Which is more important to the US?

[Evil_Eric_4]

Capitalism all the way--
We wouldnt care what form of govt. we had if we where all as poor as Ethiopians.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"I don't deny it. It's why I support capitalism."

But you did deny it, right there in that quote.

Again, for someone who is so nitpicking with words, you make a gross mistake. Let's requote :

"But it's not because economics function better that people do live better"
=> you can have economics working better and people not living better. It's a possibility. Now, you can also have economics working better and people living better. It's another possibility.

"Capitalism certainly is a major reason people live better."
=> I don't deny the fact that capitalism is a major reason of progress in quality of life. I just say that it's nor the only reason, nor a sufficient reason on its own.

--"The society guarantee to the individual that it will provides him basic services (aka, it will protect its rights)."

Here is another area you are mistaken, at least as far as the current US government goes. Supreme Court decisions say that the police have no obligation to protect the citizens of the US. They've just got to catch them afterwards. They've also ruled that there is no "right" to Social Security, that no one will definitely get it. Our current government is not guaranteeing us anything but that we will need to be paying our taxes again next year.

I'm not mistaken at all. If USA has a such strange conception of police that they are not required to protect citizen, it's USA problem. I'm glad to live in a country which consider that police's duty is to protect people. Same for Social Security : the fact that USA does not recognize the right of having health care don't means that this right doesn't exist. After all, most dictatorship consider that people don't have the right of free speech, and I'm still having it.

--"If someone does not want to pay for these services, then fine, he can."

He can what? Get arrested and sent to jail, is what.

If someone don't work, he can't gain money to buy food or cultivate the food, and he'll die out of hunger. You have no problem with that. Though, you have problem accepting that someone who don't pay his taxes goes to jail.
Someone CAN decide to not pay his taxes, just like someone can decide to not work to make a living. In both cases, he just have to deal with the consequence. He can also decide to leave the society he is in and live somewhere else. Nobody prevents him to do it.
Again : the society guarantees people that their natural rights will be enforced. The taxes are the counterparts to give the society the means to enforce these rights. Refusing to pay taxes represent the decision to not giving the society the means to enforce the natural rights => taking the decision to remove the enforcement of your rights. If you are then imprisonned/killed/any other infringement of your rights, nothing wrong, as you DECIDED to remove the enforcement of your rights.

--"By true decision, I mean a decision that you will make if you fully understand its consequences."

Why do you persist in extending concepts so far beyond the necessary? This is one thing reading some of Rand's work would help.

Rand's Razor: "Concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"
— the corollary of which is:
"nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."

Because it's not beyond the necessary. It's short-sighted to say that someone has a free will while having no way to really decide what is good for him since he don't have the knowledge. It's like to put someone in jail and say him he's free : well, yes, strictly speaking, he's free in the jail, he can go anywhere and do anything as long he stays in the jail. Would you consider that he's really free ?
Replace the jail with ignorance, and you have the same situation. The man will still won't have absolute power, and be restrained by some ignorance, just like we are not free to move at the surface of Earth (we have the gravity that prevent us to fly, the oceans that prevent us to walk, etc.).
But it's still the minimal level of freedom we can consider necessary.

Making a decision on incomplete knowledge is still making a decision. Lack of knowledge does not prevent free will, which is a good thing since no one on Earth knows everything (which, by your logic, would mean no one on Earth has free will).

No one on Earth has absolute free will, that's obvious. Still, a minimal level of education ensure a minimal level of free will. The minimal level of education is again something in the grey area : when do you consider that someone has got enough knowledge to reach this level ?
Still, that does not remove the necessity of giving anyone a way to gain this knowledge, in the form of a state-funded education system.

--"and is a good way to ensure a minimal level of education to anyone."

No, it certainly isn't. A lot of what goes on in US public schools is worse than no schooling whatsoever. The standard teaching methods used here are much more suitable for making sure a student will never be able to learn than they are for actually teaching anything.

Again, that's a US problem. If your education system stink, it's because you can't manage to have a good one. I don't see what is the link with the right to have an education.
There is murders. Does it means that then, because the government is not able to enforce correctly the right of life, this right has to be removed ?

--"It does still not invalidate that it can be right."

Sure it does, since there are no such things as positive rights.
Rights cannot conflict. That is in their very nature. Positive "rights", as even you admit, can and do conflict. Therefore they cannot be rights.

Well, ok, I see your point : if it's not according my views, it's wrong.
Sorry dude, but it's not because you don't like it that it does not exist.
Get an open mind.
Positive rights do conflict ? BUT OF COURSE THEY DO !
And ? Right of freedom conflict with right of life as I can't kill someone without infringing his rights. Still, both rights exist, right ?
Every right is constantly interfering with others, and the hard part of justice is to decide when the infringement of one outweight the infringement of another.
World is not black and white, it's filled with grey areas. Conflicts with rights are these grey areas.

--"He is not responsible of the actions of his parents,"

So you just want to punish his parents because they're rich, then? I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

You're twisting my words. Where do I ever talked about punishing anyone ?
I just said that it's not because someone has richer parents that he deserve anything more than someone who has got poorer parents.

Look, the only way to achieve what you've stated as your goal here is to turn to government run creches. Let the government take the kids away from their parents at birth, stick them in identical cubicles in identical nurseries, raised by identical teachers in identical schools...
See the problem here?

You're caricaturing what I mean. As I said earlier, a little inequality is not intolerable. But anyhow should have access to the same basic standards regardless to his money.

--"On the education point, you seem to underestimate a lot its effect and its impact on people."

Not at all. I just happen to have direct experience with the US public "education" system, which I do not think you do. Things can be much, much worse than you assume.

Again, USA do not represent the world. I'm talking about principles, not particular case.

--"Lobbies that can force a government to alter its decision"

This is an example of corruption in government, not the evils of capitalism.

The example of lobbies is just an example of how becoming richer gives you more power. There is plenty of legal ways to alter the society just because you have the financial means to do.

--"The point I tried to made is that people were able to change the society just because they had enough money to do so"

What people? Lobbyists? I covered that one. Rich people in general? Well, I'd suggest that people like Mel Gibson influence society through their career, not through their money.

I'd suggest that people like Bill Gates influence the world much more throught the actions of their companies than throught their career.

[Wraith]

--"I just say that it's nor the only reason, nor a sufficient reason on its own."

That's what you're saying now, but that's not a reasonable interpretation of your original quote.

--"Same for Social Security : the fact that USA does not recognize the right of having health care don't means that this right doesn't exist"

Social Security is the retirement Ponzi scheme, it has nothing to do with healthcare (yet).
This, again, gets down to the definition of rights, an health care cannot qualify as a right.

--"Though, you have problem accepting that someone who don't pay his taxes goes to jail."

Yup. Someone who chooses not to work starves to death. He doesn't get beaten to death by a vengeful populace or government official. Someone who doesn't pay taxes is taken at gun point to prison, where he is locked up and watched over by other people. This is the key difference between natural processes and political processes.

--"The taxes are the counterparts to give the society the means to enforce these rights."

Only a very small portin of any governments' budget is spent on protecting rights. The vast majority of it has nothing to do with rights, much of that even using your definition of rights.

--"The man will still won't have absolute power, and be restrained by some ignorance"

And here's another point you're persistantly missing agian. Ignorance is not caused by other humans. They don't gang up on people and hit them with stupid-sticks. Jail requires active participation on the part of other humans to restrict people's freedom.

There is a very important detail about rights you are missing. They refer to nothing outside of a political context. There are no "rights" against nature. Rights refer strictly to interaction among humans.

--"Still, a minimal level of education ensure a minimal level of free will."

I'm going to drop this argument all together since you persist in that odd definition of free will.

--"I don't see what is the link with the right to have an education."

There is no such right, is what.

--"Right of freedom conflict with right of life as I can't kill someone without infringing his rights."

Nope. Your rights extend only so far as your own life is concerned. You have no rights to other people's lives. This is all part of the whole negative rights definition.

--"You're twisting my words. Where do I ever talked about punishing anyone ?"

You're the one who doesn't want to allow the parents to do what's best for their child. This sounds like punishing them (and him) to me.

--"You're caricaturing what I mean."

It's called argument ab absurdo. I merely take your propositions to their logical conclusion. This is a very good test for all sorts of beliefs.

--"The example of lobbies is just an example of how becoming richer gives you more power."

Lobbies can be formed by large groups of people without large amounts of money. Unless you're going to argue that the labor unions are composed of rich people.

--"I'd suggest that people like Bill Gates influence the world much more throught the actions of their companies than throught their career"

Bill Gates has done so quite illegally. Many of his corporations most influential actions should not have been allowed, and would not have been allowed by a government concerned with individual rights.

Wraith
"Weapons! Honey, let's bring weapons!"
-- Miyazaki Hiroyuki ("Kareshi Kanojo no Jijou")

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"I just say that it's nor the only reason, nor a sufficient reason on its own."

That's what you're saying now, but that's not a reasonable interpretation of your original quote.

The very start of all of this was that I advocated regulation of capitalism. Though I consider that it's resonnable to see my quote under this light.

--"Same for Social Security : the fact that USA does not recognize the right of having health care don't means that this right doesn't exist"

Social Security is the retirement Ponzi scheme, it has nothing to do with healthcare (yet).
This, again, gets down to the definition of rights, an health care cannot qualify as a right.

Again, that's only according to your views, not mines.

--"Though, you have problem accepting that someone who don't pay his taxes goes to jail."

Yup. Someone who chooses not to work starves to death. He doesn't get beaten to death by a vengeful populace or government official. Someone who doesn't pay taxes is taken at gun point to prison, where he is locked up and watched over by other people. This is the key difference between natural processes and political processes.

If someone look for a job, and has only underpaid ones, he needs to take the underpaid one. That's not a natural process either. You can argue that he can cultivate his food and build his clothes himself. I can argue that the guy who doesn't want to pay taxes can get out of the country himself and look for a taxless society if he wants.

--"The taxes are the counterparts to give the society the means to enforce these rights."

Only a very small portin of any governments' budget is spent on protecting rights. The vast majority of it has nothing to do with rights, much of that even using your definition of rights.

Bill Gates has done so quite illegally. Many of his corporations most influential actions should not have been allowed, and would not have been allowed by a government concerned with individual rights.

That's a misfunctionnement (spelling ?), it has nothing to do with the principle, just like rich people abusing the power they have are not problem of free capitalism but abusive behavior that have to be punished (see your own Microsoft's argument).

--"The man will still won't have absolute power, and be restrained by some ignorance"

And here's another point you're persistantly missing agian. Ignorance is not caused by other humans. They don't gang up on people and hit them with stupid-sticks. Jail requires active participation on the part of other humans to restrict people's freedom.

There is a very important detail about rights you are missing. They refer to nothing outside of a political context. There are no "rights" against nature. Rights refer strictly to interaction among humans.

I was just using analogy, to explain the principle. Don't see only what you want to see and don't act like if you did not understand the idea.
You can replace the "jail" with any natural condition that restrain someone to the state he can't be really considered free.

--"Still, a minimal level of education ensure a minimal level of free will."

I'm going to drop this argument all together since you persist in that odd definition of free will.

It's not odd, it's just looking at free will from a less short-sighted range.
If someone is chained loosely to a wall, he can still move each of his limbs as he wishes. Though, he can't be considered free. Lack of the minimal knowledge is just the same : you can make decision, but only blind ones.
If you walk in complete darkness, you can hardly say that you are choosing the way you follow. That's the same.

--"I don't see what is the link with the right to have an education."

There is no such right, is what.

For the zillionth time, it's not because you don't like it that it does not exist.
You can say you disagree with the vision of positive rights, you can't say they don't exist.

--"Right of freedom conflict with right of life as I can't kill someone without infringing his rights."

Nope. Your rights extend only so far as your own life is concerned. You have no rights to other people's lives. This is all part of the whole negative rights definition.

Yes. So the right of someone to live interfere with my right of free will and negate it as long as the life of this person is involved. Don't act blind : we were talking about how the rights conflict with themselves. I proved they do. Deal with it.

--"You're twisting my words. Where do I ever talked about punishing anyone ?"

You're the one who doesn't want to allow the parents to do what's best for their child. This sounds like punishing them (and him) to me.

First, see it at another point of view : allowing someone to have an edge over another just because his parents are richer (something he hasn't do anything about it), is like punishing the child whose parents are poorer. Both children did nothing about it, but one has an edge over the other.

Second, there is two ways to bring equality : put everyone on the lowest denominator, or put everyone on the highest denominator. You automatically assumed that I was considering the lowest denominator.

Third, if you carefully read what I said, I told that what I ask is just a minimal level of education for anyone regardless to money. It just mean that I support free education for all. If someone as the money to put his children in a private school with better teachers, then why not ? But I want for anyone to have access to the minimal level of knowledge and education that is compatible with true free will.

--"You're caricaturing what I mean."

It's called argument ab absurdo. I merely take your propositions to their logical conclusion. This is a very good test for all sorts of beliefs.

No, you take parts of my propositions and push them to absurd results. As long as you don't take the entirety of my propositions, it's just a biased twisting.

--"The example of lobbies is just an example of how becoming richer gives you more power."

Lobbies can be formed by large groups of people without large amounts of money. Unless you're going to argue that the labor unions are composed of rich people.

I was thinking about oil lobbies that applied pressure until they are authorized to drill more in a natural park (can't remind the correct word for preserved wildlife area).

[Dr Strangelove]

It's remarkable that the answers given by the Amereican posters are quite different than those given by the non-Americans. Perhaps the non-Americans are "information challenged".

[Wraith]

--"If someone look for a job, and has only underpaid ones, he needs to take the underpaid one. That's not a natural process either."

Why should anyone have to agree to hire him? He can make use of his own resources as he sees fit, which included starting his own business. I'll concede the validity of your comparison as soon as you find me a country I can move to and not pay taxes.

--"That's a misfunctionnement (spelling ?), it has nothing to do with the principle,"

But it does have to do with the principle. Taxes are not voluntary, so this sort of corruption is inevitable. If we did something like contract insurance instead (ie. some sort of voluntary taxation scheme) then I'd agree.

--"I was just using analogy, to explain the principle."

And it is still a very flawed analogy. Your "free" education requires forcing others to provide for some. Education requires effort on someone's part to happen (in this case, more than one someone). It's just like your "right" to medical care. Both cases are declarations of slavery.
Not having asprin or a calculus teacher does nothing to restrict your freedom.

--"You can say you disagree with the vision of positive rights, you can't say they don't exist."

I can say they don't exist, because by my (and any proper) definition of rights they are a contradiction in terms.

--"First, see it at another point of view"

I do understand your point of view here, honestly. I was just trying to get you to look at it from the other side.

That you're willing to let the rich people buy better is fine (a lot of people I argue with don't like that, either), but that's still not the whole story. What about the single middle-class people who can't afford to finish their own higher education because they're taxed to support the education of others' kids? Or the parents who could do better for their own kids if not for those same taxes?
Things like education aren't free. Someone always has to pay the price.

--"You automatically assumed that I was considering the lowest denominator."

I assumed it because it's the only way it can happen. You can simply not pull everyone up to the highest level. No matter how hard you try, you won't make a John Elway into an Albert Einstein.

--"I was thinking about oil lobbies that applied pressure until they are authorized to drill more in a natural park (can't remind the correct word for preserved wildlife area)."

ANWAR? Heh. You could find better examlpes. The drilling will concern around 3% of the land area of the preserve, and the thing is in Alaska. It's not like we're talking a big tourist attraction, and 3% is hardly despoiling it. I see no problem with drilling there, although I also don't see the oil available there as making a significant change in foreign dependancy.

Wraith
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education."
-- Bertrand Russell