Gore for President

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
I don't think we've ever had a period when the government was strong enough to do the general position of what I'm arguing for (as a generalization of the field, I'm just going to go with Adam Smith's definition), in that the government is 1) protecting society from outside violence and invasion, 2) protecting every member of society from from injustice/oppression from another member, and 3) to deal with neighborhood effects. I'm not saying we should 'go back' to this, but rather that it has never really been tried. The Articles of Confederation was a complete disaster, but that's not what I'm advocating.

And please, do continue to debate us because I really want to understand where your opinion is coming from because I feel either we are missing something massive in what you're saying or that you're not looking at the realistic alternatives to the society you're suggesting.
Alright here is what I think our government should do.

1) Protect our homeland (kind of a no duh)
2) Protecting every member of society from injustice/oppression (I agree with you here)
3) Keep our infrastructure/cities safe, orderly, and up with the current mode of transportation.

Though the definitions you gave I generally agree with, there is MUCH more that I think a government should be involved in.

4) I think a government should make sure that it's people don't destroy themselves by overusing their natural resources and keeping the business world as safe and fair as possible. How is this possible? Well if it weren't for laws being passed against monopolies and large polluters then the society we live in today would be alot different. 1) There would be a lack of sanitation due to a poor sewage system 2) We would probably almost never see the clouds with all the pollution 3) We would have built everywhere possible. IMO though some may not like it I feel that a government For the PEOPLE and by the PEOPLE should work to keep these people in tact.

5) I think that programs like Social Social Security/Welfare and medicaid/medical should be merged into one gigantic program. So that way it can be better regulated by the government and we can work as a society to make it as benefecial/non-wasteful as possible. How can this be done? Honestly I think it would have to be researched for a while to get a good answer, but I am confident that it can be done in a much more effecient way if we merged the 4 under the name "social security" and worked to close the loopholes. I also find the programs necessary, because it keeps people from starving and helps people when they are in dire need, which, in turn, keeps them away from criminal activity.

6) I also think that the government can do a much better job with education then the way it is right now. Right now our education system is terrible, tons of waste and our teacher's aren't well qualified in the most cases. I think that schools should ONLY hire people who have teaching cridentials, not those who are on their way to getting them.

7) Government should have slight regulation of business. Though I don't think we should tax the crap out of business, I think that it does need slight regulation to avoid situations like monopolies, the Enron case, and enviromental damage.
 

Sogeking

Shithead
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
3
i think the government should take children at a young age and inundate them into schooling.

should this thread be split?
 

AZN_FLEA

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
0
Location
.
no

to all people who would vote for al gore: if you vote for al gore i can guarantee your economy will go bust if he actually puts into practice his environmental policies of limiting carbon emissions from industry. im sorry but hes incredibly incompetent. his poor scientific knowledge is almost as embarassing as his ignorance. the "inconvenient truth" was a load of bull****. there were so many scientific errors in there it wasnt funny.
i remember him comparing the average temperature/water levels in the ice age to the ave. temperature/water levels in the 2000. (this is stupid cuz of the outside influences on water levels and global temperature such as solar energy and position of Earth from sun, it has nothing to do with CO2 levels). i also remember him showing scary images of manhattan being drowned. the hardest pro greenhouse effect scientests agree that there will be no more than 20 cms increase in water levels in the next century yet al gore insists that japan will drown by 2050. ridiculous.

if by chance that he doesnt put his ****ed up policies into practice there are better candidates out there. namely RON PAUL. i dont see any other candidates that are worhty of presidency.

btw hilary got caught doing something illegal. it had something to do with donors. dunno what it is exactly tho
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx
btw hilary got caught doing something illegal. it had something to do with donors. dunno what it is exactly tho
I heard somewhere a democratic candidate was receiving large donations from infants would that be her?



As for the Gore driving a jet thing. How else is he supposed to get across the country in times for his HUNDREDS OF INTERVIEWS? You tell me? I don't necessary agree with the SUV thing but in all honesty planes are still the most cost effective mode of transportation. Also since he is a popular/sometimes unpopular previous vice president. Planes and bulletproof SUV's are some things that he needs.
You know LB there is such a thing as TELEVISION! Man he could have saved loads of money by simply driving his SUV a short distance to a television studio and do all the interviews he ever wanted. Then again we now have you tube. Why not post videos and then you could have video responses etc. Again Algore is a huge hypocrite in my book.


As I read more of your posts, I just laugh and feel sorry for you because you are shooting yourself in the foot. You want more government control!? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you know nothing of East Germany before the wall fell?
 

Sogeking

Shithead
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
3
I can understand a bit of the direction he's coming from. Does anyone remember what Leland Stanford did to california?(the big four as a whole i guess)
 

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
I heard somewhere a democratic candidate was receiving large donations from infants would that be her?





You know LB there is such a thing as TELEVISION! Man he could have saved loads of money by simply driving his SUV a short distance to a television studio and do all the interviews he ever wanted. Then again we now have you tube. Why not post videos and then you could have video responses etc. Again Algore is a huge hypocrite in my book.


As I read more of your posts, I just laugh and feel sorry for you because you are shooting yourself in the foot. You want more government control!? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you know nothing of East Germany before the wall fell?

Dude where in my post did I say we need more government control? Where? Point that out for me. I am saying our programs need to be redone to get rid of waste and increase effeciency, not become larger.

Quit making **** up.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Alright here is what I think our government should do.

1) Protect our homeland (kind of a no duh)
2) Protecting every member of society from injustice/oppression (I agree with you here)

Though the definitions you gave I generally agree with, there is MUCH more that I think a government should be involved in.
That's where we disagree, I generally don't think the government should go much past these roles (though I don't stick to that exact definition, I was just using it as a generalization).

LB said:
3) Keep our infrastructure/cities safe, orderly, and up with the current mode of transportation.
This isn't what I meant by neighborhood effect - though it is my fault, it's government/economics jargon. A neighborhood effect is an effect on third parties that it isn't feasible to charge or recompense them for.

LB said:
4) I think a government should make sure that it's people don't destroy themselves by overusing their natural resources and keeping the business world as safe and fair as possible. How is this possible? Well if it weren't for laws being passed against monopolies and large polluters then the society we live in today would be alot different.
Why is it the government's right to tell me or anyone else how to use their resources if it does not directly hurt anyone else? As covered before, environmental damage has come from the government not respecting private property rights, allowing others to pollute minuscule amounts over a long period of time to build up large amounts of pollution. Less government control over private property and more private control of private property is needed to improve pollution.

LB said:
1) There would be a lack of sanitation due to a poor sewage system
There are already many private sewage systems across the United States and it is actually more common in Europe. Some non-profit, some for-profit, some corporative ownership, some not, and they all seem to be succeeding.

LB said:
2) We would probably almost never see the clouds with all the pollution
That's due to government not respecting private property rights, as noted before. It is a problem of the government getting too involved in private matters, the solution is not having government regulate it (and get more involved), but rather to respect private property rights.

LB said:
3) We would have built everywhere possible.
Why would that happen? There are quite a few people, myself included, who like nature and the environment and would be able to allocate their resources to organizations (be it for-profit or non-profit) to organize and create private parks and so forth.

LB said:
IMO though some may not like it I feel that a government For the PEOPLE and by the PEOPLE should work to keep these people in tact.
I agree, however I believe the government should do this by being an arbitrator in mutually beneficial voluntary agreements rather than the use of coercive force (big government).

LB said:
5) I think that programs like Social Social Security/Welfare and medicaid/medical should be merged into one gigantic program. So that way it can be better regulated by the government and we can work as a society to make it as benefecial/non-wasteful as possible. How can this be done? Honestly I think it would have to be researched for a while to get a good answer, but I am confident that it can be done in a much more effecient way if we merged the 4 under the name "social security" and worked to close the loopholes. I also find the programs necessary, because it keeps people from starving and helps people when they are in dire need, which, in turn, keeps them away from criminal activity.
I'd suggest looking into a negative income tax (what I personally support as a safety net).

LB said:
6) I also think that the government can do a much better job with education then the way it is right now. Right now our education system is terrible, tons of waste and our teacher's aren't well qualified in the most cases. I think that schools should ONLY hire people who have teaching cridentials, not those who are on their way to getting them.
Would you be opposed to a complete privatization of the public school system and the government paying only for the tuition of those in need? - allowing schools to specialize beyond what central control can offer, allow parents to have more say in their children's education, etc.

LB said:
7) Government should have slight regulation of business. Though I don't think we should tax the crap out of business, I think that it does need slight regulation to avoid situations like monopolies, the Enron case, and enviromental damage.
Monopolies are covered in #2, in that they take away the freedom of individuals to have an alternative to a particular exchange. The environment can once again me covered with close to no regulation and respect for private property rights, and with Enron, that's not a matter of regulation of business, it is the government acting as an arbitrator between private parties because the private contract made was broken (fraud, money laundering, etc).
 

N[U]TS

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
9
Location
Tx
Dude where in my post did I say we need more government control? Where? Point that out for me. I am saying our programs need to be redone to get rid of waste and increase effeciency, not become larger.

Quit making **** up.
ok, I will show you.




No I don't. Can you read?


Our government is only failing based on our poor financial/foreign relations. Hypothetically our government would be just fine if we didn't go to war for no reason and spend money that we don't have.

Look at it this way. If we let business flow as it was back in the industrial age. We would still be polluting rivers/lakes/the sky and we would most likely have destroyed everything on the earth. However since LAWS were passed to stop us from doing that, we have a better society.
So unless you like pollution/monopolies/no stable roads/no electricity/no running water/and no protection then you need a government regulate such things. And with a government comes laws/ social programs that help to keep people out of poverty and into criminal activity.

so you basically indirectly stated that you wish to have more goverment control. This is just how I am interpreting it. More laws = more goverment control plz correct me if I am wrong LB

here is another quote

I think a government should make sure that it's people don't destroy themselves by overusing their natural resources and keeping the business world as safe and fair as possible. How is this possible? Well if it weren't for laws being passed against monopolies and large polluters then the society we live in today would be alot different.
I know you mean well by saying this but once you let the federal goverment put their foot in the door -- well as I stated before you could be heading towards what East German once was. That is a radical statement yes but I am just making a point.
 

AZN_FLEA

BattleForums Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
1,388
Reaction score
0
Location
.
LB wants a socialist government.

i really dont think there is a competent cadidate from the democratic party. i know im not in america right now and i dont know much about politics...yet, im smart enough to know that al gore for president will ensure americas loss of status as a superpower. hilary seems quite incomptent as well. i dont know what the rage is about.
 

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
Then Flea you need to get your eyese checked again because you got this **** all wrong. Everything I listed is something the government already does right now, I just think that we can eliminate alot of the waste and make the programs more effecient.

Less waste + more things for the people = good.

NOTHING in there has to do with expanding the government from what we already have.
 

Sogeking

Shithead
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
3
you really don't think that in order to manage all the things that you propose, the government wont expand?
 

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
you really don't think that in order to manage all the things that you propose, the government wont expand?
It won't expand it will become more effecient.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
Lizardbreath said:
I just think that we can eliminate alot of the waste and make the programs more effecient.

Less waste + more things for the people = good.
Wouldn't more waste be eliminated and number and variety of services generally expand more through privatization?
 

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
Wouldn't more waste be eliminated and number and variety of services generally expand more through privatization?
How do your privitize something involving Protecting the environment, Border patrol, our police officers, and welfare?

Also, although this may be hard for you to grasp tipsy, not all people can afford health care at the current prices. Me and you (i'm assuming) can, but there are people who literally go from paycheck to paycheck and don't have enough money to purchase health care.
 

Tipsy

Respected Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
1,438
Reaction score
2
Location
Washington D.C
How do your privitize something involving Protecting the environment
For protecting the environment, I've said that many times in this thread already, but I'll say it again:
Me said:
That's due to government not respecting private property rights, as noted before. It is a problem of the government getting too involved in private matters, the solution is not having government regulate it (and get more involved), but rather to respect private property rights.
Me said:
The reason why that happened was [and is happening is] because of government The government is not respecting our private property rights - this respect slowly spread to rivers, lakes, and so forth, however it has still not been extended to the air for the most part (ie, if you pollute the air in my private property I should have a right to get compensation for it). Leaving the government as an arbitrator between private parties allows for a better environment, a more efficient system, and more freedom.
Me said:
That, plus I don't really agree with his methods to fixing the environment (he treats it like a flaw of the market, I treat it as a problem of the government due to property rights not being respected). So I don't really like him despite agreeing with the theme of his message
Respecting private property is how it is done - power from government to the people.

LB said:
,Border patrol, our police officers
It could be done through private contracting, however that's something I would only recommend that for border patrol, though others would say it should be for both. Plus, for border patrol this would insulate them from being moved to other places (like Iraq and Afghanistan).

LB said:
and welfare?
Privatize the systems in which the government has control over someone's money (such as Social Security, and when I say privatize I mean something nothing at all like Bush's half-assed plan).

Not everything can be privatized, but anything that doesn't fall within the definition I gave earlier can pretty much be privatized or at least done through private organizations.

LB said:
Also, although this may be hard for you to grasp tipsy, not all people can afford health care at the current prices. Me and you (i'm assuming) can, but there are people who literally go from paycheck to paycheck and don't have enough money to purchase health care.
We've already gone over this - the reason healthcare is such a problem in the United States is the government, privatizing it is the solution. Remember? The government is the reason why so many people in this country cannot afford healthcare. This country needs to switch to a private healthcare system, not pushing even further into socialized medicine.
 

Lizardbreath

Former Staff member
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,156
Reaction score
0
Location
New york
I agree to disagree tipsy
 

NewPosts

New threads

Top