Randomness

[cjbreed]

in my high school we had actual fast food restaurants in the cafeteria. a tiny pizza hut, mcdonalds, burger king and the always delicious taco bell.

[theetruscan]

in my high school we had actual fast food restaurants in the cafeteria. a tiny pizza hut, mcdonalds, burger king and the always delicious taco bell.

Ugh .

[Faust]

Zam, I must side with theetruscan here. We are not actually dealing with pure individual liberties when society bears the brunt of healthcare costs. Now these individuals have infringed on federal and state budgets financed by taxpayers. So, the next logical step re: liberty would to be to say fuck the government financing the health care, I am keeping and spending my money the way I want, which goes directly to screwing the poor further, which is exactly what the Republicans want. And then we are in the world of shit.

[zamb]

i dont have the time to get into all of the details now, but what about government ensuring that these industries follow regulations and only sell food that are nutritious and not damaging to peoples health

Why not make the laws so that big corporations cannot prey on the ignorant and the poor by selling them garbage?
seems like a better plan to me, but oh, people like bloomberg are business men, and he essentially is running NYC like his own personal business, with his interest as a businessan as a part of his considerations.

I also think the structure of American life encourages people to live in ways that makes them fat.

will say more later

[theetruscan]

And then we are in the world of shit.

I saw that movie. It was called Salo. That was more than 15 years ago and I'm still scarred.

[cjbreed]

does anyone think that the 1,2 punch of free market capitalism + a representative democracy is destined to fail, but still the best option? it seems like it is cyclical. it provides the best possible life for the greatest number of people in a society, but eventually the concentration of money/power at the top and its corrupting influence on government and the exploitation and disenfranchisement of the working class will lead to its inevitable fall. only to be resurrected at some point and tried all over again by those who think they have learned their lesson?

just a thought. college was a long time ago and i really don't know what i'm saying

[theetruscan]

Without controls on the amount of votes money can buy, "free market*" capitalism trumps democracy every time.

* Anyone who believes in the concept of a free market after the age of, oh say 14, probably also continues to believe in the tooth fairy.

[Faust]

does anyone think that the 1,2 punch of free market capitalism + a representative democracy is destined to fail, but still the best option? it seems like it is cyclical. it provides the best possible life for the greatest number of people in a society, but eventually the concentration of money/power at the top and its corrupting influence on government and the exploitation and disenfranchisement of the working class will lead to its inevitable fall. only to be resurrected at some point and tried all over again by those who think they have learned their lesson?

just a thought. college was a long time ago and i really don't know what i'm saying

It's not the best option. The best option, thus far, is relatively free market capitalism checked by government when it gets egregious. Like in Europe before some of them drank the American kool-aid.

[cjbreed]

well yes. but the problem is that the "relatively" free component becomes more and more like "girls gone wild on spring break" free as as the difference between the haves and the have nots gets wider and the monied interests become more powerful and more able to buy the politicians that supposedly regulate industry. see: Citizens United.

but, for a long time, before the end is nigh, things seem fine because there so many "have a littles" betwixt the haves and have nots

[Faust]

You will see how quickly Europe will put out the greedy lights of the American mindset (already has been doing that).

The Financial Times, out of all papers, just ran an admiring article about how Finland had their heads screwed on straight and remained fiscally responsible while the rest of the Europe salivated at the financial mirage.

The Irish are back to making whisky and the Icelanders are back to fishing, Greece is on the brink of a violent revolution and Spain's young brains and savings are floating to the more financially responsible Germany. German banks don't even want to talk to American banks anymore. There is absolutely no doubt (for non-Fox watchers) about who is coming out of this debacle better equipped.

[Lane]

* Anyone who believes in the concept of a free market after the age of, oh say 14, probably also continues to believe in the tooth fairy.

There are some big babies running around that like to legislate the childhood dictum, "sharing is caring" as well.

[lowrey]

There are some big babies running around that like to legislate the childhood dictum, "sharing is caring" as well.

what does this mean? welfare?

[Faust]

what does this mean? welfare?

I think he means the social safety net. You know, the thing that gives people a chance to live with some dignity while they get an education or otherwise dig themselves out of poverty. But, who needs that, right.
According to the likes of Lane, social safety exists exclusively for the lazy bastards who don't pull their weight.

[mortalveneer]

I suspect it is a blend of the two types that have just been defined.

One's ideological preferences likely dictate the extent to which they think the category is dominated by one pole or the other.

Is there any way to create a social safety net that catches those whom Faust describes, yet ignores those to whom Lane alludes? This strikes me as the only type of social safety net that is likely to find purchase across the ideological divide that currently afflicts our nation. Do we want a "meritocratic" safety net, if such a thing exists? How do you provide stopgaps for those who aren't voluntarily choosing their inability to meritocratically advance, be it within such a safety net or otherwise? Are they just as culpable? I have trouble seeing it as so, and so the question seems to become (until someone designs such a safety net as highlighted prior) are we willing to subsidize whatever percentage of the less fortunate (again, a debatable point) that are willingly so despite innate ability to be otherwise, in order to capture that other percentage that is there through no culpability of their own.

I don't have an answer to any of these questions, but I'm certainly not wholesale sold on the federal government being the most effective implementation mechanism for many of these aims.

[theetruscan]

It's also entirely possible that Lane was just responding to my hyperbolic statement with one of his own.

Personally, yeah, I'm happily willing to have my tax dollars go towards padding the bottom line of the occasional lazy individual to dramatically reduce the suffering of the very poor. Not a second's hesitation here.

Were you saying level of misfortune, willingness to support, or percentage of people for whom one believes the safety net should be unnecessary, is debatable? I couldn't parse that parenthetical.

I'm convinced that the best provider of assistance in these cases is a government. The need isn't as targeted as most charities plans, and charitable giving is never going to match up to need. Government is far from perfect, but it's the only institution with the scale and structural design that can really address problems like the need for a social safety net. It exists, in theory, to serve the common good, and adding a potential profit margin into basic necessities, assistance, rehabilitation has always struck me as ill-advised at best, and destructive as normal.

How the current system implements all these things is a whole other, massively more demoralizing, conversation.