No, this is merely an ongoing bee in my bonnet. That people who "make it" think because they did that everyone else will. It is a mathmatic impossiblity in a multiple class society. In a literal biological sense it reflects sperm vs eggs. Millions per load but ends up ONE sperm gets the egg. They don't want to face that luck had a most to do with what they accomplished. Many more like minded people on their side never do the same thing or even come close.

Not everyone will end up on top and those in the middle and bottom have more to do with those being on top than those on top want to accept.

No one in their right mind would pass a a car crash and ask about their ability to pay before administering help. Yet you have assholes like Hanity and Rush shouting, "Whats wrong with our health care" or "Why should I pay for other people" Yet Fox has links to send donations to Haiti. They were poor long before this earthquake.

They don't want to face that work is needed, but money is not the only goal in life and money collectively should not lead to a society to the point work is dictated by those who have money turning society into endentered slaves.

"Work shall set you free" The last fascist sold that killed 6 million Jews.

I am not against work or wealth. I am against projectionism in that because someone is not like you you have the right to dictate to them and if they dont submit to you, they are deserving of death.

You really buy into that shit? I hate to tell you this our country ALREADY has socialistic enterprizes, unless you want all police to replaced with private security, and if you cant afford it, then fuck you, if your neighbor robs you so what?. Let's privatize fire departments and if you cant afford to have your house fire put out, too bad.  I am sure that UPS and FED X are hurting because the post office has existed since the 1800s.

And private insurance companies don't play god because they NEVER deny you anything right? They never stop coverage of an operation or a pill to protect their profits. I wonder how much you would put up with police or fire departments if they acted like private insurance companies? That would mean that they would only service those who could pay them. FUCK the poor, thats ok, they don't have money. BTW did you donate to the poor Haitians?

So you have your panties in a bunch because Sam Walton sold you a microwave over for $65.99 and it ought to be impermissible for him to actually get some profit out of the deal?

K... im going to assume you have a better idea?

I'd be interested in hearing, so i can at least point and laugh at someone... you or obama, i care not which

edit;

Or was that it?

Perhaps instead of debating big vs. small government, a better question would be to ask what the government should be doing?

Socialized health care works very well in most modern countries. Maybe it's time for the US to come out of the medieval ages?

There are huge ethical problems connected with the fact that private corporations are making a profit off health care.

If these companies don't want government getting involved then THEY have the power to stop using blackmail and bribery and the excuse of "market demands". There is a difference between cant and don't want to. These companies can afford it, they just don't want to.

I am not for either or as far as more government vs less government. I am for independent self introspection which so far is forcing government to step in because these companies don't want to do the right thing.

No one complains about private entities delivering food, clothing or shelter for profit. Yet there are "huge ethical problems" with delivering healthcare? Come on, you can't really believe that. If you did, wouldn't you have to be advocating government run food, clothing and shelter?

Why aren't there "huge ethical problems" with having private entities controlling your food supply?

When did I ever say there wasn't? And now you are upping the ante, because not only are there ethical problems with private corporations controlling a nation's food supply, it is also a direct threat to national security. But, granted, that is in an extreme case. On the day-to-day basis, it is a fair assumption that a dude who sells food will want to sell food to you more than once. As long as he's running a clean business you don't represent any liability to him as a customer. His vested interest will be that of continuing to supply the food products you want to purchase and to make sure you want to come back for more. However, it pays to be skeptical. You are almost criminally naive if you think that any given producer of, say, tin can food stuffs will not, if this maximises his profit, add semi-poisonous ingredients to your food if he even as much as thinks that he can get away with it.

We're in what together? A competition for survival? A competition to spread our genetic DNA onto the next generation? A competition for resources, power and sex?

Where in any science is there any evidence for anything else? Sure there is opportunities of people to cooperate when it's mutually beneficial. But everyone is only self-interested at their core. Everyone is greedy rich and poor.

This rant is just irrational anger. If you want "the rich" to assist "the poor", it can only make sense if it's part of a social contract that benefits all parties. There is no rational basis for entitlements just for being born.

Oh, so people can afford to own shit that can be robbed but they can't pay to protect it. If they can't afford to pay to protect their shit, why the hell are they buying shit, why aren't they in school or rehab program to get them into a job so they can pay for what they use?

This is like the BS people that buy a car, repair it, put gas in it but then they just don't have the money to buy insurance to cover damages they do to other people. Bull Shit pay for the God Damn insurance or take the bus. I'm not your Fucking sugar daddy.

Why own a house in the first place if you can't pay for the service? Just live in wilderness if you don't want to pay for the benefits of civilization.

We don't see the post office offering free mail delivery if you can't pay. What do you think would happen if they did?

And governments don't have to restrict costs to keep from going bankrupt???? If you don't like the coverage, buy a Cadillac plan that covers everything.

Well here in California people and business left in part because of the high taxes and a bankrupt government due to ridiculous pension plans for police and fire unions. Also people living in high fire danger areas being subsidized by those that don't. So I guess they didn't put up with the unions "protecting their profits" just as insurance companies do.

BTW, when have you agreed to work for free? What evidence do we have you are less selfish than executives and shareholders at Insurance companies? I'm sure many of them donate to charity as well as you.

Sense when have police and fire unions not been concerned about the "profits" of it's members?

Only if a society agrees to rational family planning. Otherwise you're waisting your money. Relieve a little suffering now only to have it result in more suffering later.

I believe the psychological studies show that we really only care about ourselves. We don't have free will to truly be compassionate, we can only fake it. What you call compassion is really just a willingness to cooperate which can have benefits.

But look at Haiti for example, they have this telethon with emotional appeals and music. Why? Because then giving makes the giver feel better or they win points with Mr. Invisible. A selfish and narcissistic as anything. It isn't a rational argument that along with the aid, we'll have family planning, teach science and logic and stop with all the BS religion in Haiti. So the survivors all think God helped them survive, they go out and have gigantic families and the whole cycle for Malthusian catastrophe and natural disaster starts over again. This is how nature does population control for us since we're still a highly irrational species driven more by feelings and emotions.

Morality is Bull Shit. A way to control people with guilt and fear. Good is only that which brings me pleasure and satisfaction without causing pain. You're no different.

How does medical coverage for all occur unless people work for free?

I think you need to dump the notion of morality. It's part of the BS of living a religious society and a society that wants conformity to the system(which benefits the rich and powerful).

So we have this dilemma of we all seek out resources for our own benefit, we have limited natural resources. The rational thing to do is come up with a social contract that enables us to all benefit from these otherwise we all are in constant conflict and misery. This moralizing does no good with people that are all self-centered in their core. People will just use this false notion of absolute morality to gain an advantage over others.

In their own minds, they believe they are being moral. Every action a person makes in accordance with their "morality" at that moment. And their "morality" is to do what seems right for now. So what good is your moralizing?

The thing to do is propose solutions that are beneficial to everyone. It's not in the corporations interest to have poor people with no money buy their products. It's not in the poor's interest to drive away business that can provide jobs. Come up with rational compromises and stop trying to say something or someone is more moral. Every action, every person is selfish, start with that as premise one.

But Hitler, just like everyone believed in his own mind all his actions were morally correct at the time he did them. So what good is moralizing? The lesson to be learned is not to cede so much power to political leaders that promise a lot. All political leaders(just like all people) are just self-serving bastards. Look for ways to find your own hapiness instead expecting politicians with their won agendas to deliver it for you.

And that is what Hitler, wrongly thought he was doing. He thought that by trying to take over the world and getting rid of "useless people" he could make a master race. If you don't feel it is your duty to support the poor what happens when you get richer and there is no middle class and no one to buy your product? What happens to the value of the dollar if everyone makes the same? No one would do the work.

We all think we have ideas and solutions that are beneficial to everyone otherwise we wouldn't express them.

I think the words humanity is not focused on, due to our own flaw in narcissism are empathy and compassion. We don't have to help others and certainly no one is obligated to do such, but if one ignores that, eventually they wont be able to sustain themselves.

You can look at it in our human history cycle, once the abused becomes the abuser. I agree with the concept of solutions that are beneficial to everyone. But it cant come at the cost of ignoring the reality that we are all individuals and do not value the same things. I do not see our American economy as doing anything differently than the Saudi government. Other than the Saudi government has a more concentrated monetary and political power.

If we are to survive as a society it cannot always be one way or the other. It can't be government providing everything for everyone. North Korea tries to do that and does a horrible job. But it also cannot be a slash and burn economy where only those with money have power.

"look for your own happiness"

Nice idea but what if the powers that be don't agree with you in what "happiness is" and that you should be like them? How is the Iranian concept of collective happiness any different than the attitude that "if you don't reach an economic title or paycheck you are a loser".

Again, like I said in the OP your idea of "what should be" and my idea of "what should be" are not always going to match up. I simply get pissed at those with money in this country thinking that because they have it they have the right to dictate to others as to what "happiness" is and that "happiness" is always obtaining a high title and lots of money, and those who dont reach their idea of "happiness" should be left to rot.

Kim Jong Ill is happy with his power. The Saudis are happy with their power and they both project their ideas of what happiness should be on their citizens. I don't think Wal Mart or AIG or their share holders should force people to conform to their idea of happiness at the threat of being left to rot.

It is not either or. It is the same thing that causes  rift in any society. The attitude that if it works for me it is going to work for everyone else and those who don't subscribe to my ideas, are worthless.

 Food is available to people that cannot afford it in the united states. I suppose you think it should all be left to the free market, and anyone that can't afford it deserves to starve and die in the streets?

ragdish,

To be fair, I think the left hates what the democratic politicians are doing. The corporate bailouts from the dems and the health care bill that is a giant corporatist handout to insurance companies can't be things that they support.  But voters can't do anything about that. What are they going to do? Vote for a republican candidate who is even worse in their eyes or will they throw away their vote on a third party candidate?

Here is what I imagine people on the left should be thinking:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/howard-dean-health-care-bill-bigger-bailout-insurance/story?id=9349392

"But could they get anything positive done? No!!!!!!! Because it is a party of "diversity" which allows fucktards like Joe Lieberman to wreak havoc."

That's their strength. If they demanded conformity like the republicans do, then they wouldn't have these large majorities in the legislative branch. There are 52 congressmen that are apart of the Blue Dog Coalition. And those are just the ones that are open and proud about being democrats that actively oppose what is thought of as the democrat party's goals. So yes, the dems don't get shit done when they are in power. We have one party that is focused but small and we have another party that lacks anything resembling focus or uniformity but is big and is split into groups that oppose one another. Politics is just a clusterfuck.

What is it with people on the left and the rhetorical ploy/obvious lie of "we are the only ones who care about others, why do you hate the poor?" It is as bad as some people one the right claiming that only conservatives are pariots and that the left hates America.

I'm not god, so who am I to say what anyone deserves? Since we don't limit family sizes, starvation and other forms of misery is nature does population control for us. Same as any other species. Do dogs deserve to be euthanized? There's no other option if humans don't put limits on their breeding.

What is your plan then? We let people have as many babies as they want or that their god tells them to have, then we just give away food and health care just for making it through the birth canal? Do we ever run out of enough resources to feed all these people, when do we run out of the evil rich to feed them?

Like I've explained a million times help for the poor only makes rational sense if it's part of social contract not a birthright. The rich can help the poor get into jobs that enable them to pay for what they need to survive, in return the poor agree to become productive, law abiding members of society and everyone agrees to limit their family size. But their must be negative consequences for people don't live up to the terms of such a social agreement.

Who said right or left?  Not me.  I was talking about people who don't care about other people.  It has nothing to do with politics, morality, or religion.  I have plenty of friends who are on the right, in the center, and on the left who all care very deeply for other people.  Get a grip.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

The whole basis of your argument is that your way is more compassionate. So if you are delusional that you can be compassionate and that you have free will to do so, it seems you should want to know this.

If I'm wrong I want to know. That's why I'm trying to give you the change to disprove that you or anyone can be unselfish and compassionate. To me your silence seem to indicate you don't want to go there and have your delusions shattered.

that's easy: everytime i give money to a beggar in the street.  it doesn't make me feel good.  it makes me feel like an overpriveleged, stuck-up prick who is demeaning this person by giving him a euro or two.  but if i don't give, i feel like a callous, miserly asshole.  so basically, in the subjective emotional sense, everytime i meet a beggar it's a lose-lose situation for me.  sometimes i spend the rest of the afternoon feeling distracted and bothered.  so in that case i figure, quite rationally, "well, i can feel like a prick and this guy can get a coffee, or i can feel like a prick and he can't.  might as well choose the first road."

Even if a person felt good about giving money to a beggar that wouldn't necessarily mean that they gave the money so that they could feel good. The whole "everything you do is selfish" viewpoint is based on these kinds of post-hoc fallacies. That and a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean when they use words like "unselfish". If one takes pleasure in helping others that's exactly what makes them unselfish and there's no reason to say the opposite unless you're desperately trying to prove something that is patently absurd.

I know what you were trying to do. I'm just saying it's a bullshit question to begin with. Anyone who believes that all actions are selfish has already displayed the kind of rigidity in thinking that shows they cannot be dissuaded. Everything must confirm this belief even things that seem to disconfirm it because a single disconfirming instance proves that it's false. So, the fact that you enjoy helping others "proves" that you're selfish and equally the fact that you don't enjoy helping others proves that you're selfish. It's completely sophomoric.

BTW. have you seen this drawing before?

I would say with me, normally knowing how the world actually works is more pleasurable than not knowing. But I suppose if it caused a lot of pain, I would not want to know this. It's like the theists that don't want to hear the atheist arguments because of the pleasure and comfort their delusions bring them. People don't like hearing that free will, compassion and unselfishness probably don't exist because they feel better believing they do.

The concepts 'selfish' and 'unselfish' were invented to force social confomity. In order to have an 'unselfish' act there would have to be free will, I'm not sure of how I could ever be convinced that free will exists.

I should stop arguing that every action is selfish because if every action is to bring plesure or avoid pain, the term kind of becomes meaningless. It's not distinguished from anything else. I guess I enjoy mocking moralists.

How can anyone take you seriously then?