|
I don't want to give the DUer's name without her permission (and she's kinda shy about her brilliance anyway), but I thought you guys would appreciate this and be able to use some of the content in your own "discussions" with right-wingers.
The right-winger (libertarian, actually; and a relative of mine) was saying the typical things: "life isn't fair, get over it" -- "People are where they are based on decisions they have made and that is a fact" -- raising taxes on corporations means the corporations pass it on to the consumer and we then suffer, yada, yada.
Brilliant DUer:
I think you make the mistake of conflating business and govt. This is a constant problem in this nation. Yes, businesses are going to seek out cheap labor - so, govt. works for the benefit of the people of a nation and, if a company ...chooses to pay workers in Mexico pennies on the dollar so that say, RCA or Wal-Mart's stockholders may reap huge profits, then those folks who sell those items at Wal-Mart should not be forced to leave work to avoid paying overtime, or not given enough hours to EVER qualify for health-care benefits (and, actually, if you want to promote entrepreneurship, you should make universal health care the law of the land so that people are not forced to work for a shitty company in order to pay for their family health- care needs)- but this, again, assumes that the govt isn't there to make sure preferred industries make a profit, like health insurance, but rather exists to look out for the general welfare of the people of a land.
Western European social democracies have outperformed the U.S. during this latest recession because they have higher wages, higher interest rates to promote savings, they don't have as much of a culture of consumption (how many tvs do we need... how many geegaws and cheap crap made in China do we need to give one another), they have workers who sit on boards of companies, companies are not allowed to treat workers as disposable commodities, their govts are not in the pocket of the oil industry and, therefore, they have made plans and are accomplishing those to say, as in Germany, have 1/3 of their energy from alternative sources like windmill farms, they pay people for infrastructure work, they retrain workers whose skills are no longer needed and they TAX THE RICH to level the economic playing field - and the quality of life in those nations has outranked that in the U.S. for a while. They don't have sports teams and cheerleaders in schools - those things are done in clubs after school. School is about learning, not being a stupid jock. They have difficult courses - they don't have to contend with idiotic creationists who work to dumb down all Americans and make our science classes jokes.
There are rich and poor people in these nations. People with multiple homes. Doctors are paid well. Teachers are respected - their jobs are considered worthy and important. And this is accomplished by not allowing wealth to accumulate too much in too few people's hands, by govt regulation, by unions that represent workers, and by creating a life in which going shopping at Wal-Mart is not the big entertainment for the week.
Regardless of those things, people in the U.S. need to stop being consumers first and start being citizens first who care about the well being of this nation and the planet that we will pass on to our children. I don't want my children to live in a two-tier feudal system in which business gets to dictate to the govt and its people. Teddy Roosevelt recognized the danger in that. Unfortunately, the right wing in this nation, whose beliefs are often, sad to say, grounded in racism, think they're going to win the lottery and become a CEO - which, let's face it, is a joke. A security guard at a community college where I live is all supportive of no restriction for the rich because some day he just might be one of them. Yeah, and some day I might grow a third eye and achieve satori, but the odds are not really there for any reasonable person to assume (and, thus, take positions and make voting decisions based upon this same idea.)
Libertarian:
As much as I have read the constitution and studied the bill of rights or read the Declaration of independence I have never read anything where it is the Govt's responsibility to work for the benifit of the people of the nation. I really can not find it. Please let me know where it is located so I will be able to better understand.
A few questions I would like to ask you about your comments.
How much should the "rich" be taxed? Who pays for universal health care? How does a company or corporation that must provide health care promote entrepreneurship? What is a level economic playing field? How much wealth should someone be allowed to amass? In those Western European countries where you state the people are not allowed to "accumulate to much, what are those countries and how much are the people limited too? You state the right wing's beliefs are grounded in racism. What is racism? Wha's a racist?
My beliefs are we all must do everything possible to be free. We must do all possible to support the constitution and declaration of Independence. I do not want the govt involved in my life. I am quite capable of taking care of myself and many others feel the same way. The govt should provide basic security, infrastructure, and represent the people, not work for their benifit. No free person should be forced to do something for someone else and I should not infringe on someones elses freedom.
Health care for all, wealth for all, happiness for all, world peace are all great but how are they accomplished without bypassing the constitution. I am not against any of those things, I just realize when you force (make a law) someone to provide a service or to pay for a service for someone else freedom is lost.
Finally, I have spent a great deal of time in Western Europe as well as other parts of the world. First, they do not have the U.S. constitution that provides our freedoms. Also, what does quality of life mean? Are they happier. Do they have more "things"? What makes them have a better quality of life.
Brilliant DUer:
It's in the preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The entire reason for the formation of our govt. was to collectively decide how to live in a society by the passage of laws - laws that dealt and deal with defense and protection against criminals, big and small - but not only that.
Nations with a strong middle class (such as those in western Europe) are indicative of strong democracies - those not prey to petty tyrants and corporate manipulators.. iow, by promoting economic policies that promote a strong middle class, we also insure domestic tranquility.
By not allowing corporations to have more power over people than a govt - we secure the blessings of liberty b/c a corporation does not have to answer to the American people - only their stockholders. They do not deserve to be more powerful than the body that was created by the founders of this nation to provide for the common defense against tyranny, in whatever form. This was the rationale behind Teddy Roosevelt's election - he knew that corporations should not be stronger than the state or the state would be held hostage by their limited interests, not the general welfare.
A majority of Americans recognize the value of societies without the enormous disparities in wealth that are the consequence of the lowering of tax rates that have occurred in the U.S. over the decades. You can read the pdf report on this here:
www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
The Constitution does not say one thing about corporations. Yet the right wing acts as though they (or, rather, their money) is more important than govt. This is a perversion of our history and the intent of those who wrote a constitution to protect the rights of persons against a corporation (the East India Company) that had made itself tax exempt (with the collusion of an imperial govt rather than one with checks and balances) and then tried to push those taxes onto those living in Boston. - So that that corporation would have an unfair advantage. The Boston Tea Party was not about doing away with taxes - it was about unfair taxation while favored corporate interests were exempt. It was about taxation that was not fairly applied and not levied by those who were elected by those being taxed.
I didn't say corporations must supply health care. I said we should have universal health care that is in no way connected to corporations. France, for instance, has had the top-ranked health care system in the world for a long time - it's taxpayer funded and it works. It doesn't create bankruptcy for people with major health care problems. It promotes preventative care - which is cheaper than waiting b/c someone cannot afford to see a dr or pay for prescriptions.
I didn't say people were not allowed to accumulate too much wealth. I said that the wealthy are taxed at much higher rates than here and this money is used to build these nations' educational systems, infrastructure, etc. There are PLENTY of REALLY WEALTHY PEOPLE in western Europe. I know some of them. And to a person they support taxation on their wealth b/c they believe in the idea of a national community and are proud of their superior health care and educational systems that are the result of this. I have lived in Europe and know people from at least 6 diff. nations there and not one of them would trade their way of life for the American social darwinian pov of the right wing (ironic, considering those darn creationists... )
Govts can figure out rates of taxation. That happens all the time, in a variety of nations. With Eisenhower I think the top rate was 75% - and that, of course, was for a small percentage of the population, maybe 5% - which most likely does not include you or anyone else posting here. In Europe, people get value for their tax dollars, again, in education and health care and protection from things like GM food...in infrastructure than plans to deal with the future of energy, as I noted before.
If you don't want the govt involved in your life - maybe you should go live on a deserted island and supply your own electricity, food, fuel, education, etc. - the reality is that you are part of a nation and every nation has laws - law is the boundary between civilization and it demise. It is ludicrous for you to claim that whenever a law is made you lose your liberty. Tell that to the slaves who were liberated after a civil war - whose liberties were denied b/c of economic pressure from slave-holding plantation owners whose economic benefits were considered more important than human rights and liberty when forming a union to break away from the UK.
If you want to live in a lawless land, you can always move to Somalia - I hear that's a real paradise. You could live in your state of freedom there and maybe you would appreciate that you rail against the very things that provide you with the stability to function without fear.
It is semantic b.s. to say that govt should represent the people but not work for their benefit. That really doesn't mean anything - what do pols do when they represent people? They represent them in ways that work to the benefit of their constituents. Apparently you have such a contorted view of the words "welfare" and "benefit" that you don't recognize they mean "well being" and "good." But that's what years of right wing propaganda can do for a nation. A politician works for the well being of his or her constituents by passing laws that protect people from, say, polluters who would put sludge in our drinking water... you know, basic things that civilized nations see as a govt's responsibility to its citizens - to protect them from that sort of action b/c it's in the best interest of this generation and the ones to come.
What does quality of life mean? Well, those rankings come from UN reports on health care access, longevity, food security... you can google them and read them for yourself. However, the knowledge that the loss of a job does not mean the destruction of a family or the knowledge that old age does not mean eating cat food is part of the idea.
:applause:
:yourock:
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
