% marketshare and buying up all the competition. Society doesn't benefit from monopolies or pseudo-monopolies. Society benefits from competition and if the free market can't guaranty competition it is up to our governments to make sure we get one. If the free market developes in to a tool for the bigger players to increase their divident and marketshare at the cost of innovation, competition and the smaller companies the government would step in and guaranty that we the consumers would get that.

You believe success should be punished?

Did I say that anywhere? Did I say that success should be punished? Wait, let me check my previous posts........ reading...........no.
Care to elaborate so I know what you are talking about?

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you calling the European system utopia?

Interesting.............

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
So "logic" I'm supposed to pay the medical bills of a 3 pack a day smoker with lung cancer.

I think it's wrong to view it like that. You, personally, don't pay crap, except for taxes to a democratically chosen government.

Now this government uses the money (ideally) to do things regarded as Good Things� with it. They pay the bills of General Health Care. (well, there might be some insurance construction in between) That may include a 3 pack a day smoker (who pays a hell of a load of extra tax, btw), and may include, say you, when you need to be rebuild after crashing your car into a tree while speeding...

(not implying anything so don't feel offended)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Logic:
Yep, we are just a bunch of greedy freeloading leaches and you didn't gain at all from having troops here. Oh and we should also support you in anything possible since you were so kind and gentle to save us.

Oh, praise America!

Sure, we gained some, but the situation is much different now. No more 'Iron Curtain'. The action is in the Middle East, and that's where our troops are needed.

Did you know that it is ridiculously easier for Rumsfeld to call up reserves and ship them to Iraq than it is for him to reallocate troops from Iceland and Germany to the Middle East?

Dealing with the European diplomatic/bureaucratic mess makes such a transformation too difficult.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Sure, we gained some, but the situation is much different now. No more 'Iron Curtain'. The action is in the Middle East, and that's where our troops are needed.

Why are you needed in the middle east? You do know that you are almost on the other side of the globe don't you?

Did you know that it is ridiculously easier for Rumsfeld to call up reserves and ship them to Iraq than it is for him to reallocate troops from Iceland and Germany to the Middle East?

Do you know why? I'll tell you.

It is because we are your allies and have made deals about a certain number of troops/jets etc that are stationed here. But I guess you didn't bother reading up on the subject before you decided to label us greedy, freeloading leaches!

Dealing with the European diplomatic/bureaucratic mess makes such a transformation too difficult.

European diplomatic/bureaucratic mess? What mess are you talking about? It is the before mentioned treaties that are the problem, the treaties you want others to follow but you should be able to change at any given time.

But this is off-topic and if you want to discuss this start a new thread.

Lets try to stay on topic for at least one page.

[mathew_m]

Logic, God Bless your idealism. However none of what you state would be feasible.
The problem with idealists is that they usually come to the conclusion around the age of 27 that the world doesn't and cannot work the way they would wish it. At that point many become more conservative and decide to go with the flow. Others become more cynical and envious and wind up like say ummm some certain people on these boards. These people are watchdogs. Narrow minded and always on the hunt for suspicious activities that they miscontrue as trying to take advantage of the status quo. Everything is black and white to them though strangely their arguement winds up as a shade of gray.

Back to you: I like some of your ideas, though a flat tax would not work with all of your government welfare spending. The purpose of a flat tax is to put more money in the populace's pockets so that they can pay for things such as healthcare by themselves. The government hands are removed as soon as they receive their 10%. Less Beauracracy more free will.

[Logic]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
Logic, God Bless your idealism.

Thank you I'm skipping your part were you imply that when you become 27 you either give up and become a conservative or you become a cynical little jerk that...... oops. Sorry Well, back on topic shall we?

Back to you: I like some of your ideas, though a flat tax would not work with all of your government welfare spending. The purpose of a flat tax is to put more money in the populace's pockets so that they can pay for things such as healthcare by themselves. The government hands are removed as soon as they receive their 10%. Less Beauracracy more free will.

Flat tax works fine here on Iceland so why shouldn't it work elsewhere? We also have extensive welfare spendings. So I'll say again, it works.

I would be all for a small government but while corporations and people don't hve the money to take care for themselves or take responsibility of themselves I'd rather have a strong government.

Here on Iceland we have a flat tax of 38.5%(or something like that) but if your income isn't more than a certain amount per month you don't pay tax. And when you get over that amount you only pay tax from the amount you have above that limit. Which means that everyone gets the same treatment and a fair system(though there are other things I would like to change.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Well, for one I'm shocked that I agree with quite a lot of Logic's political viewpoints. I guess the devil is always in the details. I certainly agree on the flat tax. I'm also interested to see that Logic's view of business competition is basically US antitrust law. I think your understanding is probably a little out of date in that modern cases have become a bit more economic analysis based. But the principles of preventing anticompetiive market concentration is the same as what you advocated.

[thunderous_funker]

I used to be deeply religious and very politically conservative. The older I get, the more I agree with the Anarchists.

The tricky part is how to make it happen. Its hard not to conclude that you can't there from here.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, for one I'm shocked that I agree with quite a lot of Logic's political viewpoints. I guess the devil is always in the details. I certainly agree on the flat tax. I'm also interested to see that Logic's view of business competition is basically US antitrust law. I think your understanding is probably a little out of date in that modern cases have become a bit more economic analysis based. But the principles of preventing anticompetiive market concentration is the same as what you advocated.

I always knew that we weren't all that apart when it comes to politics

Yes, we have had a couple of anti-trust cases(if I understood you correctly) here on Iceland the last years and I find it very interesting to see how different the approach is to them. There is one where the oil companies were proven to contact each other about changes in prizes. Unfortunatly the ordinary citizen noticed it long before the government took action against them, since the prize changed at the same second, the same day and also changed for the same amount of aurar(your cents but worth even less). The government is now trying to figure out what to do but I would want to see hefty fines imposed.

I could bring up more examples than that but then I would have to go into specifics that aren't really all that interesting for foreigners I guess. Let's just say that the remnants of the government owned companies tend to use their superiority to the extremes.

I wouldn't say what I advocated is out of date, but rather that it is hard to really describe the details on a forum like this without any specific examples. and some serious amount of time.(wait, we all spend some serious amount of time here )

[Logic]

One more thing inspired by t_f's thread about fundraising:

Fundraising
I think political parties should keep their book open on who funds them. Everything they get over a certain amount should be open for public scrutiny so the voters can, if they want, see who is giving the parties money so that they can then compare it to how the government acts. This is very important to me. I think we have all the right to see who gives money to our politicians campaigns and there should be no hush-hush about it.

It is the only way we can make sure that companies don't take over politics and buy influence.


And there you have folks

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Logic:
One more thing inspired by t_f's thread about fundraising:

Fundraising
I think political parties should keep their book open on who funds them. Everything they get over a certain amount should be open for public scrutiny so the voters can, if they want, see who is giving the parties money so that they can then compare it to how the government acts. This is very important to me. I think we have all the right to see who gives money to our politicians campaigns and there should be no hush-hush about it.

It is the only way we can make sure that companies don't take over politics and buy influence.


And there you have folks

The books are open. That doesn't solve the problem.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The books are open. That doesn't solve the problem.

Unfortunatly not everywhere. Here the parties can decide for themselves if they want to keep their books open.

[BDiddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Flat tax works fine here on Iceland so why shouldn't it work elsewhere?

Logic: I like a lot of what you are saying, but that is an overly general statement. You just can't compare the infrastructure of Iceland with that of the United States, or many other nations for that matter. Honestly, I don't know much about your country, but I doubt you have the population density that the U.S. does, nor do you have to finance the "World's Police Force" (whether or not the U.S. should act like it is another discussion altogether). If I said that "I have a job, I pay for my house, my car, my food, etc... It works for me why shouldn't it work for everyone?" wouldn't you think that would be a little to generalized? I mean, that doesn't exactly explain why there are homeless people in this world. If I rounded up all the homeless people and told them to get a job, would they be able to get a job just because I have one?

Economic theory does not alway explain the reality we live in. Theoretically, Marxism/Socialism is the way to go (economically speaking) but it flies against human nature for every citizen to behave in a manner beneficial to their state and not themselves.

[Demonhood]

jeez, some of you are bloody dense.

if you read the first paragraph of this topic, you'd see it is for posting your own beliefs, not questioning/debating/arguing those of others. yet, two of you in particular couldn't resist the urge to do so.

and then it just goes downhill from there.

i'm just sad that you all proved theolein right when he said it'd "degenerate into the usual MacNN Infighting�"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
I wouldn't say what I advocated is out of date,

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that what you have advocated is out of date as such. Just that the way you phrased it is more in tune with early US antiturst cases (late 19th, early to mid 20th century) than later US cases. I didn't explain that well, and anyway, it is off topic, not to mention, esoteric.

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
jeez, some of you are bloody dense.

if you read the first paragraph of this topic, you'd see it is for posting your own beliefs, not questioning/debating/arguing those of others. yet, two of you in particular couldn't resist the urge to do so.

and then it just goes downhill from there.

i'm just sad that you all proved theolein right when he said it'd "degenerate into the usual MacNN Infighting�"

Whatever. If anything this has become one of the more progressive threads.

[maxelson]

despite your best efforts.

[Logic]

Originally posted by maxelson:
despite your best efforts.

Come on, he has been behaving rather OK, IMHO of course

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by Logic:
[B]Thank you I'm skipping your part were you imply that when you become 27 you either give up and become a conservative or you become a cynical little jerk that...... oops. Sorry Well, back on topic shall we?

Me a jerk? Nah

[mathew_m]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I used to be deeply religious and very politically conservative. The older I get, the more I agree with the Anarchists.

The tricky part is how to make it happen. Its hard not to conclude that you can't there from here.

It sounds like you had your politics and religion mixed up. Remember that you need to keep them separated. We're all not like Pat Robertson. Anarchy only works if you still live with your parents.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by mathew_m:
It sounds like you had your politics and religion mixed up. Remember that you need to keep them separated. We're all not like Pat Robertson. Anarchy only works if you still live with your parents.

I wasn't accusing anyone of being like Pat Robertson. I was merely pointing out my "political and social leanings" which is the topic, isn't it?

If you want to challenge the principles put forth by anarchists, start a thread on it. You might be surprised.

[Logic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I wasn't accusing anyone of being like Pat Robertson. I was merely pointing out my "political and social leanings" which is the topic, isn't it?

If you want to challenge the principles put forth by anarchists, start a thread on it. You might be surprised.

psst, check the lounge.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Logic:
I think that homosexuals/bisexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexuals and there should be no discrimination.

That's where you are wrong, Logic. Bisexuals should have twice the rights of homosexuals and hetrosexuals... right?

OK, maybe I'm just tired and in need of a Chai.

[Logic]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
That's where you are wrong, Logic. Bisexuals should have twice the rights of homosexuals and hetrosexuals... right?

OK, maybe I'm just tired and in need of a Chai.

They should at least have the right to marry into a already married couple! That could be interesting.



: damn, girlfriend slaps me over the head again :

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
jeez, some of you are bloody dense.

if you read the first paragraph of this topic, you'd see it is for posting your own beliefs, not questioning/debating/arguing those of others. yet, two of you in particular couldn't resist the urge to do so.

and then it just goes downhill from there.

i'm just sad that you all proved theolein right when he said it'd "degenerate into the usual MacNN Infighting™"

theolein has never been proven right.

you better get a clue