Golden Sun Hacking Community

Okay, most of you are probably wondering why I posted this. Well, I have heard that America in the future will one day have socialism, it cannot be stopped, but it can be delayed. The organization that may delay it is going to be The Church Without Walls. How many people have heard of anything like this? / I do not know much about such an organization, but it is rather interesting, and scary to think America could get socialism....

Ah, but there's a problem with that theory - we're not pansy-@#$ Europeans.  We're known to fight and KILL to protect our rights.  Isn't that right, "Great" Britain?  We're not stupid, especially after being woken up by current events and the current dumbasses in office.  If they go too far, we'll change our minds about voting them out, and just go up, kill them, replace them, and undo their f***-ups.  Because we don't take crap from nobody.  Just ask the Middle East - we're STILL kicking their asses after the events of 9/11.

You're all forgetting the fact that the average American has only a slightly higher life expectancy than the average Cuban, yet the US expenditures on health care per capita is almost 20 times that of Cuba's health care expenditures per capita.

Suddenly, Government run "Failcare" doesn't sound quite so fail.

Name one time.  ANY ONE TIME.  Where government has done a better job than the private sector.  I dare you.  Provide sources, please, I don't belive word of mouth, I believe hard data. If you can find no data, your statement fails.

We need healthcare reform, that much is certain.  The government, known for its incompetence, is not what we need running this.  We need actual experts doing this.  I mean, when the government has to BRIBE SENATORS in order to get their votes?  I'm sorry, but breaking the law is no way to pass one.  Damn you, congressional immunity...

CIA - World Factbook. Just go look at life expectancy for Americans and Cubans.

Then go to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html)

Then go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba)

Simple enough, eh?

That has nothing to do with what I asked you.  Provide me the data I asked for, otherwise the data you give (as well as your argument) are moot.

Heh, well, given the total silence on your end, I assume you admit defeat and that your epic fail argument has absolutely no data backing it up.  Why?  Because Government can't run jack squat.  They've maxed their credit cards and are STILL spending.  They do NOT have unlimited resources, however, and because of this we are SERIOUSLY starting to feel the effects.

Now then, anyone else care to try?  I don't believe people, I believe data.  Numbers do not lie, people do.  The best thing that liberals/progressives can do is to is try to change the subject to get you to turn a blind eye to their total lack of hard data supporting their 'ideals'.

There are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.

Well, bribing to get a vote is not correct, but it can hardly be worse than calling off Parliament for a few months, so all of the work by the government is wasted... Needless to say, it depends on how you are looking at it. Socialism is not good, but pretty much every type of government has something which can be adaptable to a different style of government.

Also, you might hate the idea of universal health care now (since I have read some health care hints in this topic), but it will be very helpful when you least expect it - trust me.

Oh, 2 messages? I will check them now, because I do not have much else to say.

Have a nice day.

Trust you?  Why? I'm sorry, but I want to choose my level of coverage.  Besides, here in the US, doctors cannot turn you away in the first place!  There's this thing called the Emergency Room.  They have to see you if you go there.  It's the law.  UHC is unnecessary, and way too costly!  Our nation is TRILLIONS DOLLARS IN DEBT!  It cannot afford this!  Sure, you'd not have NEAR the opposition if we were thriving and had a nice surplus, but that is simply not the case.  Besides, it's a redundant solution to an unrelated problem.  The problem being the cost of insurance...

Which, might I add, is easily solvable.  Do NOT underestimate the power of economics.  Allow for competition, and things will get a lot better.

But UHC alone isn't socialism... sure, it's a socialist program, sure, but it's not all.  You've got a LOT more problems to deal with.  Such as... hell... our own income tax system!  It charges a disproportionate amount to rich people than to normal people.  The top 50% pay 100% of the taxes.  The top 1%?  Like... oh, what was it... I think it was 30% or so.  Top ten was 50 or so.  NOT EXACT NUMBERS, I'll have to look those up.  But still... That alone causes problems.

Tax cuts?  Well, if you do that, you benefit the wealthy so much more than the poor simply because of how it's set up.  Any time you cut taxes, you can claim that the wealthy benefited the most, thus trying to villainize the guy trying to lower it.  Any kid who took high school economics can tell you this much.  That's just how it was set up... by FDR, who did the same socialist-type programs that are trying to be pushed now. Really screwed the nation, and turned the Great Recession into the Great Depression.  But he had loads of charisma, and apparently was better than the other guys who tried to replace him.  Can't say the same with Failbama.  People HATE him here.  Went from uber Approval Rates to lowest approval at this point in office in the history of our nation.

I could go on about the guy, but he's got his own topic.

ANYWHO... what we need?  A flat tax.  Say, 10% of income.  For everyone.  That's it.  Guess what?  That frees up the money in the hands of the rich... and what do they do with it?  Try to make more.  How do they do that? HIRE NEW WORKERS.  Wealth doesn't trickle up.  It trickles down.  When the rich have more money to spend, they spend it on US.  Sure, they have their own motives... but they're not that different that ours.  "Make money, succeed at life".  Everyone pretty much has those goals.

Capitalism - natural selection/evolution when applied to the economy - is a necessary force that is important in the success of civiliztion.  It is a chaotic force, and must stay so.  If you add Order to it, either via a Monopoly or goverment intervention, it causes problems.  The USA's current issues were actually caused by goverment changing the rules.  You can look it up... and I'll probably post it myself later.  Socialism and Communism are great in theory, but they rely on perfect order.  Which does not exist.  They are the utopian system, but this is the real world.  They cause the collapse of nations.

Sure, I may like UHC's coverage.  But when my nation's economy collapses because it can no longer support those policies?  That UHC goes up in smoke.  A little bit of instant gratification, followed by a long period of suffering?  Not worth it.

Role, I couldn't agree with you more

As do I, but especially:

Quote from: Role on 07, January, 2010, 12:20:58 AM
A little bit of instant gratification, followed by a long period of suffering?  Not worth it.

This. Now, I don't know much of anything about government spending, but I do know that they have a tendency to spend more than they have. They seem to think the stuff comes out of nowhere...

Well, since people only live up to 120 years MAXIMUM now days.... and that EVERYONE is unique in their own ways. You will never know what the country will be like in about a few centuries.

For all I know, Socialism may not happen here in our life time. I never said when it would be coming, nor do I really know.


60+ = seniors... (70 should be everyone's goal in life, anymore are extra years.)

---

EDIT: I want to add alittle something to get you thinking....

If people go against Obama because they think his plans are actually leading to Socialism and were to assassinate him, what do you think would happen?

I think there would be a war... whites vs. blacks... etc.. so now you can't leave your house.. well, maybe I'm sounding a bit far-fetched.


-If - not saying that it would happen, but it is something to think about.
-think - A lot of people can be dumb, you know that, people think anything.

---

Quote from: charleysdrpepper on 22, January, 2010, 04:03:26 AM
Well, since people only live up to 120 years MAXIMUM now days.... and that EVERYONE is unique in their own ways. You will never know what the country will be like in about a few centuries.

For all I know, Socialism may not happen here in our life time. I never said when it would be coming, nor do I really know.


60+ = seniors... (70 should be everyone's goal in life, anymore are extra years.)

---

EDIT: I want to add alittle something to get you thinking....

If people go against Obama because they think his plans are actually leading to Socialism and were to assassinate him, what do you think would happen?

I think there would be a war... whites vs. blacks... etc.. so now you can't leave your house.. well, maybe I'm sounding a bit far-fetched.


-If - not saying that it would happen, but it is something to think about.
-think - A lot of people can be dumb, you know that, people think anything.

---

So let me get this straight... You're going to cry racist.  Come over here, we need to talk.

Now, let me tell you something... this is the year 2010.  There is no racial minority or majority, only one single entity - that of Human.  Do you see any elfs?  Any gnomes?  How about klingons?  Vulcans?  Twi'liks? Mandalorians?  No?  Yeah, that's right, because there exists one and only one race - that of HUMAN.  To claim that you're different because your skin is different is akin to claiming that you're different because your eye color is different.  Or perhaps your foot size.  "You just hate me because I have big feet, don't you?"  See how stupid that sounds?  Grow up.  Stop living in the past.  To embrace something as EPIC FAIL as ethnicity is to instill the seeds of racism within yourself.  Essentially, so long as you view this world as black and white, YOU'RE the racist here. 

Now that we've had our little talk, let's get to the rest of the counter.

IF Obama was assassinated, it'd not be a black vs white civil war.  It'd probably be a Progressives vs Everyone Else war.  And you know what?  This is the direction I see our nation going - a full fledged war to protect our rights.  NOT JUST OBAMA... But Pelosi, Reed, Clinton, and the rest of the whole lot of them.  I do NOT think that this is the right thing - in fact, it'd be quite disastrous for the nation.  But I've got a really bad feeling that there's gonna be a full fledged war against these people and their epic fail policies.

True, but I do not think that is what he was trying to say. Do not forget that there are still many people who think in the past, and this very well may happen. There is not one race of humans that are dominant, but many people think otherwise (South Africa is an example). Looking at a different perspective, there are other countries who would actually consider going to war just because of "race". I know that this topic mainly discusses the US, but the United States has a huge influence on the world, just like Britain did until some time in the early-mid 1900s.

I have done some research, and there are other countries who would probably join in if there would be a war. I think it would be more of a cold war though, without a lot of actual fighting. Hopefully, it does not come to this (but a cold war would be better than any actual fighting, if not scarier).

Well, I can not comment on much more, since I know much more about Canadian politics than American. I am still learning though.

Have a nice day.

Sala, did you not see the second half of my post?  The first part was smaking him upside the head for thinking it'd be a black and white issue.  It's not.  The SECOND half is my appropriate reply to his argument.  Do try reading the whole post before replying, okay?

I did, and that is what a part of the reply was to (I was replying to your whole post, but I just mixed it up a bit).

Have a nice day.

Anywho, it'd not be a cold war.  It'd be a violent one, since we're known to be the types to kill in order to protect our rights.  A cold war is what results when it's another country, specifically one that hasn't harmed us or tried to rob us of our rights (such as the USSR).  However, if you do harm us, you die (see:  Afganistan).  Of course, that doesn't stop corrupt politicians from totally not listening to us, which is what the problem is at the moment (see: Iraq).  If this escalates to the point that their actions invoke our wrath, however, it will become very violent (see:  American Civil War, American Revolutionary War).

And yes, other countries (see: Iran, North Korea) will be all too happy to try and strike us down the second this starts.  Thus my statement that this is where I see us heading, but it's a very, VERY bad direction to be going at the moment.

^this.

The United States already has a few socialist policies, such as Medicare and Welfare as well. Honestly I don't think expanding Medicare to the whole population (albeit now would not exactly be the best time in terms of financing).

Honestly, I don't see the big deal about Socialism. We already live in a partially socialist government and don't even notice it.
Socialism itself isn't even a bad thing. It's actually more of a fear thing simply because people don't understand how it works.

Now, if we were talking about communism, that would be an entire different story. But it's possible to live in both capitalism and socialism at the same time, as we do here in French Canada. And quite the contrary, I'm a supporter of socialism under the conditions of balance.

Please refer to @Vorlan's wall of text if you need an explanation.


So in conclusion, the fears of Socialism is mostly about being uneducated.

Quote from: Vorlan on 16, February, 2010, 05:36:47 AM

Quote from: Lishy on 13, February, 2010, 12:18:32 PM
Honestly, I don't see the big deal about Socialism. We already live in a partially socialist government and don't even notice it.
Socialism itself isn't even a bad thing. It's actually more of a fear thing simply because people don't understand how it works.

Now, if we were talking about communism, that would be an entire different story. But it's possible to live in both capitalism and socialism at the same time, as we do here in French Canada. And quite the contrary, I'm a supporter of socialism under the conditions of balance.

Please refer to @Vorlan's wall of text if you need an explanation.


So in conclusion, the fears of Socialism is mostly about being uneducated.

Definately! Most of the fear is leftover fear of the left from the cold war and usually has little to do with socialism and a lot to do with communist dictatorships. :)

A lot of people don't realize that communism =/= socialism, and Glenn Beck isn't helping people figure that out :x

The big reason why people don't like socialism is because these connections are made in propeganda like the majority of FOX news, Teabaggers and other sources. They're a bunch of hypocrites - they support Medicare/aid but not socialized medicine. MEDICARE IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

America deserves an epic facepalm...

This discussion scares the crap out of King Dedede:

(http://i864.photobucket.com/albums/ab202/FlameUser64/Name%20or%20picture%20that%20character%20and%20such/VeryDemotivationalWTFmoment.png?t=1266356899)

Quote from: Corvidae on 16, February, 2010, 07:27:53 AM
America deserves an epic facepalm...

I could've told ya that, and I don't even bother with any of this stuff.

And to all you people saying that Obama thinks he's Jesus, Obama responds thus (Yes, this is a direct quote): "Contrary to popular belief, I was not born in a manger. I was sent in a rocket ship from the planet Krypton, by my father, Jor-El, to save the Earth."

Here's another question:  What's wrong with Capitalism?  It's Evolution, but in the economic sense. The strong survive, the weak perish, and society as a whole EVOLVES.  This is what America itself was designed to be, and what made it strong.  However, we've abandoned it.  Socialism doesn't work - Greece is proving that right now.  When most of the jobs are Government run jobs, nothing really gets done.  If you focus more on consumption and don't produce anything, you're doomed.

I agree, Charon.  America deserves and Epic Facepalm.  We really do.  But probably not for the same reason you think.  I think we deserve it because we didn't realize where we were until we were too late.  Socialism and Communism are different, but they're both on the opposite end of the spectrum as were America was SUPPOSED to be.

And now we're almost there.  I'm scared of the future... I really don't know what to expect.  They think that healthcare is a good thing, but nothing you cannot afford is good for you.  I don't care about how good intentioned it was - the greatest atrocities ever committed were done in the name of "good intentions".  I want nothing to do with this... But now I'm thrust into it whether I like it or not.

You say Glenn Beck isn't helping any... but what you don't realize is that he's not saying they're the same, he's saying NEITHER is good for us here in America.  What we had before worked, but we've not been maintaining the machine - rather, we've been eating over it, and now it's got all these crums and gunk inside of it.  America as we knew it is about to break, and it's gonna be a very different place.  A place I dunno if I wanna live in.  No offense, Europe doods, but I don't want anything to do with pansy-@#$% Europe, and unfortunately for me, that looks to be the direction the US is going... So what next, I wonder?

Because we LOST this battle.  Socialism seems to clearly have won.  Now we have two healthcare systems in america - we already had Medicare/Medicaid, and now we have this... THING.

And...what is socialism then?  If you take away all the money from the rich, then who has the money?

Last I checked, they don't have enough to spread around to everyone.  That leaves nothing but poor people.

If you don't like how nature works, if you think it's barbaric, then go win yourself a darwin award.  Survival of the fittest is the rule of life itself.  If you can't understand that this applies to everything, then evolution dictates that you aren't worth your existence, and will inevitably be purged from it.

Oh, and need I remind you... we already had the option of healthcare.  We have a public option already, it's called Medicare/Medicaid, which, need I remind you, rejects more claims than any other kind of healthcare insurance?  That any insurance company will accept you even IF you have a pre-existing condition, but they'll just charge you more because of how insurance works?  That there's plenty of ways to make health care affordable that weren't looked at, and that the so-called un-cooperative republicans actually tried to cooperate, but were shut out at every turn?  That an amendment they suggested that would have restricted the new bill from taking funds from Medicade, Medicare, and Social Security was REJECTED by the democrats?

...Do you even pay attention to this stuff, or are you just spouting stuff you heard?

QuoteWe have a public option already, it's called Medicare/Medicaid, which, need I remind you, rejects more claims than any other kind of healthcare insurance?  That any insurance company will accept you even IF you have a pre-existing condition, but they'll just charge you more because of how insurance works?

I'd say REJECTING MORE CLAIMS would be a bad thing?

And not only do they charge you more, as soon as you make a claim, they then find any way they can to reject it.

Do you have actual documentation and proof of this, or are you just going by word of mouth?

Word of mouth, Youtube vids, vids other places, and yeah. Not much real proof, but so many vids from so many different people can't all be wrong, can they?

That, and I quoted you.

...From where?

Earlier in same topic.

Quote it, please, I can't seem to find the post you're referring to.

Quote from: Role on 30, March, 2010, 02:47:47 PM
And...what is socialism then?  If you take away all the money from the rich, then who has the money?

Last I checked, they don't have enough to spread around to everyone.  That leaves nothing but poor people.

If you don't like how nature works, if you think it's barbaric, then go win yourself a darwin award.  Survival of the fittest is the rule of life itself.  If you can't understand that this applies to everything, then evolution dictates that you aren't worth your existence, and will inevitably be purged from it.

Oh, and need I remind you... we already had the option of healthcare.  We have a public option already, it's called Medicare/Medicaid, which, need I remind you, rejects more claims than any other kind of healthcare insurance?  That any insurance company will accept you even IF you have a pre-existing condition, but they'll just charge you more because of how insurance works?  That there's plenty of ways to make health care affordable that weren't looked at, and that the so-called un-cooperative republicans actually tried to cooperate, but were shut out at every turn?  That an amendment they suggested that would have restricted the new bill from taking funds from Medicade, Medicare, and Social Security was REJECTED by the democrats?

...Do you even pay attention to this stuff, or are you just spouting stuff you heard?

The post I quoted, and the specific part I quoted in bold.

Re-read that.  Did I say they'd try to find a way to reject your claim?  Nope.  I said that Medicare rejects more claims than anything else - the other things just charge you a proportionally appropriate amount of money.

Quote from: Vorlan on 15, April, 2010, 06:15:14 AM
I won't even go into the implications of your radical Darwinism. Suffice to say that it is possible with civilization and progress to actually give a damn what happens to other people. Sure we could trample on the weak and kill anyone who gets in our way but we can be better than that. We can create a society where the strong and the weak coexist. I mean look at what you're saying! "Survival of the fittest is the rule of life itself.  If you can't understand that this applies to everything, then evolution dictates that you aren't worth your existence, and will inevitably be purged from it." If you care you will be purged? Seriously? We don't have to behave like animals.

I fully agree with this statement, and most support for capitalism/animosity against the health care bill is based within such banter. Of course, I still haven't seen the logical right-winged debate of "not being able to afford it" yet, which surprises me. Indeed, America, being a larger country than most European countries, poses a big problem - we have more people. Our friends to the north have less than a sixth of the population as we do. However, will this change end up being an investment for our future? A change that produces a system that we can, although being an expensive investment now, cause us to actually pay it off? It is far too early to tell, and the United States is a unique example that can not simply be applied to another country, only because our population is so high, that it may not be able to support itself.

In a small note, America is not becoming Socialist, despite passing Socialist reform. Is our country socialist because we have firefighters or a police force... or a military?

Before anyone mentions--yes, I am necroing this thread. This is because I think we need to add some spice to the forum, and what better way than to spark a discussion about politics? We don't need to be inflammatory or insulting like Role can be, but we still should state out opinion and try to give the best evidence or logic to support it.

Quote from: Vorlan on 15, April, 2010, 06:15:14 AM
Forgive me if I'm wrong Role but where in this entire debate have you provided any proof or evidence as to your own arguments. As I think I mentioned earlier it's a bit rich to demand evidence from others when you provide none yourself. You'd have a right to demand evidence for my claims but only if you had backed up your own with independent, peer reviewed evidence too.

Yes, this is something called the burden of proof. She has certainly been within her argumentative rights (forgive the expression) to ask for proof. Although her lack of proof may hinder her argument, unless you actually call for proof it really isn't something that she 'must' do. Now that you have, it is interesting Role hasn't replied with her facts. I'd hate to be inflammatory like Role is, but I would like to recall her previous quote:

"Heh, well, given the total silence on your end, I assume you admit defeat and that your epic fail argument has absolutely no data backing it up."

QuoteI won't even go into the implications of your radical Darwinism. Suffice to say that it is possible with civilization and progress to actually give a damn what happens to other people. Sure we could trample on the weak and kill anyone who gets in our way but we can be better than that. We can create a society where the strong and the weak coexist. I mean look at what you're saying! "Survival of the fittest is the rule of life itself.  If you can't understand that this applies to everything, then evolution dictates that you aren't worth your existence, and will inevitably be purged from it." If you care you will be purged? Seriously? We don't have to behave like animals.

The strong and the weak are not the dividing line here. Instead, the line is between those who care to work for themselves so they can pursue happiness, and those who are too lazy to do that work. The problem with socialism and communism is that when you put society through that system, the work of the many who actually care to work is made to support the few who do not want to work, and then those who don't want to work end up ruling over those that do. In a capitalistic society, those who don't work can't raise in the ranks because they didn't put in the effort to do so. A socialist or communist system is akin to a tournament in which the people who trained the least and lost their match ups end up the champions, whereas the only thing those who worked hard got was the working itself. This sort of system is faulty, and humans do not naturally act in this way. If you had lost a tournament you should have won because those who didn't work 'had' to have been pushed to the level of those who did, you would be spouting the same ethics as a capitalist would, and that would make you a hypocrite.

In any case, the most important thing here, is that your argument is an appeal to emotion. You basically say that Role's argument is too hostile for you, and that it makes you feel bad, so her proposition shouldn't be how we should behave. This is completely illogical.

I suppose that Vorlan isn't here to defend his argument, but I know Role lurks these forums and a few others who were discussing things here also are still in the forum. Come on in and discuss your ideas. Is capitalism the correct system? Or does it need to be toned town with socialism?

I didn't read your whole post Menaus, but there is something which I like to say:
You're talking about people who don't want to work. Sure they exist, but there is also a group that cannot work. Or do you exclude those? (really not sure because I didn't read every post in the topic)

Either way, socialism/communism only works when you have hardworking people. What helps the whole thing is when everybody deosn't want to do the same job because of interest.

EXAMPLE:
One person wants to become a doctor, so he choose to study and become one OR another person does no study at all and becomes a cleaner because he likes to clean.
They do what they like and are equally rewarded.

While the idea seems strange at first, when you grow up with it, there is no such thing as "to lazy to work". Because you simply don't know something like that exists.

So this is what I have to say about this right now.

Cool. My topic is still kicking.

For most of the work stuff, I think it would be neat if robots did the work when possible (Especially for jobs people don't like), since they are obviously more accurate than humans, and work faster.  It could be one of the deciding factors on whether you'd get sick or not... etc.

It would also be cool if there was an easy/reliable/obvious way for people to make a living without relying on some company you work at to give you money.  (Think of it as being your own boss, I know there's gardening, but that takes time, space, and a bit of monitoring.)...

It's a rock and a hard place, with those two philosophies.
In terms of time-frame and human nature, neither socialism nor communism are sustainable practices, as they both neglect the importance of individual worth (a tangible measure of success, ie). the contents of your bank account after having worked for a week; the physical property the money you earn enables you to purchase and own) in favor of a perceived, intangible notion of maintaining a 'collective equality' (the thought that the sacrifices of time and labor one may or may not make during his lifetime for various reasons somehow directly contributes to the general level of 'equality' in his society - a concept he may or may not find appealing). Humans being visually-oriented creatures, neglecting to provide a tangible and immediate reward that one can consider worthy compensation for their investment of time and labor results in both philosophies failing to appeal to an essential aspect of human nature, in theory alone.

Consequentially, an individual's personal incentive to succeed is eliminated, which handicaps a society's pool of citizens willing to perform services through a sacrifice of their time and labor down to two remaining groups of people who naturally view the concept of action and reaction in a manner contrary to the majority of natural life: the citizen who is willing to perform a service so he may idealize an intangible concept of 'equality', and the citizen who is willing to perform a service solely for the personal enjoyment he reaps from it.
Being visually-oriented, humans and other animals naturally expect an immediate or eventual result to occur as the result of their efforts; (one sacrifices his time to perform a laborious task [pressing the red button] expecting tangible compensation [the satisfying discovery of what the red button does] to be awarded to him as a result of his investment) a policy otherwise known as sensory perception, a basic survival instinct based on the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensations they effect.
As a result, the majority of any selection of human beings will naturally fail to idealize the intangible compensatory nature of socialism and communism, resulting in the eventual failure of both philosophies in application within a human society.

In addition, the only way for either philosophy to ever be sustainable in practice is to alter that fundamental survival instinct, among others, in a species. Historically, practitioners of the two philosophies have attempted and continue to attempt to meet that end through the means of increasing the scope and influence of a government. Common examples of the practitioners of that methodology in modern historical application through a variety of means would be the Democratic People's Republic of Korea under Kim Jong-un, preceded by his father and grandfather before him; as well as the United States of America under President Barack Obama.

Conversely, despite its comparatively less self-restricting imperfections in both theory and practice, capitalism remains the most appropriate philosophy for natural life, as it does not fail to appeal to that basic instinct.

A very well constructed post Majora.

I agree what on what you say here, because we can clearly see it returning in most animal populations.

Communism is thing which cannot happen because than it is Like we all are slaves but are unite. Than to keep everyone to start mutiny people who rules this "utopia" must keep everyone dumb. Because smart people are harder to manipulate. Today situation in world is shitty but better than What I mentioned. World united together.... and other staff it is dream, dumb dream!
[spoiler]This is message for everyone. Hello It's been a long time but I suppose I can't stay here. why? I am making Fire emblem type game. FEXP game Google that. If it is alright than I could make tread in this forum for my game but I don't want to trouble you all. Goodbye. [/spoiler]

Well... Lord Wolfram, you're right about the communism nowadays isn't the best form of society, but if you had country that did have good communism, I don't think it would be a problem.

And if you're talking about Russia and stuff, yeah those countries got trouble, but that doesn't mean that every communist country would be bad or unfunctional.

Lol guys. First off, I am an American. That being said, I like to say I am from Barbados because their flag kicks butt. ANYWAYS, I do believe that America is comprised of about 94% people who would rather be lazy and get stuff than work to get stuff. The aforementioned theory, combined with the current policies of my nation, comprise an end result of there being nobody willing to kill the politicians, as suggested earlier. Lol. If they did, they would probably make a New Constitution that would sound good, and grant the New Framers lots of extra privileges. Either that, or they reverse the country's policies, push America in the right direction, piss a lot of people off, get killed, and be replaced by the Newer New Framers.  :happy: Glad to be of help.  :happy:

How can you say Communism is bad without letting a chance to the communist themselves to defend their position. I certainly believe in communism and would be extremely to see happening in america because it will open the door everywhere including my nation of Quebec which have been ravaged by those damn right-wing policies, which are the very 33% of Quebecker can't find a familly medic

Excuse me for my rather poor english, I mainly think in french first.

Saying i am communist is rather vague, I prefer to sy, I am a libertarian Communist or a left-wing communist. in short, it stay on the phrase, from each to his ability, to each according to his needs. ...  we can be even simplier

the government place is in economics, that is where the government belong and not in personnal life. The government has no place saying who can't marry or should marry, how many children you can have, or who you can or can't have sex with, this is your personnal life, do what you want.

It is clear to me that private property should be outlawed, and that passed by a government, private property has be remplaced with collective property, (not state property), entreprises should be owned by the workers' themselves. (that is mutual and cooperative)
It is also clear to me the government should do what ever they can to protect the environment, the free market will not protect it, the free market is just a fraud, is everyone where good at heart it would happen, but human are more selfish

I highly believe Communism can happen everywhere, I believe Stalin's logic as false, for records, he though, people are too stupid, so communism will not work with democracy, it can only work with dictatorship. AKA' People live in Plato's cave

Hoverer, I don't see communism happening so soon, because the wealthy will fight to make sure they can keep their power and they unfair wealth. making money is not bad, but do you really 1 billion to live, no, so when you have too much, give to those who do not have enough.

my stance is simple
Social
- Democracy is needed in communist
- Abortion should be legals, they are a personal choice
- Gay Marriage should be recognized. and going further, voluntary polygamist and incestuous (Brother sister) Marriage should be recognized too.
- Desecration of nationals flags should be legal
- State must be secular and neutral
- State should protect freedom of speech
- State should not limit voting rights but should expend it as much as possible.
- Judges must be independent, a judge cannot be member of a political parties and must let his political opinions away, so he can base his judgement on the fact and on the constitution, if Canada did not had that, we would not have Bedford jugement, decriminalization of prostitution
- Prostitution should legal and recognized.
- Marijuana should be legal, but that, I am sure you saw it coming, it is a logical conclusion.
- Man and woman should always equal
- third sex or intersex should recognize and made equal to man and woman.

Economics
- Healthcare should free and universal,
- Education should a right and free all the way to university.
- I support Food stamps.
- I support child benefits, as a way to help, child benefits should be given to all, no matter the wealth or the family, may it be traditional, monoparental or homosexual
- Cooperatives and mutual are prefered to private entreprises, in the end, private property should be outlawed.
- personnal property should not outlawed.
- environment should be strongly protected by a big ministry of environment.
- Renewable Energy should completely replace fossil energy, that mean oil is best when not exploited.
- Taxes should be very high on the wealthy and low on the poor, as a form of redistribution of the wealth,
- Wildlife should be protected with the strongest effort and free kill or fun hunting should be banned, just like ownership of wild animals must be banned

I think you got the basic Idea now

@Marijuana: Ew. I don't want that smell to be everywhere I go, in thought of second-hand smoking... but yeah, I agree that it should be legal, especially if you respect the people around you.
@Taxes: That's a gray area for me, high taxes on the rich could mean fewer businesses and jobs for the poor. (And if poor people get their money from the rich, I can guess they'll try to give you even less money via fewer raises or something... depending on how the system works... therefore the tax ends up hurting everyone? Just a guess.)

Who thinks taxes should be a flat percent?

One idea I had was something similar to this: (Not exact values.)
Poor pays 10% taxes. And then once you have enough money to open up a decent business, you could be classified as "Rich"... where the more money you earn, the tax could slowly rise from 10%. Probably following a brackets system, where each bracket is at every amount where you could own another business? I'm guessing a 1% increase for each bracket, but hm.., (Ofcourse, this is a WIP thought.)
Rich pay a maximum of 20% taxes(?), but following certain conditions could bring it down to 10%.

"Certain conditions" could be things like how many workers you have, and how much you are paying them, but this is just a thought.
"business" = How much does the average business cost? (Since I know costs can vary place to place, and how prices can fluctuate quickly, money can probably be a difficult thing to understand... Location by itself can determine a large percentage of the price of a building. I wonder how much that will change when we get portable housing! Which probably won't change too much.)
"portable housing" = Ofcourse, this is meant to be kind of a joke... but then if you were to tell people in the 1800s that there would be airplanes and people could buy high-tech computers at a reasonable low price.... they would have thought you were joking. (Probably.)

Dec. 1903 = The Wright brothers had invented the first successful airplane.
computers = Yes, smartphones count as "computers"... I would include smartwatches, but they need a price dropping.

And whoops! It looks like I'm straying off-topic.

Quote from: Darkylighty on 06, October, 2014, 08:16:34 PM
my stance is simple

*Then sums up huge list. :happy:
No I get what you mean. Didn't you forgot to mention there should be no war?

Quote from: Fox on 07, October, 2014, 02:47:23 AM
@Taxes: That's a gray area for me, high taxes on the rich could mean fewer businesses and jobs for the poor.

High taxes, at least in my country, mean high taxes affecting your income. That doesn't necessarily mean less jobs. However, high taxes for the poor people mean an even lower income, as a result they might quit working because it isn't rewarding enough.

Quote from: Fox on 07, October, 2014, 02:47:23 AM
Who thinks taxes should be a flat percent?

Not me, with my prefences to communism. In my country, they're discussing a flat percent. Sure it is equality in a way, but it mostly profits the rich. It does however take an thing away: "We pay more, so we get more influence." (rich person in a country with progressive taxes) But the rich keep more money, allowing them to lobby more... :sad:

Quote from: Fox on 07, October, 2014, 02:47:23 AM
And whoops! It looks like I'm straying off-topic.

Looks like we all did, with our talking about taxes.

Sorry if I offended you, Darkylighty. If I did, let me know, and I will try to compensate for it in the future.

One reason I think Communism is bad is a historical example you previously left out. Jamestown, one of the first colonies of the U.S, just so happened to try Communism out. It resulted in almost everyone being lazier, making productions costs extremely low. This almost caused a famine. Due to this, their leader made the famous quote, "He who doesn't work does not eat."

I firmly believe with the communistic idea that he who cannot work should be able to eat. However, I do not think people who CAN work should receive benefits when they do NOT work. Here is where I find error with Communism. Also, while we are at it, I just want to point out how fast early America became a large and powerful nation under the Constitution.... and how far we have fallen since then due to people looking to gain popularity using loopholes in the Constitution itself. Basically, a lot of lazy people in America have so many benefits that the workers, those who learned a skill/trade and use it for money, are not getting much for their hard work. I commend those who do work hard, which is why I do not feel that Communism and Socialism are good for a country's economy.

However, that being said:

I also disagree with most current American policies. Some policies give rise to poor people not being able to rise up in the Economy, which is not good. I also agree with what Darkylighty said about rich people not giving their money to the poor. But then again, I also see that many people abuse that. Personally, I believe that in the future, when technology becomes more high-tech, we should grant people the privilege to work instead of the privilege to be poor and get money. Really we should be doing that now- the only reason I said the word "future" was because of those who have true disabilities. For now, we could give those who do have true disabilities money to live better. That SHOULD be done. But what I do not like is the fact that many people abuse the idea that everyone should be equal. That isn't true. People who work hard for their money should be higher than those that do not. (That is why I like the whole idea of Free Market- to a point. (This point has mostly been overridden in America))

Summary: Capitalism and the idea of a Free Market only work if everybody actually wants to work. Communism and Socialism only work if nobody wants to work. Both systems are flawed, but if you take both and get the best side of each, I see Capitalism having the upper end.

Sidenotes:
1: America is NOT a democracy. Most people fail to realize this- it is in reality a republic. Look up their definitions if you disbelieve me.
2: Personally I don't like Marijuana, but I know that it can¹ be harmless (and helpful). However, I see it as a gateway to other drugs and the legalization of it to as a marketing tool for more people to get addicted to it. Medicinal Marijuana is good, Nicotine Marijuana is bad. And uhhh I don't know, if anyone can tell me the answer to this question, they get a Mysterious ThingyMaBobber. How do you tell the difference between Medicinal Marijuana, Regular Marijuana (Marijuana w/ 0 Nicotine, but not made with pronounced medicinal properties), and Marijuana w/ Nicotine?
3: If anyone can name a Socialist-type Government that lived over 100 years, with its people very happy and content, please let me know.  I will give you uhhhhh...... A Mysterious Something.
4: I want to say more, but someone is about to give a speech and I need to listen. :)

¹: Only when certain properties are pronounced and other certain properties are taken away entirely.

And uhhh I was reading from the first page for my first post. Lol :P

Quote from: Darkylighty on 06, October, 2014, 08:16:34 PM
Social
- Democracy is needed in communist
- Abortion should be legals, they are a personal choice
- Gay Marriage should be recognized. and going further, voluntary polygamist and incestuous (Brother sister) Marriage should be recognized too.
- Desecration of nationals flags should be legal
- State must be secular and neutral
- State should protect freedom of speech
- State should not limit voting rights but should expend it as much as possible.
- Judges must be independent, a judge cannot be member of a political parties and must let his political opinions away, so he can base his judgement on the fact and on the constitution, if Canada did not had that, we would not have Bedford jugement, decriminalization of prostitution
- Prostitution should legal and recognized.
- Marijuana should be legal, but that, I am sure you saw it coming, it is a logical conclusion.
- Man and woman should always equal
- third sex or intersex should recognize and made equal to man and woman.

Economics
- Healthcare should free and universal,
- Education should a right and free all the way to university.
- I support Food stamps.
- I support child benefits, as a way to help, child benefits should be given to all, no matter the wealth or the family, may it be traditional, monoparental or homosexual
- Cooperatives and mutual are prefered to private entreprises, in the end, private property should be outlawed.
- personnal property should not outlawed.
- environment should be strongly protected by a big ministry of environment.
- Renewable Energy should completely replace fossil energy, that mean oil is best when not exploited.
- Taxes should be very high on the wealthy and low on the poor, as a form of redistribution of the wealth,
- Wildlife should be protected with the strongest effort and free kill or fun hunting should be banned, just like ownership of wild animals must be banned

- The individual citizen has no influence in the direction of a communist country. Additionally, a communist society also does not have influence on its government, (contrary to the general philosophy that a communist state is run by the people for the people in a manner that promotes collective equality) as the all-encompassing government is or will eventually be the sole decision-making entity at some point in the concerned country's history.
In a communist society such as the one you idealize, Darkylighty, you personally have no influence on the direction of your country, any votes you cast make no difference in the success or failure of your nation. Only the politicians in your country's government are able to make executive, legislative, and judicial decisions. Examine human history as if it were a diary, instead of a document of historical events. In every corner of the world throughout history, you may understandably come to the conclusion that those who are given all-encompassing top-down power to be utilised as they see fit without any appropriate system of checks and balances are often prone to making poor decisions, to say the least.

- In situations in which a man and a woman willingly engaged the other in sexual intercourse, a resulting pregnancy is no longer a personal issue; instead being rendered a shared issue between the two individuals, as the DNA of the developing child is comprised of samples from both parties. With pre-emptive contraceptives as readily available as they are in all communities, from financially-stable to troubled areas, pregnancies between adults who consented to provide the other with sexual intercourse must be considered binding, and consequentially do not qualify for a termination procedure.
Unqualified termination of a child by parents who willingly engaged the other in sexual intercourse is legally comparable to pre-meditated homicide, infanticide, and child endangerment.

- Marriage as it is currently known is a traditional event held to commemorate the love between a man and a woman before the eyes of God in various global religions, including Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, and so on. As a result, it is to be treated as any other event based in personal religion, such as a baptism in Christianity, and is thus protected under the first amendment of the Constitution as an expression of personal belief. The act of a state or a body of government ruling that any house of religion be required to service individuals who do not meet the sacred definition of marriage as practiced in that house of religion is unconstitutional.

- Desecration of national flags is an act protected under the first amendment as an expression of personal opinion.

- It is not the responsibility of the state to acknowledge an individual's right to free speech, rather it is the responsibility of the federal government; although many representatives of the state do respect the right of the individual to express their opinion.

- All legal residents of the United States are permitted to cast votes. An issue you may be referring to is the increasingly necessary desire of the American public to require voters present a piece of identifying information, such as a photo ID or Social Security card, (the same requirements one faces in order to purchase cigarettes or alcohol at supermarkets) at voting booths prior to casting their ballot, in an effort to curb voting fraud due to repeat votes or non-citizen votes (or votes cast by deceased or imaginary people; issues that have become increasingly more prevalent during the 2008-2012 presidential elections, with some counties in the country having a 100% Democrat turnout - a mathematical-by-geographical impossibility, as well as evidence of certain individuals having personally voted for the same candidate on more than one occasion).

- There is no constitutional way to enforce all ruling judges have no personal political opinion without infringing on his first amendment right to practice free speech - essentially, his right to have an opinion.

- Prostitution is classically the consensual act of sexual intercourse or performance between two or more consenting individuals (not necessarily adults).
There is no constitutional way to reasonably regulate prostitution without infringing on the involved individuals' first amendment right. Under your belief that prostitution should be a legal business practice, I could ask you to provide photo documentation of each and every person you have had a sexual exchange with in the past six months for documentation, medical, federal and local taxation purposes, as I would with any other business. In America, you would have the right to not provide me with that information.

- Marijuana is a substance that consistently alters and impairs the condition of the user, and is thus comparable to any other drug that many of its users wish to distance it from so as to present the drug in a more favorable manner; often in 'medical' terms, despite the substance having no practical medical use besides its impairment effects on the nervous system (acting as a pain killer, when pain killers without the psycho-active effects commonly exist). For that reason, it is considered a federally-controlled substance, meaning it remains an illegal substance to possess or consume, regardless of individual states considering it a legal substance to possess or consume.

- Men and women are equal in that they both enjoy the same natural rights under the Constitution. It is the discretion of individual governing bodies or businesses to treat the two in equal or dissimilar ways. If you were particularly vocal about the issue of gender equality in America, I'd suggest starting from the top down, with the difference in compensation rates for men and women who perform the same duties as those of the opposite gender in the offices of the Obama administration, which ironically displays a compensatory bias towards its male employees while outwardly proclaiming an interest in attaining pay equality for women (an example of political barrel-scraping, to cultivate and market to a voting body; in this case, women voters).

- 'Intersex' is a non-medical term most appropriately applied to men or women who are either masculine in genetic make-up, or feminine in genetic make-up, who suffer from medical or physical conditions that cause them to possess or lack deformed genitalia. Consequentially, the affected individuals are comparable to any other individuals who lack genitalia (a male soldier who has lost his lower half from mortar fire lacks genitalia, yet is still a human male by his genetic make-up). By contrast, individuals who suffer from a (rare) condition that provides them with the genetic sequence of the opposite gender, despite possessing contradictory physical characteristics at birth are legally classified under the gender that corresponds to their physical characteristics. There are no further naturally-occurring genders besides 'Man' or 'Woman' in natural life.

- There is no such thing as 'free', in life. Picking and eating a berry from a vine in your area took work to produce; local wildlife, yourself included, as well as plants and other species of life work in an ongoing cycle to produce enough oxygen to sustain and cultivate the energy it requires to produce that berry you've eaten. Naturally, this extends to social situations between human beings. Requiring work to be 'free' or, more appropriately, taxpayer-funded, is contrary to commonly-adopted interpretation of the Constitution as a living document written to preserve a human being's natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; as exemplified in a wide variety of state and federal legal actions made in opposition to the recently-adopted Affordable Care Act.

- It is impossible to outlaw private property while preserving 'personal property'. To legally restrict an individual from his possessions is an offence against his fourth amendment right to security from unreasonable searches and seizure of property. I've noted this previously - this is a primary example of why communism and its related philosophies are impractical in a human society.

- The environment is already 'protected' by a variety of well-funded federal and international organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States. During the American federal budget sequester of last year, which restricted government agency procedures to minimum operation levels, it was noted that only 10% of the EPA's standard operating level is considered 'essential' to meet operation needs.

- As they currently exist, renewable sources of energy are unable to compete with natural gas resources in terms of cost, longevity, and distribution. It can be reasonably noted that by federally restricting the cultivation of natural North American fossil fuels, one actually increases the risk of unsafe practices that do actually cause immediate harm to local environments and wildlife (as seen with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010: British Petroleum was restricted from cultivating natural gas from land-based American resources in the area, which forced the company to cultivate natural gas from several hundred yards out to sea, so as to continue to meet global gasoline demand).

- To tax the wealthy in a manner intended to take in larger amounts of taxes from their income than one would take from other members of society is comparable to a financial penalty based on an individual's income. Legal financial definition of what defines an individual's income as 'wealthy' is subject to wage inflation, and is thus an unrealistic regulation to enforce, which in practice defies a human being's commonly-understood natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (it is not the discretion of a governing body to penalize a working individual any more or any less through tax regulation based on the rate of income their employer deems appropriate for the work performed - although many bureaucrats would disagree). To penalize the rich and give to the poor à la Robin Hood is a philosophy comparable to communism in that it succeeds in theory alone, and is not conducive to a society comprised of working citizens who possess inalienable natural rights.

- Global wildlife from endangered to common are already protected under a variety of federal and local laws. Sport and game hunting is a regulated business comparable to any other type of business, as both possess the same constitutional rights as any other business run by citizens. To restrict their ability to operate based on personal dislike for their business infringes on the business owners' right to practice free speech. To do so would also likely include regulation and seizure of the materials those businesses use to function, including their hunting equipment, which can be noted as an unreasonable seizure of property, circumventing the fourth amendment right of that business to security from unreasonable seizure of property.

You can see how ideas like the ones you've proposed seem perfectly fine in text, but are realistically impractical. Personally, I find ideas such as 'taking from the rich, giving to the poor', 'equality for all men and women', 'protect the environment', 'protect the wildlife' quite attractive concepts, as they all aim to compensate for the many unfortunate things that exist in the world. Very few people would argue that vague concepts of 'equality' and 'environmental responsibility' aren't noble concepts, but the issue isn't a case of detesting people who disagree and labeling them 'sexists', 'racists', 'bigots', 'homophobes' simply because I disagree (as many people who share your philosophy practice regularly).
Your ideas are quite beautiful, in all honesty, but all in all, the most unpleasant fact of life on Earth is that it simply isn't ever going to be a perfect place to be - a law that left-wing policy won't ever be able to change, regardless of how heavily it regulates what it perceives as imperfection.

The fact that life is able to be sustained on a planet like this in such a violent universe is hard enough to believe already. Do what you can here, it isn't exactly Heaven.

And for the record, America is a Democratic Republic.

@Taxes: Do you think we need a separate topic? I doubt that I have much to say, but I think it would be cool if there was a way to have no taxes whatsoever, and somehow get what the Gov't needs through donations/things people buy from the Gov't/insurances/other super-complex methods...) At least then, we could avoid the confusions that taxes may bring. Although, that might seem impractical... but still, I can brainstorm. Sometimes I wonder if technology could bring us closer to that opportunity.

@"free" = Well, yeah, free in its true form might not exist, but I think he means what can be easily done with little thought/work. Think of it like rounding a figure... if something costs $9.99, you might say it's worth $10.

Renewable energy sources: Windmills(probably) (air), solar panels (sun), and something to do with water ; I guess we just wait for solar panels to fall in price and money devalues further (inflation)?
Edit again: JPosted a few days ago: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-solar-cell-power-world-battery.html

@work/high tech: Well, there are some rewards sites, but they're not all that practical because it requires a lot of work to gain small amounts, so yeah. Other work-at-home jobs probably require actually doing an application? (Like a transcriptionist job where you type everything in an audio clip.)

If anyone actually reads the entire wall of text that Majora posted, let me know by responding to every bit of it.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM

Quote from: Darkylighty on 06, October, 2014, 08:16:34 PM
Social
- Democracy is needed in communist
- Abortion should be legals, they are a personal choice
- Gay Marriage should be recognized. and going further, voluntary polygamist and incestuous (Brother sister) Marriage should be recognized too.
- Desecration of nationals flags should be legal
- State must be secular and neutral
- State should protect freedom of speech
- State should not limit voting rights but should expend it as much as possible.
- Judges must be independent, a judge cannot be member of a political parties and must let his political opinions away, so he can base his judgement on the fact and on the constitution, if Canada did not had that, we would not have Bedford jugement, decriminalization of prostitution
- Prostitution should legal and recognized.
- Marijuana should be legal, but that, I am sure you saw it coming, it is a logical conclusion.
- Man and woman should always equal
- third sex or intersex should recognize and made equal to man and woman.

Economics
- Healthcare should free and universal,
- Education should a right and free all the way to university.
- I support Food stamps.
- I support child benefits, as a way to help, child benefits should be given to all, no matter the wealth or the family, may it be traditional, monoparental or homosexual
- Cooperatives and mutual are prefered to private entreprises, in the end, private property should be outlawed.
- personnal property should not outlawed.
- environment should be strongly protected by a big ministry of environment.
- Renewable Energy should completely replace fossil energy, that mean oil is best when not exploited.
- Taxes should be very high on the wealthy and low on the poor, as a form of redistribution of the wealth,
- Wildlife should be protected with the strongest effort and free kill or fun hunting should be banned, just like ownership of wild animals must be banned

- The individual citizen has no influence in the direction of a communist country. Additionally, a communist society also does not have influence on its government, (contrary to the general philosophy that a communist state is run by the people for the people in a manner that promotes collective equality) as the all-encompassing government is or will eventually be the sole decision-making entity at some point in the concerned country's history.
In a communist society such as the one you idealize, Darkylighty, you personally have no influence on the direction of your country, any votes you cast make no difference in the success or failure of your nation. Only the politicians in your country's government are able to make executive, legislative, and judicial decisions. Examine human history as if it were a diary, instead of a document of historical events. In every corner of the world throughout history, you may understandably come to the conclusion that those who are given all-encompassing top-down power to be utilised as they see fit without any appropriate system of checks and balances are often prone to making poor decisions, to say the least.

We are not talking about the same countries, because if you view China as Communism, I do not view China as communism, Democracy is essential to Communism, as in any other system, a appropriate system of division of power, but not necessary checks and balances, Britain system work on the principe of cooperation of power instead of check and balance and it does not give much more of a dictatorsip then the US. A system which give no balance to the power of the boss is worth nothing. The society I Dream of is a place where you are in a collective and you are given the right to vote on the way your business is employed.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- In situations in which a man and a woman willingly engaged the other in sexual intercourse, a resulting pregnancy is no longer a personal issue; instead being rendered a shared issue between the two individuals, as the DNA of the developing child is comprised of samples from both parties. With pre-emptive contraceptives as readily available as they are in all communities, from financially-stable to troubled areas, pregnancies between adults who consented to provide the other with sexual intercourse must be considered binding, and consequentially do not qualify for a termination procedure.
Unqualified termination of a child by parents who willingly engaged the other in sexual intercourse is legally comparable to pre-meditated homicide, infanticide, and child endangerment.

It is one, it is not like the father have no responsabilities when having sex with a woman and creating a child, no matter what happen, you are the father of the children if they are born, but it is not because a life is formation that the ormation will be complete, it can fail, the baby can dies in the mother's womb before being born, is that comparable to an infanticide ? of course not, the body of the woman belong to the woman, if we men where the one to bear childre, abortion would legal long time ago.
Hoverer, it is not like someone favour abortion, you won't find a doctor whose goal is to complete the most abortion possible, abortion is not a pretty procedure, it is simply the right of the woman to refuse to be a mother, just as a man can opt for vasectomy if he does not want to have children, we can't consider men who undergo vasectomy to be mass murderer.
And be realist, featus teleportation, to transport the child of unwilling women into wiling ones is not here, I would approuve it but it is not possible.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- Marriage as it is currently known is a traditional event held to commemorate the love between a man and a woman before the eyes of God in various global religions, including Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, and so on. As a result, it is to be treated as any other event based in personal religion, such as a baptism in Christianity, and is thus protected under the first amendment of the Constitution as an expression of personal belief. The act of a state or a body of government ruling that any house of religion be required to service individuals who do not meet the sacred definition of marriage as practiced in that house of religion is unconstitutional.

that is one way to define religious Mariage, but you can't forbid two man or two woman to get married. two Man have the right to love each other, the government or individual does not the right to step in other personnal lives, after all, you won't see me entering your life and telling you that you should not eat any meat anymore.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- Desecration of national flags is an act protected under the first amendment as an expression of personal opinion.

That is right and correct, it is a political opinion or it is just flag...

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- It is not the responsibility of the state to acknowledge an individual's right to free speech, rather it is the responsibility of the federal government; although many representatives of the state do respect the right of the individual to express their opinion.

The state for me, has the right to put acceptable limit in democracy ot the right of person, such as forbidding someone from publicy encourageing the extermination of all red-heads. that speech is not acceptable in democracy or in a free state.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- All legal residents of the United States are permitted to cast votes. An issue you may be referring to is the increasingly necessary desire of the American public to require voters present a piece of identifying information, such as a photo ID or Social Security card, (the same requirements one faces in order to purchase cigarettes or alcohol at supermarkets) at voting booths prior to casting their ballot, in an effort to curb voting fraud due to repeat votes or non-citizen votes (or votes cast by deceased or imaginary people; issues that have become increasingly more prevalent during the 2008-2012 presidential elections, with some counties in the country having a 100% Democrat turnout - a mathematical-by-geographical impossibility, as well as evidence of certain individuals having personally voted for the same candidate on more than one occasion).

Is having the right to vote enough, I can give you the right the vote, but only have a single voting night, which is Sunday night, when you work, Voting fraud is something that will always exist, it happens in all parties, even in your, but voting fraud does not affect the result of the elections.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- There is no constitutional way to enforce all ruling judges have no personal political opinion without infringing on his first amendment right to practice free speech - essentially, his right to have an opinion.

Being a judge and being a person are two different thing and it is well done in Canada, in our country, judges are neutral and only refer themselves to the constitution and the fact, otherwise, if we had conservative judges, we would never have the Bedford judgement. it is possible, hoverer, your pratice are at fault, I can't believe a conservative judge is neutral.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- Prostitution is classically the consensual act of sexual intercourse or performance between two or more consenting individuals (not necessarily adults).
There is no constitutional way to reasonably regulate prostitution without infringing on the involved individuals' first amendment right. Under your belief that prostitution should be a legal business practice, I could ask you to provide photo documentation of each and every person you have had a sexual exchange with in the past six months for documentation, medical, federal and local taxation purposes, as I would with any other business. In America, you would have the right to not provide me with that information.

prostitution is not only sex, it is a work, and there is a way to regulate prostitution just as there is a way to regulate the banks, see New Zeland and Swizterland regulations of prostitution

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- Marijuana is a substance that consistently alters and impairs the condition of the user, and is thus comparable to any other drug that many of its users wish to distance it from so as to present the drug in a more favorable manner; often in 'medical' terms, despite the substance having no practical medical use besides its impairment effects on the nervous system (acting as a pain killer, when pain killers without the psycho-active effects commonly exist). For that reason, it is considered a federally-controlled substance, meaning it remains an illegal substance to possess or consume, regardless of individual states considering it a legal substance to possess or consume.

Alcohol is not really different then Marijuana, it harm the user. we should not criminalize the harm you are doing on your body, if i take marijuana in my bedroom I will the one to be sick the morning, not you, as I long I don't harm someone else then me, I should not be prosecute.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- Men and women are equal in that they both enjoy the same natural rights under the Constitution. It is the discretion of individual governing bodies or businesses to treat the two in equal or dissimilar ways. If you were particularly vocal about the issue of gender equality in America, I'd suggest starting from the top down, with the difference in compensation rates for men and women who perform the same duties as those of the opposite gender in the offices of the Obama administration, which ironically displays a compensatory bias towards its male employees while outwardly proclaiming an interest in attaining pay equality for women (an example of political barrel-scraping, to cultivate and market to a voting body; in this case, women voters).

I disagree with you, on same work by men and women, same pay, this should be mandatory for the state, but is far from a reality, sadly.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- 'Intersex' is a non-medical term most appropriately applied to men or women who are either masculine in genetic make-up, or feminine in genetic make-up, who suffer from medical or physical conditions that cause them to possess or lack deformed genitalia. Consequentially, the affected individuals are comparable to any other individuals who lack genitalia (a male soldier who has lost his lower half from mortar fire lacks genitalia, yet is still a human male by his genetic make-up). By contrast, individuals who suffer from a (rare) condition that provides them with the genetic sequence of the opposite gender, despite possessing contradictory physical characteristics at birth are legally classified under the gender that corresponds to their physical characteristics. There are no further naturally-occurring genders besides 'Man' or 'Woman' in natural life.

Intersex is not only that, people are not always man or woman, there exist other types of sexuality such as genderqueer, the biological and the social side of the sex are completly different, two people can misleading sexual organ, such as being a female with a Penis, yet one may think her penis should be remplaced with a vagina, while the one could believe her penis is part of her/his sexual identity.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- There is no such thing as 'free', in life. Picking and eating a berry from a vine in your area took work to produce; local wildlife, yourself included, as well as plants and other species of life work in an ongoing cycle to produce enough oxygen to sustain and cultivate the energy it requires to produce that berry you've eaten. Naturally, this extends to social situations between human beings. Requiring work to be 'free' or, more appropriately, taxpayer-funded, is contrary to commonly-adopted interpretation of the Constitution as a living document written to preserve a human being's natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; as exemplified in a wide variety of state and federal legal actions made in opposition to the recently-adopted Affordable Care Act.

People have natural rights, saying something is free, does not mean it growth from the trees or fall from the sky, I oppose force-work, if someone does not want to work, he should be free to not work, and live with the consequence of his decision, but it is not like not working is always a personnal decision, people can fail to find work, but they really want to work.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- It is impossible to outlaw private property while preserving 'personal property'. To legally restrict an individual from his possessions is an offence against his fourth amendment right to security from unreasonable searches and seizure of property. I've noted this previously - this is a primary example of why communism and its related philosophies are impractical in a human society.

NO, this is proof you does not understand the distinction between the two, private property introduce a strengh rapport between two classe, personnal property only relate to you, like your body is the most easy exemple of personnal property, no one  can claim your body away from you, you are free to do what you want with you body, even if it is ugly,
after all, it is yours,
I oppose private property, and view state property as an exemple of private property with only the state remplacing the boss.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- The environment is already 'protected' by a variety of well-funded federal and international organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States. During the American federal budget sequester of last year, which restricted government agency procedures to minimum operation levels, it was noted that only 10% of the EPA's standard operating level is considered 'essential' to meet operation needs.

Just because a law exist, it does not mean it is enough, and the protection we give to the environment right now is not acceptable. just because there is law, it does not the law is good.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- As they currently exist, renewable sources of energy are unable to compete with natural gas resources in terms of cost, longevity, and distribution. It can be reasonably noted that by federally restricting the cultivation of natural North American fossil fuels, one actually increases the risk of unsafe practices that do actually cause immediate harm to local environments and wildlife (as seen with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010: British Petroleum was restricted from cultivating natural gas from land-based American resources in the area, which forced the company to cultivate natural gas from several hundred yards out to sea, so as to continue to meet global gasoline demand).

Don't blame the compagny decision on law restriction, come on, the reason there was a spill is become of a lack of security from the part of the compagny and reuiqred by the law, it could have happen to any other campagny.
Just because they are not able to complete, it does not justify the use of fossil energy is justified, we cannot be allowed to pollute the planet as we are doing right now. after all, you said there is nothing free, well, from an environmental point of view the use of fossil energy is much costly then the use of renewable energy, after all, we only 1 planet, we can't hope to find a new one after we are done with it like we can do with a portable.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- To tax the wealthy in a manner intended to take in larger amounts of taxes from their income than one would take from other members of society is comparable to a financial penalty based on an individual's income. Legal financial definition of what defines an individual's income as 'wealthy' is subject to wage inflation, and is thus an unrealistic regulation to enforce, which in practice defies a human being's commonly-understood natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (it is not the discretion of a governing body to penalize a working individual any more or any less through tax regulation based on the rate of income their employer deems appropriate for the work performed - although many bureaucrats would disagree). To penalize the rich and give to the poor à la Robin Hood is a philosophy comparable to communism in that it succeeds in theory alone, and is not conducive to a society comprised of working citizens who possess inalienable natural rights.

it is not a penalty, it is a limit to how much money one can accumulate, after all, you don't need 20 billion to live a confrotable life, you only need 1 and even less then one in many cases. Money does not make happiness, and so, Progressives taxes are not a limit on people's happiness, it is more unfair to taxes the poor the same way as millionnaires. Everyone as the right to life liberty and happiness, not just those who succeed, not just the member of the communist party of china or the member of the American Republican party, everyone on Earth.
there is a limitted ammout of money on earth, the only way to redistribute wealth is to take from the wealthy and to give to the poor, take from those who do not need as much as they have, to give to those who need it.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
- Global wildlife from endangered to common are already protected under a variety of federal and local laws. Sport and game hunting is a regulated business comparable to any other type of business, as both possess the same constitutional rights as any other business run by citizens. To restrict their ability to operate based on personal dislike for their business infringes on the business owners' right to practice free speech. To do so would also likely include regulation and seizure of the materials those businesses use to function, including their hunting equipment, which can be noted as an unreasonable seizure of property, circumventing the fourth amendment right of that business to security from unreasonable seizure of property.

How would you react if some aliens come down from tthe outer space, take you away from the USA and put you in Russia, then say, you are a going to live in Russia. well, the wild animals have a similar right then you do to live in the country of your choice, they have the right to live in their natural habitat to not be hunted for fun. A lion does not eat gazelle for fun, but to feed himself, if he is not hungry, he will not hunt them down, a lion does not hate gazelle, so why we give ourselves the right to hunt animals, might as well give the right to aliens to hunt us for fun. ..

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
You can see how ideas like the ones you've proposed seem perfectly fine in text, but are realistically impractical. Personally, I find ideas such as 'taking from the rich, giving to the poor', 'equality for all men and women', 'protect the environment', 'protect the wildlife' quite attractive concepts, as they all aim to compensate for the many unfortunate things that exist in the world. Very few people would argue that vague concepts of 'equality' and 'environmental responsibility' aren't noble concepts, but the issue isn't a case of detesting people who disagree and labeling them 'sexists', 'racists', 'bigots', 'homophobes' simply because I disagree (as many people who share your philosophy practice regularly).
Your ideas are quite beautiful, in all honesty, but all in all, the most unpleasant fact of life on Earth is that it simply isn't ever going to be a perfect place to be - a law that left-wing policy won't ever be able to change, regardless of how heavily it regulates what it perceives as imperfection.

taht is your conception, because you do not have the same conception of human rights as I, no wonder you cannot see eye to eye with me, if we do not the same conception of human rights. I give rights to animals, there is no way we can agree because we do not even agree on the definition of article of the same constitution, once again, that is why judicial independance is crucial, the constitution must not be interpret as a liberal or as a conservative way... must be neutral, based on the facts.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
The fact that life is able to be sustained on a planet like this in such a violent universe is hard enough to believe already. Do what you can here, it isn't exactly Heaven.

it is not like that fact is granted, life appeared on this planet and it can disappear, we make it disappear,, we need to responsable with our ressource and not waste them or over exploit our planet, after all, we don't have two planet, once all fish are eaten, once all rivers are poisonned, once all trees are cutted down, you will discover that you cannot eat money.

Quote from: Majora on 07, October, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
And for the record, America is a Democratic Republic.

That is not much important, the name you give to your regime does not make the regime, North Korea call themselves a democratic people's republic and they are not.

Quote from: Bam on 07, October, 2014, 11:27:27 AM
Sorry if I offended you, Darkylighty. If I did, let me know, and I will try to compensate for it in the future.

One reason I think Communism is bad is a historical example you previously left out. Jamestown, one of the first colonies of the U.S, just so happened to try Communism out. It resulted in almost everyone being lazier, making productions costs extremely low. This almost caused a famine. Due to this, their leader made the famous quote, "He who doesn't work does not eat."

I firmly believe with the communistic idea that he who cannot work should be able to eat. However, I do not think people who CAN work should receive benefits when they do NOT work. Here is where I find error with Communism. Also, while we are at it, I just want to point out how fast early America became a large and powerful nation under the Constitution.... and how far we have fallen since then due to people looking to gain popularity using loopholes in the Constitution itself. Basically, a lot of lazy people in America have so many benefits that the workers, those who learned a skill/trade and use it for money, are not getting much for their hard work. I commend those who do work hard, which is why I do not feel that Communism and Socialism are good for a country's economy.

However, that being said:

I also disagree with most current American policies. Some policies give rise to poor people not being able to rise up in the Economy, which is not good. I also agree with what Darkylighty said about rich people not giving their money to the poor. But then again, I also see that many people abuse that. Personally, I believe that in the future, when technology becomes more high-tech, we should grant people the privilege to work instead of the privilege to be poor and get money. Really we should be doing that now- the only reason I said the word "future" was because of those who have true disabilities. For now, we could give those who do have true disabilities money to live better. That SHOULD be done. But what I do not like is the fact that many people abuse the idea that everyone should be equal. That isn't true. People who work hard for their money should be higher than those that do not. (That is why I like the whole idea of Free Market- to a point. (This point has mostly been overridden in America))

Summary: Capitalism and the idea of a Free Market only work if everybody actually wants to work. Communism and Socialism only work if nobody wants to work. Both systems are flawed, but if you take both and get the best side of each, I see Capitalism having the upper end.

Sidenotes:
1: America is NOT a democracy. Most people fail to realize this- it is in reality a republic. Look up their definitions if you disbelieve me.
2: Personally I don't like Marijuana, but I know that it can¹ be harmless (and helpful). However, I see it as a gateway to other drugs and the legalization of it to as a marketing tool for more people to get addicted to it. Medicinal Marijuana is good, Nicotine Marijuana is bad. And uhhh I don't know, if anyone can tell me the answer to this question, they get a Mysterious ThingyMaBobber. How do you tell the difference between Medicinal Marijuana, Regular Marijuana (Marijuana w/ 0 Nicotine, but not made with pronounced medicinal properties), and Marijuana w/ Nicotine?
3: If anyone can name a Socialist-type Government that lived over 100 years, with its people very happy and content, please let me know.  I will give you uhhhhh...... A Mysterious Something.
4: I want to say more, but someone is about to give a speech and I need to listen. :)

¹: Only when certain properties are pronounced and other certain properties are taken away entirely.

You should read thomas Piketti, you can work hard, but it is not because you work that you are rich, you can work very hard at your job and you will stay poor, because you never had any control on your job, hard work, no pay. so please, don't give me the argument, but rich work hard, they are not rich because they work so much harder then people, especially with the Stock exchange, you can rich, with nearly no work, but with other's money. you place it and pray....
People like Bill gates are a minority, you have much more chance of being rich by marrying someone who is already rich then working hard for the rest of your life.
i plainly agree about working people being rewarded for their work, but what is good work ? why for two people who work, one gain 12 000 per years, and the others, 2 billions, that make no sense for me.

1 IN the times, we though the people could make a mistake, so we believe the poeple should vote for sage who will voted for president, in contemporary system, that is Cuba electoral system. you should get of electoral collegue are they are a ting of the past, the past when we where scared of democracy.
2 How much death Alcohol cause per years, it is legal, same thing for marijuana, if we don't control it, the organised crime will, nature hate emptyness, whenever there is emptyness, nature tend ot fill with power.
3 I don't even recognize Cuba as a socialist country. much less the URSS and I don't even know if I hate more China or North Korea,.

Luna_blade : sorry, I but yeah, I forgot about war,  I don't view war as acceptable.

And to answer Fox on losing jobs. well we don't discuss jobs, at the time, even slaves had jobs, we are discutting the working's condition and everyone deserve to get a wage on which they can live. as I said in the same post, I see no reason for a guy winning 500 times the avarage wage, maybe 5 or 10, but that is much too high and not even needed, that is plain greed.

@"free" = Well, yeah, free in its true form might not exist, but I think he means what can be easily done with little thought/work. Think of it like rounding a figure... if something costs $9.99, you might say it's worth $10.
Of course, I mean as right, but the right has a cost, just as me writing on this forum cost me time.


PS. If we are to only talk about taxes, we should put up a new topic.

Uhhh.  SO MUCH POSTS... I'm leaving this topic. I said what I wanted to say and that's it.
Thank you all for your ideas, and I hope you enjoyed mine.

@Luna_Blade: I agree, too much... Heheh... that's what you get when you bring in the political debates ! (I can see why some forums/places don't allow for discussions of politics and religion.)

And if anyone wonders why I brought up jobs, it was because I was reading a post from Role earlier in this topic...