- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
I can't agree with you on the second point. Especially the FDA, which a few years ago was proven to be entirely broken, understaffed, and couldn't handle the load they were being given. Not to mention the contributions of millions of dollars from pharma companies to get their products pushed out with little to no oversight. You are in a dream world if you really think the FDA and other regulatory agencies are not in the pockets of corporations. Just follow the money trail and look at the oversight of so many products that harm the safety and well being of Americans everyday.
I'm not going to jump on this liberalism/socialist train that everyone seems to be speaking of. I will however say that the masses are becoming incredibly lazy and ignorant. It's easier for many to just sit back, believe what they see on the news and then complain and or accuse. Even many of the educated can be accused of not standing up for their rights. (people only typically stand up when it has an effect on their day to day livelihood)
Where are the marches, the rally's, and the outcries? We are at a very delicate time. Many of the roads, set up in the past, are coming together today and we're realizing that these roads aren't good for walking on.
I speak to people everyday about politics and what do I hear? I hear people repeating nonsense. I hear unfounded accusations. I hear fear of change. What is really different today that couldn't be said 50 years ago? (I'm speaking onto the socio/political status) While I do have some concerns, I've been addressing them and constantly keeping in touch with my politicians. (again, being active is all that you can do. when enough numbers join in on being "active" then you have a movement and change for that group can happen)
Many are scared of a single payer healthcare plan, stop listening to the insurance companies propaganda. Many think that the government is now the owner of GM, learn a little about business. (and if you're nervous, that's fine, hold the government accountable for letting go of the stock in 3 to 5 years) Many have problems with immigration. Since when have we had any sort of effective immigration reform? It's more about decriminalizing it and getting rid of agreements such as NAFTA. (read The Accidental American-good book and I've had a few words with both authors)
What I don't hear many people in fear about are such things as the food safety act. Why doesn't the media cover this story? I don't hear about wage theft and workers rights. Why don't you hear about this in the restaurant sector? That's because the national restaurant association is the top 10 most powerful lobbies in the united states. (NY- has 200,000, CHI- 250,000. and LA- 600,000 workers that are being abused daily)
Why is it that the only "issues" we hear about are that which affect the rich and the powerful? If you take a step back, i hope, you will see what I'm speaking of and to. I read an article yesterday that said Mr. Robos said that the worst of the financial crisis is over. At the same time I received another apr rate increase after paying over the min for more than 2 years. For whom is this financial crisis over?
Again, much of what I speak of is internal. I cannot speak across the board, but in the US we still have a lot to fix. Corporate control and the financial institutions control of the US was well hidden for a long time. What we see now is that they're becoming more visible. The question of where America goes from here is an internal one. An internal issue that "the people" must address in their interest. This comes with education and an understanding of politics. Can't run a country on feelings.
First, I've had this conversation. I felt no guilt in saying that it was coming to them. I said this because their lifestyle was to sleep with everyone and everyone to get this disease so i felt no personal guilt. Then, when it happened i realized this was something they didn't want. I was befuddled by this fact. That is when human psychology kicks in. I have nothing else to say, but life has its surprises and when a friend is screaming for help you should look into what they are saying to see if you can help.
I was really happy to read this article as well: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090519/
Actually, the problem is that people think that conserving the environment means dramatic life changes, when in fact there are plenty of simple changes that can be made.
One very simple one is to eat less. Yes I said it, eat half of your portions and you are helping the environment. (this sounds like nothing, but if everyone where to do this it would take a huge toll of the agricultural carbon foot print-which is one of the largest) If you want to go one step further, consume less meat-which you don't need that much as it is. And you've all heard it, eat local foods if you can, etc etc.
Second, consume less energy, non-food related, this can be done in all kinds of fashions. One of the biggest losses of energy in a house is by not having it air tight. This simple adjustment can not only help the environment, but help the consumer save hundreds to thousands of dollars on their energy bills.
Those are just two ways that will truly help the effort. (more than you know)
One last point. I was at a case study last week on building a sustainable home. For 145,000 usd a man here in Chicago bought the land, rebuild the house, and made it sustainable. That is peanuts. By next year, he'll be collecting checks from Com Ed.
Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way.
In the case of Windows and Microsoft, i think you're thinking too small; consumers love free items especially items that are very user friendly, which is almost all open source I've ever experienced. This would completely wipe out Microsoft.
The whole idea of open source is anti capitalism which goes against our current economy. If we began to support such measures then we would have to change our economy. Which I don't foresee the government doing anytime soon.
Simply raise taxes? Not that simple, especially when you consider that this is supposed to be open source and that means that it is open in all regards. Once you allow the government to steer, you take away the vital element that keeps it afloat, no regulation.
The main reason behind saying no is the simple fact that if the government gives money to Open source then they will have rights to regulate it. As with all government money, they always expect some sort of utility in return. While open source would be great for the masses, it would mean less big companies bringing in profits and profits equal tax dollars.
I see your rant but not really sure what you're getting at. My point was that capitalism brings about the thought of entitlement. To you it may be stupid but what they are requesting is justice. That's the point of socialism it would be a way to limit that by getting a consensus of the masses, hence social justice.
Here is a wonderful picture of capitalism at its best: http://video.google.com/
This just deals with the pharma companies.
"CEO's wages are done fairly because it is not given by a more powerful force than the people (God, Gun or Government)."
Government is made up of people. People are selected by other people to form government. How is that a greater force than people when it's made up of them?
Capitalism is in no way just. In capitalism, the more money you have the more power you attain no matter what your agenda.
I openly apologize if that truly is the case. Now for my rebuttal: You said at least it's possible. How so? That small possibility is so small and only influential in small numbers. Now as a help for the masses that is why socialism is more favorable compared to capitalism. The way capitalism works out in the real world is to form small elitist groups, socialism would help the masses and with equality comes progress.
Thanks for the down vote, now I truly know I'm speaking to a child.
You should find the following useful:
Capitalism is an informal economic system in which property is largely privately owned, and in which profit provides incentive for capital investment and the employment of labor.
Socialism is a formal economic system in which society exerts considerable control over the nation's wealth and property in the pursuit of social justice.
Communism is a formal economic system in which property, particularly capital property (e.g. factories, machines, tools, etc.), is commonly owned and scarce resources are allocated through planning as opposed to price signals in a free market.
I can't agree with you. Dark evil place, was that necessary? No I've actually lived in a socialistic country and guess what? They're getting along just fine. This is just a typical argument from the "entitled view" from the US. You are a very typical common sense using ignorant fool.
CEO's wages are done fairly?! I can't agree with you on that either. Some are and some are not. You just have to face the truth. It being based off of what's fair is the part that is absurd. I've worked in large corporations it is just another joke. Some of the worst decisions, loss of quality, and mundane tasks are just a few things you can look forward to.
Let me add that SOME people are motivated by the ability to make a shitload of money. There are also people that are also non-monetarily motivated. When you base everything off of money you get is just that; A system run off of greed. There is more to life than the accumulation of money.
Actually Communism is not the militant force to push socialism onto a country. Communism deals with politics and socialism deals with economics. Looks like McCarthyism runs true in your blood. Why else would you assign militant force to communism? Where do you read this?
I'm seriously tired of this ridiculous misinformation. Stop confusing socialism with communism!
Second, the money that is payed to some CEO's is absurd. Your argument is incredibly weak and should I say...stupid. If you haven't noticed your money, right now, is being distributed to social programs. Your assumption of a classless society that will result in a decrease in technology progression is old and it sounds repeated right out of a McCarthyistict point of view.
So what you're saying is that one world government will suddenly have the power to redistribute wealth and resources... I highly doubt that one world government would solve this issue just as easily as many governments would.
You sound very passionate about this subject and because you do, I'm providing you with 2 sources to bring to your local library and that should start you on your journey to find the truth to this argument.
something else to look into: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/
And if not, well at least I tried!
You make a very good point. There are just so many things to consider. It sounds nice, like marx does on paper, but in reality will it work? Think of one world currency, one world bank, etc, etc. It almost sounds too good to be true. If we were able to move into this direction it would have to happen in about 20 to 30 years. I feel that right now the world is moving to develop to a state where every country runs autonomously.
Of course I agree with better government... Who wouldn't? Your assumption is wrong. Let me add...if you believe that the bureaucracy of one world government would be no different than our current government status, then why make one world government? And supporting the UN intentionally is fine and dandy but that isn't the debate that was created. That's why I pointed it out. No libertarian here. If I missed something let me know.
I agree, very bad wording on my part. I wanted to say Without war there is no concept of peace. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/
Look at the first definition. Regulate certain things? Then what the hell is the point of one world government? Aren't you guys just reinforcing the concept of the UN?