Customer Discussions > Politics forum

What do you think of Marx?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 401-425 of 577 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:31:26 AM PDT
*Which means we need a process of conflict adjudication backed by coercion if necessary.

*Which means Libertarianism doesn't work.

This is where there are often problems. I have a great deal of libertarian ideas but there is still a place for government to deal with disputes say enforcment of a contract. Protect individuals from force and to set the standards which commerse will take place. I favor a limited government limited to protecting people but not one that sets out to accumulate experts to plan and control lives because some plan can be designed that might work better than how people interact as they choose.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:31:41 AM PDT
Agree all political ideologies contain some magical thinking. That's what makes them ideologies.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:36:56 AM PDT
*If most people believe that the court has thrown off constitutional limits in this case, they can amend the constitution to restore the limits.

First most people are not awaire of the information I gave you and people are often shocked when I share that case. Judge nominations are taken into account when people vote. There is also the challenge to find people that will run on a limited government agenda then if they win actually carry out that agenda. There are interests on the other side that make the case for growing government and there is real politics out there that compete for their interests.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:38:05 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 18, 2012 1:02:22 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:39:05 AM PDT
*Agree there is the potential for abuse in every system everywhere in the world at every time. It's because human beings are flawed.

This is why I have come accross the philosophy to have a limited government not where we seek who shall rule but what constraints and limits we have on those people with power. That court case is a clear example where those in government disreguarded the written limits on government.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:43:21 AM PDT
*Agree no one believes that everything their taxes support is necessary or worthwhile. The decision as to what is and isn't supported by taxes is a political one, reached through a political process. It can always be changed by exercise of popular will, if sufficient popular will to change it exists.

Nol doubt if enough people want something for long enough they will get it. There are challenges. What do people learn and how are they educated. What voices can be heard and which have more trouble. There is a process of persuasion and who can make the best case.

You might want to read the debate that Thusidides gave us in Athens when they were deciding to attack Saracuse. Democracies can be swayed into poor decissions because not all people spend their time learning about politics and policies.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:43:54 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 18, 2012 1:02:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:47:47 AM PDT
*In other words, your view throughout your multiple posts, is that we, the public, deserve the government we have because we don't have the will to correct it. By that reasoning, the Germans deserved Hitler, the Soviets deserved Stalin, and so on, throughout human history. Maybe you're right given the ability of governments to bamboozle (or bribe) the public, but it's kinda like blaming the target for the bullet hole in it...

Good points. In the case of the communsits they won a civil war. It is an exetential argument we are responsible for all of our actions. Elections have been won for more than 40 years on a movement to cut government and despite those victories governemnt continues to grow. There are practical considerations big spenders win because they other choice is a bigger spender. No only has a growing government been created it there are higher obsticales for those who are not part of that system.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:49:58 AM PDT
*90% of the voters are ignorant drones of compulsory state diseducation and corporate media, who cant even name 3 scrotus' or much less name Obummers veep, sleepy Joe.

Too bad the right to vote has not been handled in the same way the right to have a gun. Think of if voting had half the restrictions. In some ways voting can be more dangerous if that vote results in a Hitler.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:51:09 AM PDT
*What do you mean, sarcastic?

Don't worry, I dont read them either.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:57:18 AM PDT
*There's no way a system designed to help those truly in need won't be taken advantage of to some extent. The only way to completely prevent people from taking advantage of such a system when they don't really need the help is to abolish the system, which then hurts those who really need the help. The best you can do is put safeguards in place to reduce the misuse to some reasonable minimum.

Being a conservative I don't advocate ending a welfare state over night. It would cause more problem that it would solve. I often argue that many programs create incentives that are destructive. People have made life choices based on such a system and have been made incapable of taking care of themselves. Many predicions of the left about all the bad business behavior would likley happen because we are not accustomed to the risk or have the time to build a relationship and trust with good companies.

For example, don't end welfare. Simply start with a limit then slowly start to reduse it. Put the chance out there you might not get it if you are able bodied. Then slowly start cutting available funds. Also cut the taxes and burdens on the economy so there is more in the pockets so that more can be give to charitites.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:58:29 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 18, 2012 1:02:23 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 10:59:52 AM PDT
*Agree all political ideologies contain some magical thinking. That's what makes them ideologies.

The flip side is lack of principles. Principles are important and should not govern decissions. What can be rationally ideal can be tragic in practice. Edmond Burke wrote a great deal on those ideas. I have my principles that guide who I support but I don't throw my hands up if I don't get all I want. I often support big spending Republicans because the alternative is bigger spending Democrats.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:03:40 AM PDT
*I almost half support only net tax payers being allowed to vote.

*The ONLY ones with any skin in the game.

The problem is that government is not only about spending money but other factors that affect our lives. Just because you are poor does not mean you don't have a say in the laws that are written or that court system will treat you fairly or that low income places won't have police protection or access to courts.

I was thinking more along the lines of literacy test or a similiar test that is about equivelant to the citizen ship.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:05:07 AM PDT
Agree that in practical terms getting people mobilized about an issue to the point where a constitutional amendment is adopted is difficult. But the mechanism is nonetheless there.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:07:23 AM PDT
I went to the link you provided but they asked me for five bucks. Not gonna happen.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:08:42 AM PDT
Well, if in fact those in government have disregarded the written limits on government in this particular case, then a mechanism exists to correct it. The fact that so far it has not been corrected indicates that either people are unaware or don't care.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:09:17 AM PDT
Absolutely agree. Case in point invading Iraq.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:11:24 AM PDT
You can't change human nature. All you can do is to try to devise a system wherein the worst aspects of human nature are restrained and mitigated. I would argue our current system of government does about a good a job of that as any so far devised and put into action. I'm sure there are plenty of armchair political philosophers who believe they have discovered a better system while cogitating in their armchairs, but that remains purely speculative until such a system is actually implemented.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:13:02 AM PDT
Periodically there have been changes in welfare which reduce (at least for a time) the degree of exploitation and misuse. Most notable recent example was the changes put in place under President Clinton. It's like a ship collecting barnacles: periodically you have to haul it out and scrape them off.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:14:02 AM PDT
Not true. What about retired people? They may pay little in the way of taxes yet still have a huge stake in what the government does about Social Security.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:14:31 AM PDT
Agree. That's my main problem with Ron Paul. He would stick to his principles even if they were clearly hurting the country.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:26:30 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 18, 2012 1:02:26 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:27:42 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 18, 2012 1:02:26 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 11:30:02 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 18, 2012 1:02:27 PM PDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  577
Initial post:  May 2, 2012
Latest post:  May 15, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions