Finally some good news.

[Corey Michael]

FINALY it's almost like we have an actual functional court system.

They're going to be doing it regardless. It is just slightly more inconvenient for them now.

I agree.

[Corey Michael]

Brad Friedman
NSA Wiretapping Whistleblowers Found Dead
Tue Aug 29, 2006 00:06

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?d ... title=APFN

[Left of Larry]

FINALY it's almost like we have an actual functional court system.

We've always had a functional court system...

its the people... i would agree on this comment.

This reminds when people say communism would never work due to people's nature. It's good in theory but wouldn't work. I'm no communist, but then again if humans are naturally corrupt, how then are we supposed to form ANY governments that are righteous, moral? Our free democracy is neither free nor democratic on an absolute level, but only relative. However, it is absolutely corrupted.

Communism (as in small communities of equal smelly hippies) could work. Socialism can't. Either way it would be another shitty system of money-- just equal.

If it follows that most humans are naturally corrupt but some are not (would you say yourself, for instance? Etc...) then shouldn't only those not corrupt rule and the inept remain as the voiceless? Why give shitheads a say?

The question remains, iconoclast, how do you define a shithead? how can you prevent a "moral" or righteous person, from becoming a shithead once, they have power. concurrently, how do you define ineptness?

If we do not agree, and we all believe our views are moral or righteous, who judges that?

I guess these are all rhetorical questions, I don't think there is an answer.

[cassanovafrankenstein]

Communism (as in small communities of equal smelly hippies) could work. Socialism can't.

Socialism works splendidly in many countries, among them France, Sweden and others. They have a higher standard of living, less crime, less infant mortality, less disease, less poverty and more productivity while working less and enjoying a more fair labor climate.
This contradicts and diffuses all the claims of the American right regarding regulation and free mkt economies.

[Iconoclast]

FINALY it's almost like we have an actual functional court system.

We've always had a functional court system...

its the people... i would agree on this comment.

This reminds when people say communism would never work due to people's nature. It's good in theory but wouldn't work. I'm no communist, but then again if humans are naturally corrupt, how then are we supposed to form ANY governments that are righteous, moral? Our free democracy is neither free nor democratic on an absolute level, but only relative. However, it is absolutely corrupted.

Communism (as in small communities of equal smelly hippies) could work. Socialism can't. Either way it would be another shitty system of money-- just equal.

If it follows that most humans are naturally corrupt but some are not (would you say yourself, for instance? Etc...) then shouldn't only those not corrupt rule and the inept remain as the voiceless? Why give shitheads a say?

The question remains, iconoclast, how do you define a shithead? how can you prevent a "moral" or righteous person, from becoming a shithead once, they have power. concurrently, how do you define ineptness?

If we do not agree, and we all believe our views are moral or righteous, who judges that?

I guess these are all rhetorical questions, I don't think there is an answer.

Someone who foregos material pleasures for "doing what needs to be done" is a good example.

I don't agree that "power corrupts absolutely". I know that I would never become a materialist-hedonist if I become rich, because I always feel unsatisfied with it. But for other people? People who risk life, pleasures, etc, have the "moral" capability within them. Whether or not they'd be a good leader is another factor, though. Ineptness would be incompetent leadership.

[Iconoclast]

Communism (as in small communities of equal smelly hippies) could work. Socialism can't.

Socialism works splendidly in many countries, among them France, Sweden and others. They have a higher standard of living, less crime, less infant mortality, less disease, less poverty and more productivity while working less and enjoying a more fair labor climate.
This contradicts and diffuses all the claims of the American right regarding regulation and free mkt economies.

Higher taxes, too -- that tend to be redistributed to immigrants.

Ultimately, countries like Sweden will have a collapse because of the redistributive policies that give money to too many parasites.

Maybe socialism CAN work.... but only temporary.

[sclare]

I'm a Small Government Constitutionalist Republican with Libertarian leanings.

One thing you are overlooking vis - a - vis Sweden is that because it has been a storehold of much foreign wealth it has no fear of being attacked and doesn't have to expend vast amounts of wealth on a standing army.
Steve C

[Corey Michael]

Communism (as in small communities of equal smelly hippies) could work. Socialism can't.

Socialism works splendidly in many countries, among them France, Sweden and others. They have a higher standard of living, less crime, less infant mortality, less disease, less poverty and more productivity while working less and enjoying a more fair labor climate.
This contradicts and diffuses all the claims of the American right regarding regulation and free mkt economies.

I imagine that is one of several reasons why Americans bash France so much.

[Left of Larry]

Higher taxes, too -- that tend to be redistributed to immigrants.

Ultimately, countries like Sweden will have a collapse because of the redistributive policies that give money to too many parasites.

Maybe socialism CAN work.... but only temporary.

Iconoclast, I'm curious, describe to me..your ideal state of anti-parisitism. who is a parasite? define why sweden is going to collapse. You may compare to the US if you'd like, I just would like to see evidence to your claim. The operative word here is PARASITE. define parasite and how it applies to your ideal state.

[cassanovafrankenstein]

iconoclast:

Higher taxes, too -- that tend to be redistributed to immigrants.

You're falling into the trap of believing the rightwing rhetoric of those countries.
The taxes they pay aren't really that high compared to ours. I've done detailed comparisons, taking into account a broad spectrum of considerations, like average wages and health costs, along with social services and retirement. In the end, they enjoy a higher standard of living in almost every single category. The rare exception? If you happen to be in the top 10% of wealth in this country, you will enjoy the best medical treatment and luxuries. If you're in the other 90%, free-mkt socialism is a superior system of government.
For that matter, in Cuba, which has been under an embargo for the past 40 years and has little domestic resources, the average person recieves better health care and a better education than in the U.S.. Go figure.

Ultimately, countries like Sweden will have a collapse because of the redistributive policies that give money to too many parasites.

Maybe socialism CAN work.... but only temporary.

When you've spent your life working hard and helping the economy of your country, you deserve to be treated fairly and to benefit from the wealth. If you become sick or fall on bad luck, or retire, you should be helped along generously. Most Americans believe this.
The 10% of the wealthy elite did not mostly get that wealth through intrepid hard work and initiative. That's more rightwing rhetoric.
There's millions of ppl in this country that've worked hard all their lives, been conscientious and loyal and honest....and never been able to lead a decent life with decent pay. Millions have lost everything they spent a lifetime accruing... from one sickness (their own or a family member), or one brush with the law, whether civil or criminal. That's unfair and wrong.
Capitalism is a system based on greed. It's a big, mean dog that just wants the next can of Alpo. If you let run unleashed it will take what it wants and kill the owner(worker). And since it can't get it's own Alpo it will eventually die of hunger. We're a young country, and the Gilded age wasn't that long ago....it demonstrated the fatal flaw in economic Darwinism, in unchecked, unregulated free-mkt capitalism unburdened by socialist considerations. Ever read Keyes? Or about the emergence of unions?
The countries in Europe that've settled on socialism have been around a long time, so has socialism. The system has worked for them. Nothing works like success.
As for immigrants, I think immigration should be controlled because there aren't an excess of jobs to go around, but when it simply can't be controlled, you can't just let ppl go hungry or bleed to death, not while calling yourself civilized. I also don't believe the popular credo in America that immigrants are taking the jobs Americans won't do.
If those jobs paid a fair wage and had decent benefits, Americans would take them.

Sclare: I think you're refering to Switzerland, not Sweden, and Switzerland is a unique case.

I have a moral question for any that'd like to chime in.
Suppose an unemployed single mother with 3 children is collecting food aid. She's enrolled in a tech school course for 4 hrs a day trying to learn a skill that'll allow her to find a job that'll pay more than minimum wage, which isn't enough to even meet the rent. It's a struggle for her to pay the rent & electricity and fuel bills and keep decent food on the table.
Hell, she can't bring her kids to a restaurant, a carnival, a theme park, she can't get cable TV, or even rent DVD's.
One day she says "fuck it" and takes some of the food aid money and takes her children to see the latest popular movie in the theater. She buys them popcorn and soda.
Did she do wrong? Was she abusing her assistance? Should taxpayers be outraged?
What's your opinion?