Your ideology - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What is your ideology?

Libertarian
14
13%
Anarchist
8
7%
Communist
13
12%
Socialist
10
9%
Social Democrat (center left)
13
12%
Moderate
18
17%
Christian Democrat (center right)
5
5%
Conservative
7
6%
Fascist/Far Right
15
14%
Other
5
5%
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13219272
You don't think that there is a surplus of labor at this level?

Yes. I would consider letting the poor die off as a sneaky form of amoral social eugenics however. I would also support ...

You have a point. Okay, so there are people in my country who probably don't "deserve" healthcare, but how would you separate them from those who do? I am pretty certain I would support free healthcare for people up to the age of somewhere between 18 and 25. After that, it would still stay free if you were in full-time (or possibly part-time?) education. The rest? I'm not sure if it would be better to be fascistic about it and have strict guidelines for who would be allowed free healthcare, or to have an expensive bureaucratic system that guarantees those who deserve healthcare, get it, or to risk useless people taking advantage of a system that doesn't discriminate.

I disapprove of economics interfering in what (I think) should be a moral problem.
User avatar
By Nets
#13219293
^ Which is precisely the point I was making.

It seemed like you were making an economic argument (the underclasses are essential labor, so keep them healthy to keep the machine running), despite the fact that a good chunk of them are utterly inessential to the economy, if not detrimental.

I too favor universal health care, but not under an economic argument.
By Wolfman
#13219295
despite the fact that a good chunk of them are utterly inessential to the economy, if not detrimental.


:eh: Care to explain? :eh:
User avatar
By Nets
#13219300
Lumpenproles could live or die with very little effect on the economy. They add nothing to supply, and any demand they have is redistributed wealth anyways. Giving such people health care would in fact be harmful to the working class by increasing the stock of labour, lowering wages.
By Wolfman
#13219306
Lumpenproles could live or die with very little effect on the economy


My Marxian terminology may be a little rusty, but aren't the Lumpenproles the homeless and people who work in illegal or generally black market parts of the economy, such as hookers, drug dealers, and theives? And wouldn't a Universal Healthcare System implimented with some common sense make it so you have to provide some kind of proof that you're working (and therefor paying taxes, thus contributing to the system you're about to take money from)? So, wouldn't (using that logic) the Lumpenproles naturally be unable to even get money from a UHS?
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13219320
It seemed like you were making an economic argument (the underclasses are essential labor, so keep them healthy to keep the machine running), despite the fact that a good chunk of them are utterly inessential to the economy, if not detrimental.

I was until you pointed out that there are so many.

Unfortunately, I can't get over the moral boundary of thinking that just letting people die because they can't/won't work, is wrong. I think more should be done to encourage them to work before we get to that stage. I don't care for the people but have children and it is not fair on them.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#13219525
Clockwork wrote:They wouldn't, because I'm not approaching it with the aim of making society equal. I'm approaching it with the intent of allowing people to be as equal as they as individual people are, which involves preventing those who can affect, with power or wealth, to an excessive degree, other peoples' lives and thoughts.


Socialized services like public healthcare redistribute wealth, thereby equalizing the distribution of wealth to some degree, so Humes' theories DO apply to it. Redistributing wealth reduces the incentive to achieve, which encourages laziness and discourages thrift.
Last edited by RonPaulalways on 31 Oct 2009 21:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Genghis Khan
#13219530
Social Democrat. I do have the occasional disagreements with liberals about big issues like the military (I'm more of a pragmatic centrist on that) and small issues (while liberals praise Alan Grayson for his courage, I think the Democratic party should reprimand him).

Libertarians believe in social equality.


Do they?
By Kman
#13219665
I had the opportunity to talk to a guy from Denmark today. He says that it's probably the best place in the world to live and that the economy is one of the most stable in the world.


And? he is probably clueless about economics. I already admitted that the state of my country right now is pretty good, what I said was that the danish system was totally unviable in the long term.

Denmark is the greatest country on earth to live in if your a lazy bum, the unemployment benefits are huge compared to the US, up until a few years ago you actually earned more money by being unemployed than from being employed in Mcdonalds or in a supermarket etc and working 37 hours per week.
By Kman
#13219704
The median average wage is quite high and there is also a respectively high purchasing power.


Im well aware that people in Denmark have plenty of money right now, they wont in 20-30 years though.
By Kman
#13219724
You know, the problem you mentioned could be solved by just getting people to extend their working lives.


No it wont, it might make the economy a tiny bit better but it wont be nearly enough.

I also severely doubt that danish elderly people above 62 want to work for longer than that, the last danish prime minister that tried changing the age of retirement got crucified in the election following it (and that was with a tiny change, nothing major).
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13219732
Yep. Fine. But you do know that every country in the developed world is going to have that problem, Denmark is no worse off. If anything, because there is no deficit, they might be able to ride out those years and come out the other side relatively easily. Whereas the UK is going to be pretty fucked it seems.
By Wolfman
#13219739
The Lumpenproletariat also consists of individuals who live off government transfers (this includes students who fit the description).


Which makes all government employees Lumpenproleratariat inlcuding military personnel and politicians. However, does that include people who live partially off government transfers? Such as a full time student, part time worker who gets a check from the government? Would it also include the guy who works full time but gets food stamps because he doesn't make quite enough.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Aromatherapy

I vape nicotine with different aroma the best is c[…]

EU agricultural subsidies

1.6 million farmers receive almost 85 percent of […]

Trump's Dumb Economics

China is the biggest patent thief of the World. Am[…]

America's Opioid Epidemic

A Taliban leader said 1kg of opium kills more enem[…]