Ogre Forums

They came here because this IS a land of opportunity! You CAN start with nothing and become whatever you want! That is why there are so many people immigrating here even today!

Believe it or not it actually is. At least it was for me.
I came here with literally $300, without any family or anyone to lean on ...

It took a while but eventually I worked my way to the top 10% of income earners and so far things are looking good.

Of course, it wasn't easy ... between having to pay $10 000 in health care costs because at age of 25 I wouldn't bother to get an insurance (statistically a safe bet ) and other mishaps but hey ... everyone has to spend their time working at a proverbial McDonald.

xavier wrote: Please relax and read what I actually am saying.

Heh - funny. To me I am the one being relaxed here. I guess it goes to show how differently two people can read things.

xavier wrote: I did not say that I consider them such. I said that the overall perception among the general population is that "environmentalist" == "nutjob" -- whether deserved or not.

Huh? Your earlier post:

xavier wrote: And it is in that spirit that not only I, but many of the overall population, tend to see environmentalists as nutjobs.

Perhaps you can see my confusion here.

xavier wrote: Understanding not only that, but why, goes much farther along the lines of meaningful discourse than reacting emotionally to "soundbites" plucked from a post.

My point was about whether environmentalists were using scare tactics. That "nutjob" quote was one in a series of relevant points used to present my thoughts. In my opinion it was a meaningful discourse, but if you feel this is getting personal I don't mind discontinuing the argument.

Jabberwocky wrote:

xavier wrote: Please relax and read what I actually am saying.

Heh - funny. To me I am the one being relaxed here. I guess it goes to show how differently two people can read things.

xavier wrote: I did not say that I consider them such. I said that the overall perception among the general population is that "environmentalist" == "nutjob" -- whether deserved or not.

Huh? Your earlier post:

xavier wrote: And it is in that spirit that not only I, but many of the overall population, tend to see environmentalists as nutjobs.

xavier wrote: Understanding not only that, but why, goes much farther along the lines of meaningful discourse than reacting emotionally to "soundbites" plucked from a post.

My point was about whether environmentalists were using scare tactics. That "nutjob" quote was one in a series of relevant points used to present my thoughts. In my opinion it was a meaningful discourse, but if you feel this is getting personal I don't mind discontinuing the argument.

Nothing to do with getting personal -- and I stand corrected on the point above and should clarify my position: I consider myself to be environmentalist, in much the same way that most of the people I know are such -- pragmatists -- and that I restrict the "nutjob" to the radical wing of the "environmentalist" faction in the same way that the extreme evangelical right wing are nutjobs. My point is that those extremes give the rest of the labeled community a bad name.

And the extremist factions do rely on scare tactics, and the problem is that the discourse on having as clean an environment as reasonably possible is and has been greatly polluted by their actions.

/me notes that this thread is going to have to be split up soon it appears...

Perhaps our opinions don't differ that much then. I also tend towards a pragmatic approach to environmentalism. Probably where we differ is our position on the hazy line between "scare tactics" and scientific research in climatic studies. And I certainly admit there are claims which straddle this boundary. But that's probably not something we need to split hairs over.

Huh? Jabberwocky, he is talking about splitting this discussion into two (Global warming at one side, Capitalism at the other)

I haven't followed much the discussion about global warming here, but agree that there's too much hype by environmentalists, but also too much manipulated information by governments. IMHO every data thrown to the masses should be cautiously analysed before accepting or rejecting it, and that's something almost every one of us forget (me included). What really makes me feel sick is that some people uses this as a masquerade for their politic campaigns This is, in a higher or lower degree, a problem that has to be issued, not a tool to reach the white house...

Kencho wrote:Huh? Jabberwocky, he is talking about splitting this discussion into two (Global warming at one side, Capitalism at the other)

Yeah, I was responding to the post above that one.

Jabberwocky wrote:But that's probably not something we need to split hairs over.

LMAO I misunderstood that statement. Sorry then

warmi wrote:I swear Sinbad has something against capitalism and I don't really get it.

Maybe you should re-read his post, I don't see him argueing against capitalism at all. Just that chasing short-term profit at the expense of everything else is a bad thing. And that money is not all that matters.

I'm sure there are few die-hard capitalists that would disagree that destroying your long-term chances for short-term boost of income is a bad idea. If you make profit by destroying the things that make our living possible, general living expenses (food, housing, security) will go up, and the amount that consumers can spend on luxury items will go down (loose spending, the one thing capitalism is built on!), hurting the economy in the longer run.

A clear example of this can be seen in the current economic trouble, caused by excessive (mortgage) lending to consumers with not enough earnings to ever pay it back. By destroying their financial situation, in the short run, earnings could be made, but in the long run they will default and the air castle starts to collapse, possibly taking the rest of us in a recession with it.

Not thinking about the environment, social and political stability, and other issues is ultimately self-destructive. It's deceptively tempting to write them off as 'someone elses problem' though...

warmi wrote:I swear Sinbad has something against capitalism and I don't really get it.

Nope, I just don't think it's the answer to everything. I happen to think balance between personal interests and social interests is a better model than the all-out self-interest that 'pure' capitalism promotes.

Capitalism is GOOD for it is THE ONLY force that creates wealth - anything else ( "free" health-care, benefits, whatever ) is a way to spend the money that has been created in the first place by guess whom ...

Sure, but it can't stand alone. If there's nothing but capitalism, people die in the streets, the rainforests will all be gone, and the world will be utterly polarised (even more than now) between the haves and the have nots. I'm saying have capitalism, but don't worship it. Balance.

There is a reason why EU has chronically suffered from a higher unemployment levels than US and why US tends to draw the best and the brightest from around the world.

An ex-EU US-drum beater eh? You guys are like born again Christians I say there's plenty wrong with both models - the US medical care system is completely f*cked up, while the protectionist policies of some EU states are also a mess. Guess what - neither socialism nor capitalism work on their own. Somewhere in the middle does.

“it's really not always about the money, in my experienceâ€

:wumpus: wrote: Not thinking about the environment, social and political stability, and other issues is ultimately self-destructive. It's deceptively tempting to write them off as 'someone elses problem' though...

I completely agree. The problem with worshipping capitalism is that it promotes certain types of behaviour above others; some of these are good (hard work, creating value), but some are bad. For example, in a purely capitalist mindset there is no value in creating a positive environment in which to raise the next generation, to provide equality in education or healthcare, or to address those sectors of society who have been left behind in the great chase for money (linked to education mostly, but also social / environmental issues. In today's acquisitive environment, it's deemed better (or necessary) for both parents to go out and work long hours, chasing that 'American dream'. What kind of social issues is this creating? Does anyone care so long as the dollars keep coming in? The dollars will make everything right again, right? Dollars are good!

The problem with capitalism is that measurement of 'value' as exclusively meaning 'dollars' is completely artificial. Sure, some can get rich and that's great for them - I don't resent them that at all. However we all live in an environment that is, like it or not, affected by more factors than simply personal wealth. You may be rich, but if your society doesn't adequately deal with the issues of people who aren't super-successful or who fall on bad times, or protecting the environment you live in, it's eventually going to affect you too, mansion and all. There's no direct profit in addressing it, so pure capitalists will just ignore it and the people that suffer most from it (screw em if they didn't have the chops to make their own American dream come true, right?), but there is an opportunity to improve the quality of life for all. Some people will willingly help with causes like this, but most won't. The only way to deal with it is via coordinated, funded social and environmental policy controlled by groups who can look beyond the next years financial statements. The idea that the solution to all social problems will all just 'fall out' as a bi-product of personal wealth acquisition is at best whimsical, and at worst a delusion adopted by those that feel they need to somehow justify their own selfish behaviour.

Capitalists need socialists to stop the world becoming an exploited, horribly divided wasteland, and socialists need capitalists to generate the wealth to fund the programmes that no business would ever be able to justify to its inherently selfish stockholders. You can't have one without the other.

A common mistake made by a lot of people is to mix up the free market economy with capitalism. While the market truly is the ultimate answer to the question of allocation, capitalism is purely a philosophy. There is no way around a free market, but capitalism is not even a good answer for a society, because it promotes the accumulation of capital in a few hands, which finally causes social gaps AND breaks the free market, as it creates monopolies - either on company side, but more harmful to society, on customer side, as with the capital, powers flows into a few hands.

I've on several occasions given up the opportunity of making more money in favour of doing something that I believe in, and this website represents one of them.

That’s interesting. You made a choice and it was your choice to make.

My problem with socialism is that it tends to take away exactly the sort of personal choices you are talking about.

If someone in their 20s wants to take a calculated ( and statistically very reasonable choice) about not participating in a health-care plan and perhaps redirecting all their income into something they find much more interesting and useful at this stage in their live, they cannot do so because it is illegal.

This is just a single example but there dozens other choices like this which are not available to people who happened to live a society that collectively assumes many responsibilities normally associated with an individual.

An ex-EU US-drum beater eh? You guys are like born again Christians

Well, not exactly.

That’s just my financial and what I call “quality of serviceâ€

warmi wrote:If someone in their 20s wants to take a calculated ( and statistically very reasonable choice) about not participating in a health-care plan and perhaps redirecting all their income into something they find much more interesting and useful at this stage in their live, they cannot do so because it is illegal.

Well, one won't be young and healthy forever or maybe is unlucky to need very expensive medical care at a young age.

Say you've gone the statistically save route and not put money into health care. You get very sick and it gets really, really expensive. Now you might be financially ruined because of your earlier choice. Well, that's been your choice. But you are not living in a vacuum. Chances are you'll have people around you that care about you. They'll help, limiting their freedom of choice as well. Maybe to a great extent.

My point is: enforced medical care means everybody gives up a little bit of their freedom so everybody can maintain a high level of freedom, regardless of luck. The same goes for any other enforced social policy. It is not about having no freedom but about giving a calculated amount away so that in practice there is actually more freedom.

jjp wrote:Say you've gone the statistically save route and not put money into health care. You get very sick and it gets really, really expensive. Now you might be financially ruined because of your earlier choice.

That would be your choice and you would be responsible for your actions! Greater freedom means greater responsibility! That may be too much responsibility for some people, but I do not think you should take any freedoms away from some people because others are irresponsible. As an adult one need to learn that everything they do has consequences, good or bad, and it is ridiculous to assume that any government should protect people from their own mistakes!

Chances are you'll have people around you that care about you. They'll help, limiting their freedom of choice as well. Maybe to a great extent.

I get you point ... but it is obvious to me that these sort of decisions should be made at the lowest level possible.
A family can easily attempt to persuade one of them to make a right choice and they are the most obvious and logical level at which these sort of decisions should be made.

Your approach is a bit insulting for it presumes that people are essentially stupid and need to be shielded from their stupidity by a collective effort.

CaseyB wrote:That would be your choice and you would be responsible for your actions! Greater freedom means greater responsibility!

As I said, it's a choice that doesn't just affect you but probably some more people. Maybe people you weren't even aware of at the time you made the choice. It's a choice that allows people to randomly ruin their life and that of others. And I think it is hardly ever possible to make a reasonable decision there. So yes, by all means I think there is no gain to allow for "greater freedom and responsibility" in that regard because in practice it doesn't lead to more freedom.

warmi wrote:Your approach is a bit insulting for it presumes that people are essentially stupid and need to be shielded from their stupidity by a collective effort.

I wouldn't call it stupidity, short-sighted might be a more appropiate term. But well, interesting. I was not aware of how large the cultural differences between Europa and USA really are.

And I think it is hardly ever possible to make a reasonable decision there.

But this is the road to serfdom ...

If your health is of concern to a society as a whole then what you eat will be as well, and so will whether you exercise and if you smoke .

All these choice will logically fall under the jurisdiction of the collective and most likely will be taken away or enforced on you.

It is already happening in UK . Some idiot already proposed forcing smokers to obtain some sort of smoking permit - generally a first step on the road to a complete ban.

I am not kidding here … this WILL happen because logically , any bad choice that affects your health , a fatty burger or a too much beer, will be something that will affect others as well.

Well, that is right. There needs to be some sort of balance. Otherwise we'll end up in 1984 or in a brave new world some day But I think there is a set of sweetspots somewhere in between total freedom and total control. And medical care is in my oppinion a part of it because it takes away the possibility for people to make some very bad choices and on top of that to some extend equalizes chances because I get a very high standard of medical treatment regardless of how poor or rich I am.

jjp wrote:As I said, it's a choice that doesn't just affect you but probably some more people.

Right, not JUST me, but it would effect me. Socialized medicine and forced health insurance effect everyone and I don't want to be forced to draw on a system that I don't think I need and, by the same token, I wouldn't want to have to pay for the treatment of others even thought I am healthy! I know you will say that I may get sick some day and I say to you that if I did get sick I wouldn't want to burden others with my problems!

CaseyB wrote:I say to you that if I did get sick I wouldn't want to burden others with my problems!

The point is I think you would burden others with your problems, if you like it or not. And you can't even know if you're healthy. Ever.

jjp wrote:The point is I think you would burden others with your problems, if you like it or not.

How? How would I burden others with my problems?

CaseyB wrote: Right, not JUST me, but it would effect me. Socialized medicine and forced health insurance effect everyone and I don't want to be forced to draw on a system that I don't think I need and, by the same token, I wouldn't want to have to pay for the treatment of others even thought I am healthy! I know you will say that I may get sick some day and I say to you that if I did get sick I wouldn't want to burden others with my problems!

It's the principle of solidarity. It is based on the fact that there are poor people who CANNOT afford private health insurance. So instead of some people paying moderate amounts for their personal health insurance, everyone pays a small amount to backup all of society.

Much as medical care has improved over the years, it is extremely expensive. A single operation can easily ruin you unless you are a millionaire, and no one's safe from that. So anyone must have the ability to possess insurance. Do American insurance prices allow for this? (Serious question, as I have no idea about them)
Here in Germany we have a very non-sensical system where both private and common health insurance coexist. And this is getting the common ones in trouble whereas the private ones are not affordable for the common German.

CaseyB wrote:

jjp wrote:The point is I think you would burden others with your problems, if you like it or not.

How? How would I burden others with my problems?

Well, if you get sick in a way that costs a lot of money and you don't have means to pay for it by yourself. Would you really rather ruin your own existence completely or ask for help?

CABAListic wrote:It's the principle of solidarity. It is based on the fact that there are poor people who CANNOT afford private health insurance. So instead of some people paying moderate amounts for their personal health insurance, everyone pays a small amount to backup all of society.

Doens't that lead to everyone paying more? I mean if there are people who can't afford it then the ones that can have to make up the difference, so they have to pay more and the ones that couldn't afford it before have to pay now, so they end up paying more too! I just don't like the idea of having to pay for something so that someone else will be taken care of. I have worked hard to put myself through school and to get a good job so that I can take care of myself and everyone else has the same opportunity!

CABAListic wrote:Do American insurance prices allow for this? (Serious question, as I have no idea about them)

There are two types. Individual health insurance is pretty expensive, but when you work your company usually makes a deal with an insurance company that lowers the price to a very reasonable level.