I'd be curious to hear some of the positives and negatives that people have over this, and which side weighs the most in your mind. It might be telling of a lot of points of view that I'd be interested in knowing.

Before I start, I'm Scottish.

I don't see the US as the worlds superpower, but as the worlds policeman. But more like an old school 1960s policeman, that makes its own rules, bends them, or just ignores them as it sees fit.

Now whilst the US does a good job for the most part in its self elected role of world policeman, I would like to see less unilateral action. History has afforded us organistaions such as the United Nations and NATO. I would like to see more co-operation between member nations, rather than the US taking out the nighstick and beating countries with it. I think with discussion, debate and moderation the world might solve more

From the outside looking in at the US, if I were a US citizen, I'd be asking some questions. Are all the tax dollars really being spent efficiently in this role of world policeman. How come there is never any money for homeless people, or unemployed, or those without medical insurance, but there is a bottom less pit for the military.

I also think the US can and does abuse it's role. It picks and chooses cases, ramps some up, and sweeps other under the carper according to it's own needs. The environment versus the need for oil is something that I am amazed at. There seems to be no thought for global warming for instance, as it doesn't fit in with the live for now agenda. Despite international pressure, Guantanomo Bay continues to exist. Again, it suits the needs of the US, so they ignore the international community, and goes it's own way.

So, in short, I think the US needs less unilateral action, more co-operation with the international community, and to look at the whole picture, and not just pick and choose it's fights

I think the US should step back from the superpower/leader of the free world thing. It's more trouble than it's worth and basically what comes down to is we get balmed for everything and get credit for nothing.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I think it goes beyond that... In our world today we have lost, for lack of a better word, Satan. The world needs someone to pin their failings on. It's been the Jews, the Commies, and now it's America's turn.

As for the issue at hand, I think it's essential that there be a leader. But it's also essential that a leader behaves in a way that inspires others to greatness. America has lost this value, probably starting back in the 60s. We let the values that made us great; respect for the individual, drive to succeed, the desire to improve ourselves through hard work and personal sacrifice, fade away. They have been replaced by shallow class envy, materialism, and perpetual victimhood. Those things are easy sells.

I agree that we, as a nation, need to step back for a while. Secure our borders. Secure our finances. Secure our futures. Then once we know we can help, we can go back out and fight the good fight. It's like the procedure for putting on an oxygen mask in an airplane: "Place the mask around your own mouth before assisting others". A dying passenger can't save anyone. Neither can a dying nation.

How is our nation dying? I'd say we've been pretty damned successful on all account. What does it say that we have by far the highest military budget in the world when millions of people don't have health care? A friend of mine spent thousands of dollars in hospital bills because she couldn't afford her health care. She worked two jobs, has a kid, and was kicked out of two houses for not being able to afford rent. Yes, every individual has the opportunity to succeed in this country.

The Bush/Cheney philosophy has been more or less, you're on your own. The truth in my opinion is that everybody would be much better off, including those of us who have been raised in good homes by financially well-off parents, if everybody in society looked out for each other. We've got the news media scaring us all half to death of crime, terrorism, drugs, sex. Lock your doors and take care of yourselves, the rest of the world be damned. Human beings are biological creatures part of a system that needs to support itself to survive. I can't stand thieves and beggars as much as anybody truthfully, but why are they there? Because they are just too lazy to get jobs? That immediate dismissal really proves lack of insight into humanity.

How does having opportunity make us happy in any way? The opportunity to what? Is that what you think happiness is? Work more and more each year, get less vacation time, buy a house, pay bills every month, get a nice TV and live comfortably in the suburbs with other white people who want the same thing out of life as you? Are those people truly happy? Are they happier than anyone else in the world? Half of all marriages are ending in divorce, 60% of people are obese, the environment is going to shit because of rising CO2 levels, parents are terrified of their children being treated wrongly in the slightest.

I believe in a free market system. I don't think there should be across the board financial equality. But there is a difference between having what you need and having an excess amount. And really, there is no stopping science. The more and more the human population consumes, consumes, consumes, the worse the earth gets. It's bad for our species. I think I have a right to question that lifestyle. I wouldn't say I lead the most virtuous of lives either, but I do get myself involved in recycling and volunteer work occasionally. I tend to walk or ride a bike as much as I can and I know its the right thing to do. There's nothing self-righteous about doing little things.

What are you doing that you think is good for the planet? The alternative isn't that we all go live in communes and live like heathens without electricity or cars or marriage, rather it is to raise our conciousness and awareness a bit. Because with 6 billion people living on a rock floating in a vaccuum, how special is the individual really? Isn't that a little selfish to be telling people that they are somehow special amongst billions of others deserving of the same thing you are? If those are the values this country wants to promote (and everything points to it), then the human race can't be expected to last much longer.

Intelligence will gradually replace resources. It's the nature of progress.

Elaborate on this a little bit, I want to hear what you have to say here.

Well it's not my point, but something I heard in environmental science that seems pretty true. Basically, as we run out of resources (oil, farmland, etc) we have to use technology and planning to maximize those resources, and to insure the survival of the environment.This includes development of man-made alternative fuels, the incorporation of farms and wilderness into stable, combined ecosystems (something that's really cool to me), ecovaluing, and other things. Hopefully, we'll be able to feed more and more people with less and less space, fuel more transport without harming the environment, etc, etc.

I think that will happen to some extent, but not enough to ever overcome the depletion of the resources.

I've always viewed economics, at its most base and simplistic level, as "IOU's to the earth". Wealth is the valuation of resources, and if there is no resource to back it up, the wealth has no value. What backs up the Dollar? Not gold, not silver, just faith in the US gov't. That's always struck me as a little sketchy. But it does free up the economy to grow. But for how long? Until we run out of some valuable resource and realize that all out dollars aren't worth shit?

Same thing can be said for "technology, and intellectual property" or however you phrased it. I am believing less and less in the idea that someday we'll be able to produce a "man-made fuel" that will solve our energy crises. Every new fuel technology uses more energy to create than it can produce, and in the end, there's only so much shit available to burn.

We have to become more EFFICIENT in our use of energy, and figure out ways to reuse refuse in order to squeeze that last bit of energy out of it. It's a pipe dream to think we're going to discover a new energy source to solve our probelms.

Because our country stands by and lets these things you mentioned happened. We don't want to hassle with accountiblity. Nobody cares anymore. They just repeat back whatever their respective tv pundits said the night before. You years agohonestly don't think the nation was better 10 years ago?



Why do you think this? What if I don't want to.. are you going to force me?



The oppurtunity to sacrifice my time and money to makes the lives of those I care about better makes me happy. Just my opinion, you are free to feel whatever you wish. You have the oppurtunity to do that.








Prove it.



But there certainly is self--righteousness is codemning those who don't do those things, and honestly it sounds as if you are doing that.



Seriously bro. Lets just stamp numbers on everyone's head, "break a few eggs", and get on with it. Who are you to decide who deserves what? Some kinda of philospher king?

g_v, have you ever read ishmael?

Of course effieciency is the key. When I say a "man made fuel" obviously we can't produce something from nothing. I think bio-fuels will be the future.

The nation wasn't "better off" at any other time in history. Its fucking retarded and its a myth people want to believe. Better off how, because less people were obese and we we didn't drive SUVs? Nope. Better off because people "stood for something" (as say, in World War II and against the godless Communists? Better off because more people believed in God, drug laws were tougher and people had less sex? All of those things are myths. You can't try and take people back to the good old days because they never existed. People are still people. I'm pretty happy right now, everything is fairly convienent, technology is usually pretty good and adds efficency to our lives. Now does that give us the right to ignore those who are less fortunate and don't have opportunities?





This way of thinking catches up. It will catch up with us. It catches up today in the forms of global warming (which is very real), globalization, war, poverty. How can you say you don't have a responsibility to look out for others, especially considering the prosperous society from which you come from. For every person living safely with food and shelter, I can guarantee 10 people are living in substandard or very bad conditions. Means can never and have never justified the ends.

There are thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons ready to be launched - we've come dangerously close in the last 60 years, even recently - that's not safety or protection, its stupidity. That is one nation, one group of people, be they Russia, France, England, Israel, India, Pakistan, and the United States - who would be willing to destroy the planet's entire ecosystem for thousands of years for what they believe in. Who builds the machines of war? Defense contractors, who get lots of money for selling their shit. Its not a conspiracy. They aren't necessarily coniving about destroying human populations or humanity as a whole. But are they still contributing? Yes, in a very big way. Money can motivate people to do great things as well as really horrible ones.





Yes, I agree. But is it okay to take your kids to McDonald's every other day to make them feel better or even reward them? So that's one specific example. Again, it has a lot to do with what we need, and what we want. Didn't Eddie Vedder say that? Fuck, I want a lot of shit but do I really need it? Does the Walton family need billions and billions of dollars while other people suffer? Their family succeeded at business and were good at what they did (if giving people atrocious wages is even good), they are entitled to more than others. But fucking billlions to build a fortress (which is what they are doing)? Maybe that's a bad example but I just came out of a Wal-Mart discussion.






And what is so funny? I think I asked you the question.





Well the U.S. consumes something like 25% of the world's oil, and our population only represents something like 5%. The country is big, so it makes sense for transportation purposes. But what the fuck is being tranported? All stuff that we need to get by with a little extra? I don't think so. The distinction is too great to make the argument that its perfectly normal and acceptable, and that we should continue down this path.

And secondly, you're asking me to prove global warming. I've heard multiple arguments from the other side, either we're coming out of an ice age or we're about to go into one, etc. Global warming theory is rooted in scientifc facts, just like evolution, just like the theory of gravity. The more and more we chug on the tit of fossil fuels, the more abyssmal the earthly conditions get. Global warming is almost regarded universally among scientists. What do these people have to gain in telling us this information? What do the environmentalists and activists who are saying "slow the fuck down" have to gain? And what does the capitalist system have to gain by continually ignoring it? You tell me.





I suppose for a lot of people involved with advocating environmental awareness there is a lot of self-righteousness, just like all other types? I wouldn't consider myself a promoter of the environment either, I just took out my trash and it was atrocious. But as citizens we really should be holding our representatives feet to the flames in these regards. People get informed, get angry, and then take action. Environmentalists do it, the Evangelicals do it, gun-owners do it, etc. Its a matter of getting informed and making the right decision. I don't vote Republican (and I have voted for local Green Party candidates, a few of which have been fairly successful here) because the Republicans have consistently proven to want to free up constraints on businesses, a few of which are undboutedly ridiculous and most of which are there for the purpose of protecting the natural surroundings and the animals and people that live there.



[/quote]

I'm not saying who deserves what. King Bush advocates bullshit philosophies about how humans should be living. I'm saying be a citizen, be a human, get informed, and make the right decisions on what you do, your lifestyle, how you vote and who you support. And that's above no one.

really...



why do i doubt that the implication here is that we should turn health care over to private firms? "universal health care" is not a characteristic of "a free market system."



so...are you saying she deserves some kind of assistance? or that those duplicitous landlords should not be allowed to A.) charge the rent they're charging, or B.) kick your friend out of those two houses. neither option is particularly consistent with free market principles.



do you even realize how incongruous these five words are? the truth, by definition, is wholly divorced from opinion. there cannot be multiple truths, and truth cannot vary from person to person. come on, man.



utterly absurd. you cannot be made any worse off by the addition of choices. and if you would really like to find out how opportunity makes us happy, then try facing an existence without it. visit any developing nation and see the sacrifice many of its citizens would make in order to have one-tenth the opportunity you enjoy.

it's easy to malign "burdensome" opportunities from behind your PC in your air-conditioned apartment, no?



really, dude, it sounds as though you are the unhappy one. and touting the moral superiority of your values and mores while maligning another's is the height of hubris. some might even say it makes you a bit of an elitist.



and who exactly gets to determine what is needed and what is excessive? where is the cutoff? is it okay for the joneses to make $130,000 per year but not $145,000? and what if they buy a two-year old used car as opposed to an eight-year old used car? after all, they clearly didn't need to buy the newer model when plenty of good, older models exist.

hmmmm...sounds eerily similar to "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs..."



of course you feel like you have the right to call into question any lifestyle you find mildly displeasing. but anyone who questions your particular lifestyle i'm sure is branded a judgemental busybody who should mind their own affairs.



but there's everything self-righteous about broadcasting the fact that your lifestyle is so virtuous.



so, if a person is not able to tally up how many cans they've recycled or how many reams of recycled paper they've purchased, they are of no value?

you are absurd. anyone, anyone who is gainfully employed is at minimum creating value for society. and there is an entire class of people who choose to work for charitable organizations, or for non-profit organizations. teachers. nurses. volunteer work.

it's never a good idea to impune the behavior and motivations of millions of people you have never met. and, for example, you can never be absolutely sure why it is that people do what they do. would you begrudge your luckless friend from above who was kicked out of two homes for taking a job exclusively for the money?



but you purport to endorse free markets, individual liberty, and respect for the individual? rrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhttttttt.



all humans, regardless of their circumstance, station in life, or altruistic predispositons, seek at all times to further their self-interest. no exceptions.

i invite you to prove otherwise.

i noticed you included globalization in the same sentence as poverty, war, and global warming. please elaborate on exactly how globalization is so menacing.



and yet you oppose globalization.



the more important question is, who funds the machines of war? the government, that's who. there would be no supply if there were no demand.



several things. first, sam walton did not get rich by impoverishing others. it wasn't a money grab. there isn't a fixed amount of money in the world such that one person's having money means another person has to go without. they created a product that people valued. they created wealth and helped society.

second thing. wal-mart cannot determine market wages anymore than they can determine the price of a 16 oz. bag of shredded colby jack cheese. i realize that this isn't a discussion on wages and income, but the point needs to be made.

third thing. this fortress you speak so poorly of...it didn't just build itself. the walton's needed the services of an architect, who requires the services of draftsmen and contractors and construction workers. and the laborers themselves had to rent equipment from the local equipment rental place, and they had to put fuel in the equipment, which they had to buy at the local gas station.

the laborers had to first frame the house, which requires hammers, nails, staples, staple guns, screwdrivers, wood...think of how many loggers, hardware store owners, hardware fabricators, engineers, etc were involved in the process. and after the frame had to come the walls and the windows and the roof and the garage and the lawn and the pool and the plumbing....and so on and so on. and this is to say nothing of the tax revenue that will doubtlessly be collected by your pal, the government.

the walton's helped the local (and not so local) economy in their desire to build their "fortress." so before you simply shrug off the house as a testament to self-indulgence, realize that such indulgences often have overlooked beneficiaries.



i'm curious - what do you mean when you say "get informed?" because i feel fairly informed, yet i disagree with you on most issues. so am i misinformed? or are you misinformed? i find it funny that most people who are quick to throw out that platitude (..."go get informed"...) are on the left, and it is usually doublespeak for "go read what i've read, watch what i've watched, and vote the way i've voted."

and what are "the right decisions on what you do?" again, i usually disagree with much of what you write and advocate. so am i, therefore, making the wrong decisions on what to do?

and "your lifestyle, how you vote and who you support?" the word "right" presupposes that there is only one correct way to live. all others, then, are wrong. and since it is clear that you have found the path to enlightenment and live "correctly," anyone who advocates a different lifestyle or vouches for different political candidates must be wrong. isn't this supposed to be an ideology of diversity, of respect and tolerance for the viewpoints of others? apparently, concerns for diversity are limited to race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., and leave no room for concerns over diversity of thought.

no, there's no arrogance in liberalism.



including you.

Yes



Says who? Canada isn't a free-market? Europe?



I was using it as an example. Take it or leave it. The idea that only individuals should be responsible for bettering themselves is phoney. I explained my argument in both of the posts above, so maybe you can proceed to address my notions about how a more stable society = more stable individuals. I never said anything about the landlords. Since when did I join the Communist party in this forum?



Thanks for the lesson in proper rhetoric, since it was so relative to the discussion and discourse and all.



Addition of what choices? You're taking purely abstract comments about what opportunity is, what it means, and tossing them about without even thinking twice. You're the one that is sounding like the fool. This whole discussion has turned into one lame personal attack against me and has nothing to do with the concepts. Try facing existence without it? Fuck that. Why would I even say I would, just so you could prove a stupid point? This is lunacy.



So because I have a house with a roof over my head, electricity, water, and a modem means I have no right to hold the opinions that I do? You're making me out to be some sort of radical which, sorry, I'm not.





Yeah, exactly man. Your rehashing ordinary talking points over and over again, and a stupid strategy your consistent with is to turn the tables on my own personal life, and it isn't working.



Yeah, what the fuck is excessive? You tell me. Nobody is dictating anything, I didn't even suggest it. I'm saying that is why additional social programs are a fair necessity and keeping wealth distribution in check. They are there for a reason. It is perfectly moral and virtuous to be humble and give everyone a fair shot. Not everyone has a fair shot, either. Look at the circumstances in which many people are raised. Look at your own decisions in life so far, how would you have fared, say, being raised in vastly different conditions. Environment plays a huge factor in how people are raised, and those who are more fortunate have a social responsibility to see to it that they are helped and provided for.



Oh fuck off. If you're going to question my lifestyle, hold that standard to everyone. I wouldn't exactly say I'm leading the greatest lifestyle either. The point is, what in the fuck does my personal life have to do with my opinions? You and a few other people keep trying to make these correlations, like "hahah what a hypocrite." The fact that you can even point something out like that means you know its all bullshit, and you're being a cynical jackass. You reserve that right, but just admit it so the rest of us can get on with ourselves, please.



Nope. Where did I say I was better than anybody else? You're assuming things again. Leave me the fuck out of this and keep to the topic at hand.



You hit the nail on the head. Nah, they're not. Sorry.



No way, really? Because I was just expecting a socialist takeover in the next few years to even things out a little bit.



Impuning behaviors? What the fuck are you talking about? You can certainly draw judgement on how various groups of the population or people in general act. That's why we have varying fields of science and psychology.



You're speaking of vague concepts here once again. Of course people have self-interest. But you can't for once tell me that society has little to do with it. You think the way people behave is because they're just naturally a little bit selfish? You think racism from hundreds of years ago has affected people today still? There's a cause-effect factor which you aren't recognizing. Trace things over time and see where they've landed.

Yeah, great book although it was like 3 years ago.

no, they're not.



maybe i'm just unclear about what you mean...are you saying that people being responsible for bettering themselves is impossible?



correct me if i'm wrong...but i understood your initial arguement to be that people are worse off for having more and more options regarding housing, employment, leisure activities, etc. i'm simply saying that no one is worse off for having those new and different alternatives.



that wasn't and isn't my goal. i guess i was just turned off by the overall tone of your post. maybe i was just looking to pick a fight.

i'm not trying to get into a pissing contest. honest.



of course not. but many, many people would kill to work more and more each year, get less vacation time, buy a house, pay bills every month, get a nice TV, and live comfortably in the suburbs. all in all, these are not bad choices to be faced with.



yes, actually, you did. you implied that some people have too much and others don't have enough. i was simply trying to ascertain where you felt that particular mendoza line resided.



i was not calling into question your lifestyle. i was calling into question the fact that your post oozed a moral indignation at those who lived a different lifestyle than the one you chose for yourself. and i have no problem applying that standard across the board.



you didn't, at least not explicitly. even broken_iris, though, picked up on the fact that your post had an air of self-righteousness.



fair enough.



how you cannot understand that a statement like "what are you doing that you think is good for the planet?" can come off as an indictment on all those not doing something for the planet (therefore impugning their lack of "responsible" behavior) i just don't get.



people are naturally self-interested, and, yes, society certainly tends to emphasize and exacerbate such tendencies. but "society" is not the source of self-interest and therefore cannot be indicted as the corrupter of men's souls. they were "corrupt", if you will, long before cell phones and land rovers.