Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

(Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

    Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
    Yes, the technical economic term as in rent extracted by the rentier for example that Keynes references - not a landlord or other owner renting out his property per se, although the landlord situation may apply, e.g, owner finances purchase of property to rent - the key point in this case would be where did he get the loan; if from a Fed-backstopped lender that's allowed under law to create credit ex nihilo (i.e. lend money that never existed via someone's honest work) then there is an element of economic rent that accrues to both the lender and the landlord, i.e. they profit from the debt based money system per se, not their own hard work and wealth creation.

    RE: RENT

    The Georgist proposal is different from all these ideologies in that it makes a distinction between the unearned income of land (rent) and the earned incomes of labor and capital (wages and interest).

    Rent to society, wages and interest to the individuals who earned them.

    http://www.henrygeorge.org

    George began as a Lincoln Republican, but then became a Democrat. He was a strong critic of railroad and mining interests, corrupt politicians, land speculators, and labor contractors. He first articulated his views in a 1868 article entitled "What the Railroad Will Bring Us." George argued that the boom in railroad construction would benefit only the lucky few who owned interests in the railroads and other related enterprises, while throwing the greater part of the population into abject poverty. This had led to him earning the enmity of the Central Pacific Railroad's executives, who helped defeat his bid for election to the California State Assembly.

    One day in 1871 George went for a horseback ride and stopped to rest while overlooking San Francisco Bay. He later wrote of the revelation that he had:

    “I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege.

    Furthermore, on a visit to New York City, he was struck by the apparent paradox that the poor in that long-established city were much worse off than the poor in less developed California. These observations supplied the theme and title for his 1879 book Progress and Poverty, which was a great success, selling over 3 million copies. In it George made the argument that a sizeable portion of the wealth created by social and technological advances in a free market economy is possessed by land owners and monopolists via economic rents, and that this concentration of unearned wealth is the main cause of poverty. George considered it a great injustice that private profit was being earned from restricting access to natural resources while productive activity was burdened with heavy taxes, and indicated that such a system was equivalent to slavery – a concept somewhat similar to wage slavery.

    This is also the work in which he made the case for a "land tax" in which governments would tax the value of the land itself, thus preventing private interests from profiting upon its mere possession, but allowing the value of all improvements made to that land to remain with investors.

    Thanks for the Yves link, Woodsman…

    Unlike “liberal,” “libertarian,” “progressive,” and pretty much every label used in politics these days, everyone knows what a skunk is

    Predators are afraid of skunks and treat them with respect

    Skunks could care less what you think about them

    Skunks have nice personalities and go about their business unless they are threatened. Even then, they give plenty of warning before they attack. Skunks fight fairly.

    Skunks have no interest in having private jets, sitting on public company boards, getting seats in the skybox, seeing their name in the newspapers (or buying them), owning lots of houses, or collecting art

    Skunks are cute and telegenic, which is important in American politics

    Skunks are winners! As Muriel Siebert said, “Never get in a pissing match with a skunk.”

    Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias will not want to be called skunks

    Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/...MZOi7UhHZA3.99

    Comment


    • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

      Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
      RE: RENT


      “I asked a passing teamster, for want of something better to say, what land was worth there. He pointed to some cows grazing so far off that they looked like mice, and said, 'I don't know exactly, but there is a man over there who will sell some land for a thousand dollars an acre.' Like a flash it came over me that there was the reason of advancing poverty with advancing wealth. With the growth of population, land grows in value, and the men who work it must pay more for the privilege.

      Furthermore, on a visit to New York City, he was struck by the apparent paradox that the poor in that long-established city were much worse off than the poor in less developed California. These observations supplied the theme and title for his 1879 book Progress and Poverty, which was a great success, selling over 3 million copies. In it George made the argument that a sizeable portion of the wealth created by social and technological advances in a free market economy is possessed by land owners and monopolists via economic rents, and that this concentration of unearned wealth is the main cause of poverty. George considered it a great injustice that private profit was being earned from restricting access to natural resources while productive activity was burdened with heavy taxes, and indicated that such a system was equivalent to slavery – a concept somewhat similar to wage slavery.

      This is also the work in which he made the case for a "land tax" in which governments would tax the value of the land itself, thus preventing private interests from profiting upon its mere possession, but allowing the value of all improvements made to that land to remain with investors.
      Good summary and the solution as stated can and should be applied to any and all natural resources, e.g., mineral rights, air, water.

      The concept of "I found it first so it is mine" with respect to natural resources which equitably belong to all is the error that is attempting to be corrected. Yes, the fruits/profits due to labor or of "working of the land", i.e., wealth, capital, etc created from human effort should be retained by those who labor, but the natural resources themselves and profit derived from their inherent value belong and should be benefit all - this goes to the ideal of commonwealth. Taxes directed at such and USED for the common welfare are valid components of a solution that maintains free enterprise and private property. It's not complicated; Greed vs Justice.

      Comment


      • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

        Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
        From your lips to god's ears. Similar thoughts on this grey November day.
        Ya know I was following this article fine, government corruption, ceding of power to corporations, reg capture, banksters out of control, all which is against the common good, and impoverishing and disenfranchising the common man .....but then, voila, a non sequitur of references to the gay rights movements dramatic success , which again shows the complete inconsistency and discredits the writer imo - and I'm sure that she could have referenced women's lib and abortion as similar models of success, yet none of these has anything to do with corporate power or the common good, only the perceived good of a special interest group (yes, women's lib movement represented a minority of females). Are corporations against gay rights, women's rights, abortion? Of course not, women's "liberation" gives the corporations a huge pool of cheap labor to drive down wages and gay liberation provides a whole new market segment. Objecting to corporations lobbying to get what they want and have the government enforce their views while seemingly not the least alarmed at small minorities of special interests doing the same thing is either hypocrisy of willful blindness.

        The left seems to promote this idea of "positive liberty" where the entirely of society must support and pay for the purported inherent rights of a minority. Abortion is perfect example and they are on the cusps of securing complete victory. It's one thing to acknowledge a women's right to choose as it were, but quite another to require everyone else to insure that she may may carry out the abortion, which is precisely what Obamacare and DHS mandate does require ( and abortifacients over the counter the juveniles w/o parental consent). Positive liberty of this type is nothing more than gov compulsion of one group to serve another. I have the right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to insure that I get a gun.

        The yuppies from the eighties showed their bent toward selfishness and vice when they declared, in a sort of snobbish way "I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal" which basically meant the fuck with the common good. Fiscal liberalism and social conservatism will be the political/economic philosphy that saves us (or perhaps social neo-liberalism is a better term since current social policy is devoid of any morality save some self serving and sophistic utilitarian BS). Fairness and justice under law, no special treatment for any be it corporations, banksters or any leftie or righty activists.
        Last edited by vinoveri; November 23, 2013, 09:00 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

          Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
          Ya know I was following this article fine, government corruption, ceding of power to corporations, reg capture, banksters out of control, all which is against the common good, and impoverishing and disenfranchising the common man .....but then, voila, a non sequitur of references to the gay rights movements dramatic success , which again shows the complete inconsistency and discredits the writer imo - and I'm sure that she could have referenced women's lib and abortion as similar models of success, yet none of these has anything to do with corporate power or the common good, only the perceived good of a special interest group (yes, women's lib movement represented a minority of females). Are corporations against gay rights, women's rights, abortion? Of course not, women's "liberation" gives the corporations a huge pool of cheap labor to drive down wages and gay liberation provides a whole new market segment. Objecting to corporations lobbying to get what they want and have the government enforce their views while seemingly not the least alarmed at small minorities of special interests doing the same thing is either hypocrisy of willful blindness.

          The left seems to promote this idea of "positive liberty" where the entirely of society must support and pay for the purported inherent rights of a minority. Abortion is perfect example and they are on the cusps of securing complete victory. It's one thing to acknowledge a women's right to choose as it were, but quite another to require everyone else to insure that she may may carry out the abortion, which is precisely what Obamacare and DHS mandate does require (oh yeah and RU486 type stuff over the counter the juveniles). Positive liberty of this type is nothing more than gov compulsion of one group to serve another. I have the right to own a gun, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to insure that I get a gun.

          The yuppies from the eighties showed their bent toward selfishness and vice when they declared, in a sort of snobbish way "I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal" which basically meant the fuck with the common good. Fiscal liberalism and social conservatism will be the political/economic philosphy that saves us (or perhaps social neo-liberalism is a better term since current social policy is devoid of any morality save some self serving and sophistic utilitarian BS). Fairness and justice under law, no special treatment for any be it corporations, banksters or any leftie or righty activists.
          Actually the yuppies were left of center and not economic conservatives:

          http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102981840827

          Comment


          • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

            Except the rights you declare to be wrong are rights that are inherent to the individual and do not impact you personally. If someone has an abortion, it is their choice with their body. If they are gay and want to be legally recognized as such with all the same entitlements given to straights, it does not affect you. The active denial of people to the right of their body or status affects them. Them being given those rights or status does not hurt you.

            Comment


            • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

              Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
              If someone has an abortion, it is their choice with their body.
              It's not their body. It's not as though they were donating one of their kidneys.

              It is the body of a completely different and unique human being with a different genetic code, different fingerprint,
              often a different blood type, and about half of the time - of a different gender.

              An innocent, defenceless, helpless human being who is being murdered because they are deemed to be inconvenient.

              Comment


              • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                Originally posted by Raz View Post
                It's not their body. It's not as though they were donating one of their kidneys.

                It is the body of a completely different and unique human being with a different genetic code, different fingerprint,
                often a different blood type, and about half of the time - of a different gender.

                An innocent, defenceless, helpless human being who is being murdered because they are deemed to be inconvenient.
                Still part of their body and as such it is their right to exercise control over it. And what you are aborting is scarcely anything at all. It is neither sentient nor sapient and nor has it ever possessed those traits at any point. There is no murder involved.

                Comment


                • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                  Can we take the abortion discussion to Rant and Rave? Both sides are sincere in their belief. Neither side is going to change their belief.

                  Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                  Comment


                  • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                    Originally posted by vinoveri View Post
                    The left seems to promote this idea of "positive liberty" where the entirely of society must support and pay for the purported inherent rights of a minority. Abortion is perfect example and they are on the cusps of securing complete victory...
                    Vino, you keep talking about positive liberty but your conceptualization of it is so off kilter that you have managed to remove the phrase of its essential meaning. While it seems to me that you've well mastered the right wing critique of positive liberty you haven't gone very far in understanding what it is that Berlin meant by the phrase. That is, you understand it only insofar as you believe is necessary for you to refute it and so therefore hardly at all.

                    Positive liberty is simply another aspect of the same old garden variety liberty aspired to by most healthy humans, be they flaming men of flamboyance, man averse Sapphics of all proclivities, or just regular Joe and Jane Sixpacks. Positive liberty is a feature of all healthy human activity everywhere. Some even recognize it as an aspect of the "soul" and an attribute of the godhead. It's something most every healthy human being yearns for. It is the means and agency to fulfill one's own life potential. It's the pursuit of happiness codified in our founding documents. It is the thing we encourage our children to do - meet your potential, make the most of yourself, be all you can be.

                    Negative liberty alone, although just as important as the positive sort, is not simply enough for most human beings who yearn for the truest human expression of liberty and freedom. It is not enough for them simply to know that they won't be imprisoned arbitrarily or have their property seized without due process. To say "I am no man's a slave" is a qualitatively different form of liberty than saying "I am my own master." Humanity, either through divine intervention or mere happenstance, yearns for more, dreams for places, things and conditions beyond mere freedom from slavery. And so positive liberty is humanity reaching its fullest potential. It is humanity at its fullest creative expression. It is humanity in mastery of itself.

                    But even that does not make positive liberty more important or valuable than negative liberty. Without the protection of negative liberty, the freedom to express positive liberty is impossible. There is no incompatibility between the two concepts that people who value all flavors of liberty cannot together resolve in some meaningful - if often dissatisfying - way. For Berlin, it is not possible for one form of liberty to supersede the other and still remain a "liberty" and not transmute into something else. As Berlin saw it, positive liberty is at the same time distinct and intertwined with negative liberty.

                    This sows the seeds of paradox as both are supportive of each other even in those times when they seem in conflict. For Berlin, both concepts of liberty are valid human ideals and both forms of liberty are necessary in a free civilization. Where lines are to be drawn, they are determined through the haggling and debate of free people in the fullest possession of their human agency and unrestrained by structural social arrangements. As such, a meaningful comprehension and application of positive and negative liberty can only be found through a dialectic. But for whatever reasons, the right wing seems to hate dialectic and prefers simply to reference pre-established commandments decreed by authority. Only thing is, liberty don't work like that. It takes work, especially because humans are forever expanding their definition of freedom and liberty.

                    Put it this way, I can express my positive liberty by getting drunk with a bunch of lesbians and gay men at a National Abortion Rights League (NARAL) and Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) co-holiday party. If in my altered state, I offer to drive several really attractive looking gay men and women to the next party, my act of positive liberty is about to put everyone else's at risk. All of a sudden, a group of people walk out of the Concerned Women for America (CWA) holiday party, see me and my fabulous looking cohort drunk off our rockers, and then immediately proceed to violate my positive liberty through an expression of negative liberty. One of them takes away my keys on the basis that I am a danger to myself and others.

                    Now the CWA party-goers are right to take my keys because they judge by my behavior that I lack the agency and competence to express the positive liberty of going where I want and with whom. And so by taking my keys, they express negative liberty and in doing so paradoxically violate and protect my positive liberty at the same time. I am prevented from driving drunk with beautiful and sexy gay men and women and therefore enabled to get drunk and festive with other attractive and intelligent gay people and left wing abortion rights activists now and at some future time.

                    Say at the time I was annoyed, but since I was drunk and everyone around me was so festive and handsome, I laughed it off and invited the CWA people to celebrate with us. All declined, except for one brave lady with apparently a bit too much positive liberty in her that night. The next morning after leaving the CWA lady's home, me and one of the lesbians in the cab ride comment how fortunate it was for us to have met the CWA woman.
                    "Lucky for us her negative liberty fetish didn't get in the way of the fun," said my six foot two, transgendered companion, Eurethra.

                    I suggested that if not for CWA lady's fealty to negative liberty, we'd be in a wreck or jail and the evening would not have ended with such a lovely coda. Besides, I tell her my positive liberty remains unmolested, because in all the champagne, sparkles and exposed flesh I had forgotten how I had decided earlier that evening (in an expression of positive liberty) not to drink and drive. CWA lady (what was her name??) actually protected my expression of positive liberty after all.

                    "And she looked faa-boo. Girl, ain't it strange how sometimes liberties seem to conflict but actually support each other," says Eurethra.

                    "Tell me about it, sister," I said. "But they don't, really. Not if you believe in liberty and that it works for everyone. But to get there you'll need to see that conflict as a process by which one form of liberty advances the other."

                    "You're pretty smart for a beard," said Eurethra.

                    "Bitch."

                    Positive liberty as understood by the man who coined and popularized the term, means at its most fundamental the freedom to fulfill one's own human potential you alone understand it. This is opposed (but not in opposition) to negative liberty, which means freedom from external (and often internal, says Erich Fromm) restraints. The expression of positive liberty depends on two things. First, the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. And second, the arrangements which influence or limit their ability to express those free choices. Without both the agency to make a choice and the structures to enable that choice, positive liberty is meaningless. And the mere liberty "not to do things" is a crippled beast at best.

                    The right wing seems content that a right or liberty be generally accepted by 51% majority and then written down somewhere. The ability to express it, well, that's your problem; I got mine. And so it seems to me that the right wing doesn't really understand positive liberty at all, even as they seem to so freely express it in their own lives. In their own associations and activities they seem quite ingenious in their expressions of positive liberty. Or maybe its they understand it too well. Because what they don't seem to want is others expressing their positive liberty with a similar zeal. But what aristocrat wants his subjects to express the same liberties as he does? What would be the point of an aristocracy then?

                    Berlin was aware of this propensity and recognized that positive liberty could be abused, as any liberty might. His primary concern was that the concept be abused by societal elites. He saw through their attempts to conflate positive liberty with transmitted reason and knowledge and thereby restrict its fullest expression to a privileged few (likely the "Gentlemen and Philosophers" conceptualized by Leo Strauss). Berlin understood the threat this view held against his two concepts of liberty. Such people, he argued, would seize on their rationalism as the best and most effective way to achieve those positive ends they in their wisdom and reason believe men "should" have for their own good. But to do that effectively requires these rational men to control those men they consider as part of an irrational mass lacking capacity for reason. Such people must therefore be compelled by a threat to negative liberty. In this way Berlin sees potential for abuses ranging from mere paternalism to murderous tyranny. The left fails to understand that at least as often as the right does.

                    What Berlin understood, and you vino seemingly not at all, is that positive liberty is as valuable a form of liberty as the negative sort and neither can exist in any meaningful sense without the other. Humans in social arrangements are interdependent and no person's freedom is so private as to never be an obstruction to another's. But so long as the forms of democracy are observed in America, then a free people will continue to express their yearning for liberty through the democratic process as they have in the case of equal rights for gays and lesbians and a woman's right to reproductive health services (including abortion). The right wing purports to value liberty and democracy, only they value it only insofar as manifests the things and circumstances of which they approve. That's understandable, but we'll have no new majority and no hope for economic and social improvement as long as we try to limit democracy and expressions of liberty to those things the right wing approves.

                    So now that you understand a little more about positive liberty, I do hope you'll use it accurately or not at all. Me, I can't believe I spent all this time creating this for no compensation and that it's kept me away from the usual pleasures of Sunday morning. So I'll stop now and give you and everyone else the last word on how wrong I am and how this inevitably will lead to communism, the gulag and damnation for all eternity.
                    Last edited by Woodsman; November 24, 2013, 12:20 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                      Thank you for explaining the concepts of positive and negative liberty. I had never heard those terms before, but it makes perfect sense.

                      Positive liberty is essential, but the only way for it for it to be experienced righteously is if it goes hand in hand with a well-developed sense of self-responsibility and personal boundaries. Many childish people demand "liberty" when what they really want is "license", which is the "right" to do whatever they please with total disregard of the consequences of their actions on others.

                      If we had a perfect world, one where parents modeled and taught self-responsibility and good boundaries, there would be little need for governments.

                      Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                      Comment


                      • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                        Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
                        Still part of their body and as such it is their right to exercise control over it. And what you are aborting is scarcely anything at all. It is neither sentient nor sapient and nor has it ever possessed those traits at any point. There is no murder involved.
                        BJ, were it that simple and cut and dried there would be no controversy. But we're not talking about a kidney stone here. Heck, we haven't yet decided (agreed, to be accurate) on exactly what constitutes a human, what is sentience, and when does life begin and end. So typical of us then to believe we are prepared to make a call on this. Stupid humans.

                        Yes, to call abortion murder is the emotive language of propaganda, but you would be mistaken if you believed that everyone who says that is deceptive and everyone who denies it is callous. Two things are for sure.

                        Without medical intervention to the contrary, the biological material called a fetus will likely become undeniably human and alive at some predetermined point.
                        The inexorably to become alive and human entity within will not survive without the host's consent and no one has the authority to compel her consent.

                        Now you make the right decision. Only you have to do it without knowing anything about the circumstances of how that woman came to be pregnant or how that potential human will grow into an actual human. Go.

                        Not so easy.

                        Me, I would defer the decision to the pregnant woman and her doctor as present law enables. Others would put the doctor in jail, the woman in counseling, and the child in foster care or adoption. Still others would be satisfied to have such an unseemly topic handled as it was in the time where it was unspoken of and where rich and poor took care of their own problem as they did in the days before Roe v Wade.

                        It's a tough one and I don't know how to balance it so that the rights of the actual human are protected in the same way as the rights of the inexorably to become human child she carries. So maybe this is not a political decision after all, but a medical decision a woman makes with her doctor and moral decision she woman makes alone. I can live with that awful tension and so apparently can most Americans even if it means choosing to support the needs of an actual living human over that of a potential, yet inevitable human.

                        And then god will judge us. Or not.

                        Comment


                        • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                          Hey Woods, unfortunately you did not address the main point I was trying to make; one person's or groups concept of positivie liberty and use of the state apparatus to enforce (and for goodness sake, if you can't recognize that special interest law.e.g, abortion was enacted not democratically at all in 1973 but by judicial fiat, then we will continue to talk past one another). Answer the point; don't go into a long-winded diatribe trying to rejustify the ancillary point. We were talking about corporate power and I pointed out the Yves is full of it when she tries to weave in the plight of the common man being kept down and wage slaves and debt serfs with the gay rights movement, but of course you must follow the left script and attack and belittle anyone who even brings up the subject in any thing less than a supportive way. The hypocrisy and self-serving contortionist logic is comical if it wasn't so appalling. But moreso, you reveal the "knee jerk" response of all "conventional lefties" - hey the guy doesn't agree with our latest discovered self evident truths: that all people are free to pursue their happiness as long as they agree with us on our latest cause of action. Again, you can't rest when someone raises objections to abortion or any other "settled social issue", but must criticise and condemn, ad hominen and ad populam, which means you must know like I do that it is not settled at all.

                          What Berlin understood, and you vino seemingly not at all, is that positive liberty is as valuable a form of liberty as the negative sort and neither can exist in any meaningful sense without the other. Humans in social arrangements are interdependent and no person's freedom is so private as to never be an obstruction to another's. But so long as the forms of democracy are observed in America, then a free people will continue to express their yearning for liberty through the democratic process as they have in the case of equal rights for gays and lesbians and a woman's right to reproductive health services (including abortion). The right wing purports to value liberty and democracy, only they value it only insofar as manifests the things and circumstances of which they approve. That's understandable, but we'll have no new majority and no hope for economic and social improvement as long as we try to limit democracy and expressions of liberty to those things the right wing approves.

                          Again, Woods, you didn't address the original point - I agree, let the democratic process work, yes, but where is the democratic process in these issues? Dead on arrival at the judiciary. Fact is, the left doesn't trust the common man; if it did it would reason and persuade in the public square to get the justice it perceives, but since it can't, it must resort to end non-democratic fiats.
                          I know where my principles are, do you? The left has none, only some vague and malleable "yeah that seems right to me at this point in time so that is what I'm going with" BS. If the left was about helping the poor and oppressed, I'd be right with you, but the left abandoned the true just causes to serve special interests (yeah yeah I know your views, the removal of the oppression of women by providing them abortion on demand at the expense of the public and the rewriting of public school 3rd grade textbooks to discuss homosexulality to propogandize children in the pursuit of the liberation of gays from all they oppression they've endured is akin to freeing the slaves and ensuring the civil rights of blacks, blah blah blah. The left has discredited itself.

                          I really expected a lot more words like homophobe and misogynist to be spewed forth, so will give you the last word there as well.

                          Can we go back to talking about corporate power over the common man/woman (whatever race, sex, religion, or sexual persuasion they may be). Equal Justice for ALL.

                          Comment


                          • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                            I came late to this part of the party, vino. Sorry if I missed your point. There are just so many of them to keep up. I would like very much to keep the conversation here about "corporate power over the common man/woman" and agree with Shiny! that the no resolution hot button issues belong in rant and rave.

                            I don't think I made any ad hominems against you, but if I did I'm sure they were well deserved (wink). And as for long winded, guilty as charged. I was taught how to write by historians and social scientists and brevity, after all, is not a virtue to those folks.

                            If the left was about helping the poor and oppressed, I'd be right with you, but the left abandoned the true just causes to serve special interests (yeah yeah I know your views, the removal of the oppression of women by providing them abortion on demand at the expense of the public and the rewriting of public school 3rd grade textbooks to discuss homosexulality to propogandize children in the pursuit of the liberation of gays from all they oppression they've endured is akin to freeing the slaves and ensuring the civil rights of blacks, blah blah blah. The left has discredited itself.
                            The left is utterly and totally discredited and it is highly unlikely that they in their present form will soon return to anything resembling the influence they once yielded in politics and culture, generally. They are in this place precisely because of the reasons you state - "the left abandoned the true just causes to serve special interests." So even though you seem most disagreeable this morning, we do agree with the broad strokes of this picture and I have said this so many time before here and elsewhere.

                            But I see a young woman and you see an old lady:



                            I am neither left nor right and the fact that you seem unable reconcile this with your conceptualizations of the terms is something you will have to work out on your own. Or not. It makes no difference to me and has no impact on my arguments and the ideas they support.

                            Comment


                            • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                              I am neither left nor right...
                              Neither am I. Left/Right labels are SO limiting. Adherance to one-dimensional world-views seems a terribly outdated, ineffectual method of problem-solving. If I have to label my position, I much prefer the 2-axis approach of the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

                              All too often someone proposes a solution that I think holds promise, only to see it shouted down by someone else because it came from "the Left" or "the Right" or "Socialists" or "Communists" or "Capitalists". Then the person who offered the idea is assigned one of those labels (or worse, they adopt it themself) so they can be ignored by everyone else who fears/hates/misunderstands that group.

                              All of these philosophies should be seen as maps and tool chests with which to view the worId and solve its problems. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. They all have their usefulness in different applications. These ideologies should be seen as tool sets, not religions under which to subsume one's identity.

                              An engineer can't build or repair a bridge with only bolts, or only screws, or only steel, or only aluminum. When it comes to problem-solving, I wish people would think like engineers and architects instead of adhering and reacting to partisan labels.

                              Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                              Comment


                              • Re: (Un) Affordable Care Act - the Uncomfortable Truth

                                Woods, no offense meant; had thought you identified with the left; understood.

                                In fact I see both women, individual humans created in the image of God and with inherent dignity that must be protected and as I hope you would agree, entitled to be treated as such but at least to be guaranteed protections of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness consistent with our founding documents. I believe these rights should be preserved from conception to natural death b/c the human creature is so special, but unfortunately more and more look at the human as just a smart animal, a piece of meat that either has use or not (means to an end) and this is why our culture is in trouble, and this I can lay at the doorstep of corporate power together with our collective apathy and ignorance.

                                The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." (GK Chesteron)


                                http://billmoyers.com/segment/henry-...mbie-politics/

                                These guys are classic examples of progressives, who I agree with on many points when its comes to the poor and corporate power, but they never look back and acknowledge the mistakes made, for example, could it be that the progressive policies of the 60's and 70's which I referenced before caused a break-down in the family so that now we have 50%+ kid living with single parent and both single mothers and children struggling like never before in modern society are ripe for exploitation by corporate power as wage slaves and dumb downed consumers who in your words have much less agency than they had before. Even from a utilitarian ethic POV it fails, for every Hilary Clinton and female executive how many single moms live in abject poverty or are forced work menial jobs while their children are in state care; but of course these progressives can't look back only forward forward forward
                                Last edited by vinoveri; November 24, 2013, 06:24 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X