My true views

Raphael

Hugh, we barely have muskets

Moriarty

ShortAmerican wrote:

I would simply set up a seperate optional health care/insurance system integrated with the government. You can give money to it if you wish, its almost like social security, and the money will be doled out, if you get hurt, you get paid.

So you want the government to run private health insurance. What a great idea! ... unless you can't afford to pay the monthly cost. But you can always fall back on the public health service (medicare) system then, can't you? Oh wait, you want to eliminate that too? Hmm. So what happens to somone in a low wage job? They're refused treatment. I see. Nice society you've dreamt up there.

ShortAmerican wrote:

Its an eye for an eye system. If you dont pay, you dont get funding.

Actually with the system you describe, you'd pay every month and you wouldn't get your funding anyway. The reason social insurance and the public health system works is because everyone is forced to pay for it. That way, the majority of (healthy/employed) people pay for part of the cost of the minority of (unwell/unemployed) people. Making payment for either of these voluntary destroys that system, so you're back to the sick having to pay for all of their costs and the unemployed recieving no money whatsoever, so they go hungry.

ShortAmerican wrote:

Also, hanidicapped people will be expected to give all their money to the funds, which will provide them with proper care and services.

So you make the handicapped pay for their own help. Except, they won't recieve much because the services will be vastly underfunded. Oops.

ShortAmerican wrote:

This still is not perfect fair for everyone, but this would be impossible.

It would make the rich better off. The middle and lower classes would come off far worse. But hey, who really cares about them anyway?

ShortAmerican wrote:

As for the unemployed workers who pretend they cant get a job, and sit at home watching TV and collecting their government benefits, well, they ar screwed.

.. along with every family that lives off a low wage if any of them become seriously ill or lose their job. But that's ok too, because it's their own fault.


Oh and Raphael, we have a fairly well equipped and trained army. It's just rather small (~10,000 full time iirc).

Raphael

And most of them are overseas on UN peacekeeping missions

Most of the military in Ireland is the FCA, who's artillery is an antique, and who got their rifles by trading butter for them

bus77

ShortAmerican wrote:

Newsflash! My government would not leave the handicapped to die

I never said you would leave the handicaped to die, I was just pointing out that some people need 24 hour(expensive) care depending on the handicap and unless you want the family member/s looking after such an individual to live in financial misery then state aid should rise up to meet the need.

ShortAmerican wrote:

I would simply set up a seperate optional health care/insurance system integrated with the government. You can give money to it if you wish, its almost like social security, and the money will be doled out, if you get hurt, you get paid. Its an eye for an eye system. If you dont pay, you dont get funding.

Im poor. But I have a choice! pay the rent or pay some money over just in case I get paralised in a car crash. What will I do:rolleyes:

ShortAmerican wrote:

Also, hanidicapped people will be expected to give all their money to the funds, which will provide them with proper care and services.

All their money? If they had that type of money in the first place they would'nt need your stinking health care system.

ShortAmerican wrote:

This still is not perfect fair for everyone, but this would be impossible. As for the unemployed workers who pretend they cant get a job, and sit at home watching TV and collecting their government benefits, well, they ar screwed.

See, that's the problem, you see the lazy people and want to give them a kick without realising your kicking others aswell.

Moriarty

Well, whatever you want to think Raphael.

It wasn't me!

I can see it now..... The Pope being made imperial dictator of Ireland!
*falls over laughing*

BTW, I like the idea of you and me modding Aonghus! That'd be brilliant. Hey Neil, feel like retiring anytime soon? How about you Podge?

mentalimplosion

It wasn't me! wrote:

BTW, I like the idea of you and me modding Aonghus! That'd be brilliant.

if this happens, i'll leave.

article6

mentalimplosion wrote:

if this happens, i'll leave.

And found the Continuity CTYI board?

It wasn't me!

Don't worry Ana, I wouldn't ban you.....
*smirks and thinks about playing Russian roulette with the "ban" button*

Why would you leave anyway? Me and Aonghus would make great, if a little insane, mods.

Aoibheann

It wasn't me! wrote:

Don't worry Ana, I wouldn't ban you.....
*smirks and thinks about playing Russian roulette with the "ban" button*

Why would you leave anyway? Me and Aonghus would make great, if a little insane, mods.

Not that it counts or anything, but i think you two would be great mods. Imagine the threats, the rows, the anger. I can see it now. It would be hilarious.

mentalimplosion

It wasn't me! wrote:

Why would you leave anyway? Me and Aonghus would make great, if a little insane, mods.

it's the insane part that worries me.... actually, yeah it'd be a helluva lot more... funner.

Raphael

You looked at my crotch. Banned

Yeah, it would be fun

Crash

Mentalimplosion wrote:

it's the insane part that worries me.... actually, yeah it'd be a helluva lot more... funner.

Ahahaha, forgot you were the one who decided i was "ruining all the fun on here aww Boo ****lng who etc. etc."

hi!

*waves*

s0l

SHUT
THE
****
UP

Stop pretending to actually care.

HeyYou

Ancient Greek guys (Aristotle or Plato I think) believed in the concept of the Philospher King, a completely benevolent and infinitely wise monarch who would rule with the best interests of the people at heart, free from corruption and self- interest. If such a person could be found, all problems would be solved. Alas, these people probably don't exist, and even if they did we'd probably have to set up some kind of screening process to ensure their trueness of heart or whatever, a process which would of course be subject to outside interference, and would therefore be flawed. Pity!

This would be the best way to run a state, in an ideal world. Since we don't have one, we can bitch all we want but eventually we always prove that Churchill was right when he said "Democracy is the worst method of government, apart from all the others." A funny man at heart.

Raphael

Thats essentialy what a Technocracy is Irwin

the evil lime

The problem is the same, the code for the computer has to be designed by humans. Humans are flawed and therefore so too is the code. Plus the guy who maintains it could alter it so he doesn't pay tax or whatever....

btw, you as a mod, doesn't work

article6

"Democracy needs a kick up the pants. The best thing about it is that you can give it one."
-unknown

EDIT: Ah, the Philosopher Kings, or the "Guardians" as Plato called them. Unfortunately, they had to be the kind of person who would never consider ruling over people, and therefore they had to be compelled to do it by the previous generation of Guardians. When Plato tried to get a friend of his who was King of a Greek island to start this system, he was locked up. This is called "progress". For further discussion, see also: The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Dermo

I would just like to say that I haven't read any of the posts that are longer than 3 lines because I'm a lazy fucker

thank you

ps. yaaawwwnnn!!

Stephen Forde

me same as dermo. And im so fúcking confused!!!!!!! I havent a clue wat u on about. hey where am i.....????

Mystic Fibrosis

article6 wrote:

Ah, the Philosopher Kings, or the "Guardians" as Plato called them. Unfortunately, they had to be the kind of person who would never consider ruling over people, and therefore they had to be compelled to do it by the previous generation of Guardians. When Plato tried to get a friend of his who was King of a Greek island to start this system, he was locked up. This is called "progress". For further discussion, see also: The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Thomas Hobbes went over this in Leviathan.It's interesting if you can find it. It would never work, for obvious reasons.

Rainbow Girl

Y'know, there was actually only one or two random posts, the rest were valid, till you mods / wannabe mods started talking about the thread. It might've picked itself back up, but you kinda put a stop to that... Oh well.
It is kind of a pointless topic, we did a whoooole lot of this in philosophy, and it always boils down to some flaws. No system's perfect, but in general most people accept ours as the best currently plausable.
Oh yeah, the Guardians are supposed to recognise it as their duty to rule, nd so will do it themselves, even though they don't really want to. It's a pretty good system, if you could magic it into place. But it'd take generations to bring people around to the right way of thinking for it, so like fascism, communism and all the rest, it wouldn't be able to get a proper foothold.
There ya go, that's my two cents.

Liquorice

ShortAmerican wrote:

The best cure to aids is not contraception, its abstinence.

Morals cannot be imposed on people. As effective as it would be to prevent those with AIDS or the HIV virus copulating, it would be denying them their freedom/right(depending on nationality) of choice.

Likewise, one cannot impose a certain way of life on a country. It is humane to send aid to these countries to help them develop, to build houses for some of the citizens, to ensure that they get fair prices for their produce etc., because their own governments are frequently too corrupt to do this. Going beyond that and influencing these countries politically, is ridiculous. If a corrupt, inhumane leader is in power, and the UN feel he/she is a danger to the citizens of that country, then the UN have every right to remove this person from power, but only in certain cases i.e. when aforementioned leader is denying citizens their fundamental human rights under the UN or is threatening the fundamental rights of citizens in another country.

article6

Liquorice wrote:

Morals cannot be imposed on people. As effective as it would be to prevent those with AIDS or the HIV virus copulating, it would be denying them their freedom/right(depending on nationality) of choice.

Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to do anything. All we are saying is: abstinence is the most effective way to stop AIDS as an STD. No morality involved. Just education, followed by pure, unfettered self-interest.

Barry Aldwell

Liquorice wrote:

If a corrupt, inhumane leader is in power, and the UN feel he/she is a danger to the citizens of that country, then the UN have every right to remove this person from power, but only in certain cases i.e. when aforementioned leader is denying citizens their fundamental human rights under the UN or is threatening the fundamental rights of citizens in another country.

In theory, yes. However, most deployments of the smurfs are for, or at least influenced by, political reasons, and if I ever volunteer to put on a blue beret and go peacekeeping, I wouldn't be suprised if it was for a political reason.

Crash

article6 wrote:

Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to do anything. All we are saying is: abstinence is the most effective way to stop AIDS as an STD. No morality involved. Just education, followed by pure, unfettered self-interest.

But thats self defeating and COMPLETELY unrealistic. You cant educate people NOT to have sex and reproduce, its a primal instinct. There for millions of years. Its also counter productive because in the lifetime it would take to remove aids as a disease in third world countries the birth rate would drop dramatically and overall the population would drop dramatically. The most effective way to stop AIDS, REALISTICALLY, is sex education. If you go in and tell everyone that sex is bad and killing them a)it just plain WONT work and b)if it did it would most likely be more detrimental to the country and population than AIDS itself.

larry

article6 wrote:

Nobody's talking about forcing anybody to do anything. All we are saying is: abstinence is the most effective way to stop AIDS as an STD. No morality involved. Just education, followed by pure, unfettered self-interest.

yes it works, but in the same way as the death penalty stops repeat offences, it's too extreme and do we really want to live in a world like that. Sure, we don't want a world with aids, but we also don't want a world without sex. sex education is the way to go but we haven't developed it enough and it's not adapted adequately to accept local tradition.

Liquorice wrote:

It is humane to send aid to these countries to help them develop, to build houses for some of the citizens, to ensure that they get fair prices for their produce etc., because their own governments are frequently too corrupt to do this

Aid yes, but it's not enough to balance to amount of damage of that we and corporations representing us do. When we send aid, also int he form of workers etc. we try to impose our systems on them, what works for us mightn't(and doesn't) work for them. With a large third world population mechanisation is only going to cause huge unemployment and greater strife.
Also, our methods will usually cause long term environmental damage.

article6

crash_000 wrote:

Its also counter productive because in the lifetime it would take to remove aids as a disease in third world countries the birth rate would drop dramatically and overall the population would drop dramatically.

You don't think there's going to be an impending population crisis?

Incidentally, where did I say that "sex is bad and killing them"? I don't like having what I say distorted, so without resorting to shouting, I ask you to bear in mind that when people say abstinence, they generally mean before a marriage/stable relationship. Except, of course, if they're simply being racist, and are too subtle to call it 'genocide'.

larry wrote:

Aid yes, but it's not enough to balance to amount of damage of that we and corporations representing us do. When we send aid, also int he form of workers etc. we try to impose our systems on them, what works for us mightn't(and doesn't) work for them. With a large third world population mechanisation is only going to cause huge unemployment and greater strife.

'They' aren't so different to 'us'. Last time I checked, we're all human beings (except Neil, who is of course superhuman). And imposing 'our systems' is not so bad when our systems are democracy, a high standard of living and the rule of law.

Crash

Thankyou for the superhuman reference. Em, since when does marriage ensure that both people are STD/AIDS free? thats a complete joke tbh, a myth perpetuated by the catholic church.

pinkpimp

surely if there was a solution to the aids/std's problem, shouldn't we use it here, where std's are rampant?