Occupy Wall Street protest

[willderphil]

About direct democracy. Do you think that elected officials are in some way smarter then the whole of the american population? Do you think that we would make bad decisions? I mean we probably would but so does the legislature but unlike them I don't think we would have a problem admitting we were wrong and fixing the problem. It might be an extremely hard learning process but when the everyone has a say in what is going on it will be possible to change it if we see fit.

 

[starsevol]

Why do I need to read the constitution? Can you be more specific?

Because EVERYBODY who is a citizen of this country needs to read it. It is basic, and I think it should be taught in schools.
It is the document that this entire government was founded on, and if politicians actually followed it, there would be alot less trouble than there is right now.

I am waiting for someone who is much smarter than I am to come in here and splain a few facts to you. Someone with a better way with words.

 

[willderphil]

Because EVERYBODY who is a citizen of this country needs to read it. It is basic, and I think it should be taught in schools.
It is the document that this entire government was founded on, and if politicians actually followed it, there would be alot less trouble than there is right now.

I am waiting for someone who is much smarter than I am to come in here and splain a few facts to you. Someone with a better way with words.

It is taught in schools in like 5th grade.

 

[willderphil]

Because EVERYBODY who is a citizen of this country needs to read it. It is basic, and I think it should be taught in schools.
It is the document that this entire government was founded on, and if politicians actually followed it, there would be alot less trouble than there is right now.

I am waiting for someone who is much smarter than I am to come in here and splain a few facts to you. Someone with a better way with words.

Ok I looked over the main body of the constitution (not the amendments) and it didn't say anything I didn't already know. So again I ask you why you wanted me to read it. Are you saying because a direct democracy doesn't jive with it? I get that. According to the constitution we are supposed to have a representative government. I'm talking about a major change to the constitution or scrapping it all together that would put the American as a whole in place of congress. We have technology now days that could easily perform the task of the whole american people voting on legislation.

 

[willderphil]

I meant "I'm talking about a major change to the constitution or scrapping it all together that would put the American PEOPLE as a whole in place of congress.

 

[Nova_C]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

That is one of the core philosophies set forward by Karl Marx and its pretty much the heart and soul of the theory of communism. Ideally, people would contribute to the best of their ability and excel for the greater good, essentially the ideal that willderphil is talking about.

Capitalism as it is popularly considered today is the unfettered and unregulated application of market forces. Supply versus demand. Ideally, people would be rewarded for excelling with wealth because of the value they bring to their business or product, essentially the ideal that most modern conservatives talk about.

Unfortunately we live in a world where neither philosophy is workable. People lie, cheat, steal and generally make a mess of everything. Unregulated businesses engage in anti-competitive actions, price fixing, profiteering and abuse of their employees. It wasn't so long ago that unions were formed not because of some evil conspiracy, but because workers were not getting paid the value that their work was bringing.

And if people aren't rewarded for excelling, then the drive to excel becomes purely personal and just like with a capitalist system, people lie, cheat and steal. If you could maintain your lifestyle by doing the minimum work necessary then there is no drive to do more. Idealism doesn't change this.

Ultimately both communism and capitalism in their pure states require a level of faith in humanity that is simply naive and foolish. Both require individuals to co-operate with others for the greater good, to not cheat the system for personal gain. And both are open doors just waiting for corruption to pervert their respective goals.

The notion that an individual will work just as hard for the minimum to survive as they would for luxury is straight up self delusion. Strangely, both communism and capitalism require a level of selflessness that simply doesn't exist.

Changing gears, it's been a very long time since direct democracy was employed. I'm reasonably certain that the Greek city states had direct democracy and even they found it unwieldy trying to get 10,000 people to agree on something. Imagine trying to get 300 million. That's an intimidating task.

Now imagine trying to get those 300 million to agree on several issues a day. It's foolishness.

The thing is, California gave us a taste of what direct democracy would be like. Californians essentially voted on issues regularly. A tax increase required approval by the populace. Budget issues required approval by the populace. And guess what happened? The populace voted for social programs and other expenditures in order to improve the quality of life of the average Californian. Sounds great. It is. But then the consistently refused to increase taxes. Every vote on a tax increase to pay for all the programs they had approved failed. And so the Californian state government went bankrupt. And now their programs are being slashed because there's no money to pay for them.

Ultimately, Men in Black (Of all things) got it right: A person is smart. People are stupid and panicky. If every governmental decision was handed over to the populace the government would cease to function. You look at today where most people won't even put in the minimum amount of effort required to educate themselves about the issues their representatives are talking about, preferring to simply be told what to believe by whatever politician is the most charming and appeals to their preconceived notions the most. Now imagine that those people who are refusing to educate themselves are asked questions regarding scientific funding, school curriculum and law enforcement. Do you really want the majority making those decisions?

I certainly don't. The majority has an abysmal record.

 

[niki_g]

I can't say that I went through and read all four pages of this thread, but I just wanted to state that I'm glad that this is here. Yeah, it's a sensitive heated topic. My job is in political non-profits and I have these conversations everyday. The conversation is probably the most important part of it all, the fact that we are involved, aware, and paying attention to the world around it. I believe we all stopped paying attention for a period of time there, and it's ok that we disagree. It's the conversation that is important.

Thanks.

 

[tsst]

Theoretical question. What do you think would happen if there was a law that made it to where every job got paid the same amount of money an hour except for dangerous jobs that risk your life. What if no matter if you ran your own business or worked for someone else you got paid the same. What if higher education was free no matter what you wanted to do and acceptance into universities was based solely on academic performance and not at all on ability to pay.

Personally I think that everything would be better. I think people would move to jobs that make them happy. Of course a job would have to be available for a person to have. I'm not talking about everyone getting their dream job if there is no demand for it but a person who is lazy and not very motivated and doesn't want to go through a lot of training and wants low stress could go for a fast food job or as a garbage man and people who want to help others would go into health or education professions and I feel that most people more than now would be able to fill their place in life with an over all good standard of living. Let me know what you think.

Theoretical answer. I think the economic structure would fail. How could higher education be free if professors, administrators, grounds keepers, janitors, construction crews, librarians, maintenance folks, window washers, IT people, cooks, bus drivers, coaches, etc, etc, etc were all paid the same as everyone else?

Who desides who gets the dream jobs? What if you aren't the best brain surgeon but you try harder than everyone else do you deserve it? Why would anyone go through 10+ years of education and work long hours and be on call in a high stress job if they were paid the same as a paper boy?

What you seemingly are describing is a utopian communist society. It's a fable. Doesn't exist.

About direct democracy. Do you think that elected officials are in some way smarter then the whole of the american population? Do you think that we would make bad decisions? I mean we probably would but so does the legislature but unlike them I don't think we would have a problem admitting we were wrong and fixing the problem. It might be an extremely hard learning process but when the everyone has a say in what is going on it will be possible to change it if we see fit.

I general yes they are smarter though there are a few dolts. Yes many Americans possess very bad decision making abilities. Idealism turns to naivety when you state the general populous would not have a problem admitting they are wrong.

It is taught in schools in like 5th grade.

It needs taught in high school and college. And it needs to be taught by someone that understands it and can appreciate it not by someone from Berkley trying to subvert and destroy it. This nation grew to be thee richest, freest, strongest nation in the world in a very short time being a constitutional republic with a capitalist economy. The more we stray from that the more we struggle.

Ok I looked over the main body of the constitution (not the amendments) and it didn't say anything I didn't already know. So again I ask you why you wanted me to read it. Are you saying because a direct democracy doesn't jive with it? I get that. According to the constitution we are supposed to have a representative government. I'm talking about a major change to the constitution or scrapping it all together that would put the American as a whole in place of congress. We have technology now days that could easily perform the task of the whole american people voting on legislation.

I would challenge folks to strive to understand it not simply read it. Scrapping the constitution in favor of the opinion of today’s society? Extraordinarily bad idea. But my view is a little less idealistic and a little more realistic. :shrugs:

I meant "I'm talking about a major change to the constitution or scrapping it all together that would put the American PEOPLE as a whole in place of congress.

See above.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

That is one of the core philosophies set forward by Karl Marx and its pretty much the heart and soul of the theory of communism. Ideally, people would contribute to the best of their ability and excel for the greater good, essentially the ideal that willderphil is talking about.

Capitalism as it is popularly considered today is the unfettered and unregulated application of market forces. Supply versus demand. Ideally, people would be rewarded for excelling with wealth because of the value they bring to their business or product, essentially the ideal that most modern conservatives talk about.

Unfortunately we live in a world where neither philosophy is workable. People lie, cheat, steal and generally make a mess of everything. Unregulated businesses engage in anti-competitive actions, price fixing, profiteering and abuse of their employees. It wasn't so long ago that unions were formed not because of some evil conspiracy, but because workers were not getting paid the value that their work was bringing.

And if people aren't rewarded for excelling, then the drive to excel becomes purely personal and just like with a capitalist system, people lie, cheat and steal. If you could maintain your lifestyle by doing the minimum work necessary then there is no drive to do more. Idealism doesn't change this.

Ultimately both communism and capitalism in their pure states require a level of faith in humanity that is simply naive and foolish. Both require individuals to co-operate with others for the greater good, to not cheat the system for personal gain. And both are open doors just waiting for corruption to pervert their respective goals.

The notion that an individual will work just as hard for the minimum to survive as they would for luxury is straight up self delusion. Strangely, both communism and capitalism require a level of selflessness that simply doesn't exist.

Changing gears, it's been a very long time since direct democracy was employed. I'm reasonably certain that the Greek city states had direct democracy and even they found it unwieldy trying to get 10,000 people to agree on something. Imagine trying to get 300 million. That's an intimidating task.

Now imagine trying to get those 300 million to agree on several issues a day. It's foolishness.

The thing is, California gave us a taste of what direct democracy would be like. Californians essentially voted on issues regularly. A tax increase required approval by the populace. Budget issues required approval by the populace. And guess what happened? The populace voted for social programs and other expenditures in order to improve the quality of life of the average Californian. Sounds great. It is. But then the consistently refused to increase taxes. Every vote on a tax increase to pay for all the programs they had approved failed. And so the Californian state government went bankrupt. And now their programs are being slashed because there's no money to pay for them.

Ultimately, Men in Black (Of all things) got it right: A person is smart. People are stupid and panicky. If every governmental decision was handed over to the populace the government would cease to function. You look at today where most people won't even put in the minimum amount of effort required to educate themselves about the issues their representatives are talking about, preferring to simply be told what to believe by whatever politician is the most charming and appeals to their preconceived notions the most. Now imagine that those people who are refusing to educate themselves are asked questions regarding scientific funding, school curriculum and law enforcement. Do you really want the majority making those decisions?

I certainly don't. The majority has an abysmal record.

We don't agree often but I can agree with most of what you stated here.

I do however believe that a largely unfettered and largely unregulated capitalist system is the best performing to date. Regulations should be as absolutely minimal as possible and focused solely on curbing corruption while allowing the market to work as freely as possible. The more fettered and regulatory it becomes the less it works. Also as we drift more towards socialism the more we have struggled. As you pointed out about Kalifornia we can’t have all of these socialist programs and no way to pay for them. The development of a welfare state has encouraged underachievement and compounded the economic problem.

One place we have failed in the US is allowing market forces to be corrupted. Allowing corporations to influence politics was a major mistake. Representatives should answer only to the people. In part that is done by the electoral process but IMHO should also include any and all compensational decisions being voted on (controlled) by the people.

I can't say that I went through and read all four pages of this thread, but I just wanted to state that I'm glad that this is here. Yeah, it's a sensitive heated topic. My job is in political non-profits and I have these conversations everyday. The conversation is probably the most important part of it all, the fact that we are involved, aware, and paying attention to the world around it. I believe we all stopped paying attention for a period of time there, and it's ok that we disagree. It's the conversation that is important.

Thanks.

Great outlook. The conversation is one of the important parts.

 

[starsevol]

Theoretical answer. I think the economic structure would fail. How could higher education be free if professors, administrators, grounds keepers, janitors, construction crews, librarians, maintenance folks, window washers, IT people, cooks, bus drivers, coaches, etc, etc, etc were all paid the same as everyone else?

Who desides who gets the dream jobs? What if you aren't the best brain surgeon but you try harder than everyone else do you deserve it? Why would anyone go through 10+ years of education and work long hours and be on call in a high stress job if they were paid the same as a paper boy?

What you seemingly are describing is a utopian communist society. It's a fable. Doesn't exist.

I general yes they are smarter though there are a few dolts. Yes many Americans possess very bad decision making abilities. Idealism turns to naivety when you state the general populous would not have a problem admitting they are wrong.


It needs taught in high school and college. And it needs to be taught by someone that understands it and can appreciate it not by someone from Berkley trying to subvert and destroy it. This nation grew to be thee richest, freest, strongest nation in the world in a very short time being a constitutional republic with a capitalist economy. The more we stray from that the more we struggle.

I would challenge folks to strive to understand it not simply read it. Scrapping the constitution in favor of the opinion of today’s society? Extraordinarily bad idea. But my view is a little less idealistic and a little more realistic. :shrugs:

See above.


We don't agree often but I can agree with most of what you stated here.

I do however believe that a largely unfettered and largely unregulated capitalist system is the best performing to date. Regulations should be as absolutely minimal as possible and focused solely on curbing corruption while allowing the market to work as freely as possible. The more fettered and regulatory it becomes the less it works. Also as we drift more towards socialism the more we have struggled. As you pointed out about Kalifornia we can’t have all of these socialist programs and no way to pay for them. The development of a welfare state has encouraged underachievement and compounded the economic problem.

One place we have failed in the US is allowing market forces to be corrupted. Allowing corporations to influence politics was a major mistake. Representatives should answer only to the people. In part that is done by the electoral process but IMHO should also include any and all compensational decisions being voted on (controlled) by the people.

Great outlook. The conversation is one of the important parts.

YOU are EXACTLY the person I was hoping would chime in here. Your way with words is so much better than mine. IMO you are one of the most intelligent people on this forum.

 

[tsst]

YOU are EXACTLY the person I was hoping would chime in here. Your way with words is so much better than mine. IMO you are one of the most intelligent people on this forum.

:crazy01: Thank you for the accolades. There are many smart folk here I just try my best to not get too far behind. Nova_C is a good example. He and I rarely agree but I consider him a very intelligent individual.

 

[starsevol]

Nova, yes he is very intelligent. Overeducated maybe? Of course half of what he says goes over my head and the other half I disagree with!

Except that last post of his had some very vaild points.

 

[willderphil]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

That is one of the core philosophies set forward by Karl Marx and its pretty much the heart and soul of the theory of communism. Ideally, people would contribute to the best of their ability and excel for the greater good, essentially the ideal that willderphil is talking about.

Capitalism as it is popularly considered today is the unfettered and unregulated application of market forces. Supply versus demand. Ideally, people would be rewarded for excelling with wealth because of the value they bring to their business or product, essentially the ideal that most modern conservatives talk about.

Unfortunately we live in a world where neither philosophy is workable. People lie, cheat, steal and generally make a mess of everything. Unregulated businesses engage in anti-competitive actions, price fixing, profiteering and abuse of their employees. It wasn't so long ago that unions were formed not because of some evil conspiracy, but because workers were not getting paid the value that their work was bringing.

And if people aren't rewarded for excelling, then the drive to excel becomes purely personal and just like with a capitalist system, people lie, cheat and steal. If you could maintain your lifestyle by doing the minimum work necessary then there is no drive to do more. Idealism doesn't change this.

Ultimately both communism and capitalism in their pure states require a level of faith in humanity that is simply naive and foolish. Both require individuals to co-operate with others for the greater good, to not cheat the system for personal gain. And both are open doors just waiting for corruption to pervert their respective goals.

The notion that an individual will work just as hard for the minimum to survive as they would for luxury is straight up self delusion. Strangely, both communism and capitalism require a level of selflessness that simply doesn't exist.

Changing gears, it's been a very long time since direct democracy was employed. I'm reasonably certain that the Greek city states had direct democracy and even they found it unwieldy trying to get 10,000 people to agree on something. Imagine trying to get 300 million. That's an intimidating task.

Now imagine trying to get those 300 million to agree on several issues a day. It's foolishness.

The thing is, California gave us a taste of what direct democracy would be like. Californians essentially voted on issues regularly. A tax increase required approval by the populace. Budget issues required approval by the populace. And guess what happened? The populace voted for social programs and other expenditures in order to improve the quality of life of the average Californian. Sounds great. It is. But then the consistently refused to increase taxes. Every vote on a tax increase to pay for all the programs they had approved failed. And so the Californian state government went bankrupt. And now their programs are being slashed because there's no money to pay for them.

Ultimately, Men in Black (Of all things) got it right: A person is smart. People are stupid and panicky. If every governmental decision was handed over to the populace the government would cease to function. You look at today where most people won't even put in the minimum amount of effort required to educate themselves about the issues their representatives are talking about, preferring to simply be told what to believe by whatever politician is the most charming and appeals to their preconceived notions the most. Now imagine that those people who are refusing to educate themselves are asked questions regarding scientific funding, school curriculum and law enforcement. Do you really want the majority making those decisions?

I certainly don't. The majority has an abysmal record.

I think that part of the problem with direct democracy in California is it's not instantaneous enough. I know I would vote to increase taxes a little on everyone right now to try and help out. The thing is there is going to be 3 or 4 tax proposals on the ballet and people are going to either be sick with all of them like government is asking them too much or only vote for one and then everyone only votes for one and they all still fail. Personally in 2008 I voted no on having the driver registration fee go up to help pay for state parks and there by getting into state parks for free with a california license plate. But then when I saw that not funding it was going to have real implications with parks shutting down I would have voted yes on that proposal then but it was too late. If there was some quick easy way that we could constantly be voting say using your cell phone or every voter be issued a device from which to vote maybe that would have been changed. Or if they make it to where every time we vote on something that we want (like the highspeed rail) that there is the funding for it included in the bill so when people say yes to it they are not only saying yes to the rail but also to some kind of tax that will help pay for the rail.

 

[willderphil]

Theoretical answer. I think the economic structure would fail. How could higher education be free if professors, administrators, grounds keepers, janitors, construction crews, librarians, maintenance folks, window washers, IT people, cooks, bus drivers, coaches, etc, etc, etc were all paid the same as everyone else?

Who desides who gets the dream jobs? What if you aren't the best brain surgeon but you try harder than everyone else do you deserve it? Why would anyone go through 10+ years of education and work long hours and be on call in a high stress job if they were paid the same as a paper boy?

What you seemingly are describing is a utopian communist society. It's a fable. Doesn't exist.

I general yes they are smarter though there are a few dolts. Yes many Americans possess very bad decision making abilities. Idealism turns to naivety when you state the general populous would not have a problem admitting they are wrong.


It needs taught in high school and college. And it needs to be taught by someone that understands it and can appreciate it not by someone from Berkley trying to subvert and destroy it. This nation grew to be thee richest, freest, strongest nation in the world in a very short time being a constitutional republic with a capitalist economy. The more we stray from that the more we struggle.

I would challenge folks to strive to understand it not simply read it. Scrapping the constitution in favor of the opinion of today’s society? Extraordinarily bad idea. But my view is a little less idealistic and a little more realistic. :shrugs:

See above.


We don't agree often but I can agree with most of what you stated here.

I do however believe that a largely unfettered and largely unregulated capitalist system is the best performing to date. Regulations should be as absolutely minimal as possible and focused solely on curbing corruption while allowing the market to work as freely as possible. The more fettered and regulatory it becomes the less it works. Also as we drift more towards socialism the more we have struggled. As you pointed out about Kalifornia we can’t have all of these socialist programs and no way to pay for them. The development of a welfare state has encouraged underachievement and compounded the economic problem.

One place we have failed in the US is allowing market forces to be corrupted. Allowing corporations to influence politics was a major mistake. Representatives should answer only to the people. In part that is done by the electoral process but IMHO should also include any and all compensational decisions being voted on (controlled) by the people.

I don't know how to break up the quotes to reply individually to each part but I would say that higher education be paid for through the government through taxes. It would be one of the few things you would need taxes for. I mean besides maybe social security all other social programs would no longer be needed, and of course you would still need a military. There are countries in the world where higher education is free.

You would have to apply for any job you want just like now.

About the brain surgeon I don't know I mean effort should only count as much as it makes people want you to be their surgeon. I don't see why this would be any different then it is now.

Because I believe that some people would like the gratitude of the high stress job. Maybe not. Maybe I'm too idealistic here but it seems to me that people like to give to charity, like to help others, like to explore new and exciting things. Maybe the kind of people I tend to hang around though influence me in this way I don't know.

About the "general populous admitting that they are wrong" I meant that the population as a whole if they make a mistake I think would be more willing to change their vote to vote the other way in order to fix their mistake. They see the damage it is doing and want to stop the damage. Where as a politician or any singular person for that matter would have to publicly admit that they are wrong there by shaming themselves and also have a lot to lose with not being reelected because of bad decision making. Sometimes for those politicians it might be easier to keep saying they were right and it was something else that made whatever it was go wrong.

About "a largely unfettered and largely unregulated capitalist system is the best performing to date." There are highly socialist countries that are doing well some even better then the U.S. right now. I don't know exactly what it is that makes a country do well. I know that historically the highly socialist countries of Sweden, Finland, Denmark have had higher levels of "happiness" however that is measured and they do pretty well economically. As of 2010 in terms of growth Sweden is doing really well, Finland is doing better then the U.S., Denmark is doing pretty crappy https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

About California and the direct democracy there see my suggestions in my reply to Nova

As for "One place we have failed in the US is allowing market forces to be corrupted. Allowing corporations to influence politics was a major mistake. Representatives should answer only to the people." this is one place where I totally agree with you. YAY!!

 

[willderphil]

I got a question for you guys seeing as a group you guys seem really conservative. Do you guys really believe that giving tax breaks to the wealthy to try to stimulate job growth works in a recession? I know personally that if I was a person who had people work for me I wouldn't be hiring new people while the economy is bad. I'd be putting those savings away if the economy goes even worse. While I think that if you give a tax break to the poor most will spend that money because it means that now they can afford to buy some things that they have been putting off (like buying some new clothes or getting your car fixed or going out to eat) and to me that seems like it would stimulate the economy because people are spending money so demand goes up so then supply has to go up to meet demand and to meet supply you have to hire more workers. A way that a tax break to employers might work is if you only get the tax break if you hire people and get a tax break based on the percentage of your workforce that is new but not just a tax break that has nothing attached to it.

 

[starsevol]

I got a question for you guys seeing as a group you guys seem really conservative. Do you guys really believe that giving tax breaks to the wealthy to try to stimulate job growth works in a recession? I know personally that if I was a person who had people work for me I wouldn't be hiring new people while the economy is bad. I'd be putting those savings away if the economy goes even worse. While I think that if you give a tax break to the poor most will spend that money because it means that now they can afford to buy some things that they have been putting off (like buying some new clothes or getting your car fixed or going out to eat) and to me that seems like it would stimulate the economy because people are spending money so demand goes up so then supply has to go up to meet demand and to meet supply you have to hire more workers. A way that a tax break to employers might work is if you only get the tax break if you hire people and get a tax break based on the percentage of your workforce that is new but not just a tax break that has nothing attached to it.

As it is right now, the rich already pay a huge proportion of the taxes, while the poor pay little to none.
What I would propose is a flat tax. I would eliminate all progressive income tax, property tax, corperate tax, fire tax, sales tax, inventory tax, telephone tax, ulitities tax, every single hidden tax that you pay and don't even know you are being taxed. Then I would set a tax percentage that every single person would have to pay across the board. Say 25% (or whatever it would take, I don't know the number). If you make $40000.00 a year you would pay 25% of that in taxes, if you make $40000000000 a year you would pay 25% of THAT in taxes. It would eliminate the IRS and all loopholes, and would be fairer for everyone.
As far as political affiliation, I consider myself a fiscally conservative Libertarian.

 

[tsst]

I don't know how to break up the quotes to reply individually to each part but I would say that higher education be paid for through the government through taxes. It would be one of the few things you would need taxes for. I mean besides maybe social security all other social programs would no longer be needed, and of course you would still need a military. There are countries in the world where higher education is free.

Is it free or do we pay for it with taxes? If we pay for it with taxes then how do we compensate the paper boy?

You would have to apply for any job you want just like now.

My job of choice in the utopian communist society is as follows. Rating golf courses Monday morning, consumer test hot tubs and beer Monday afternoon. Tuesday evaluate father-son projects with my son in the morning, Tuesday afternoon screen movies with my daughter. Wednesday morning taste test coffee at Starbucks, midday quality control testing of steak at Morton's with my wife, Wednesday afternoon road test new performance cars for manufacturers. Thursday morning consult on gaming in Vegas, Thursday afternoon judge beauty pageants. Friday morning test the latest fishing gear at random lakes, Friday midday test firearms for weapons and ammo manufacturers, Friday afternoon review entertainment locations across the country. Saturday morning evaluate college sports games in person, Saturday afternoon test celebratory concepts with friends. Sunday afternoon evaluate pro sports in person folloed by testing the effectiveness of mattress quality as it relates to sleep.

I know this is a six and a half day work week but I am willing to work very hard at all of my tasks. My schedule should be flexible at my convenience. I assume this job is available as someone does all of these tasks at present. Oh one caveat. I want to do this for six months of the year. The other six months I will evaluate the vacation industry worldwide.

Also I want to be paid the same as a neurosurgeon, rocket scientist, fund manager, CEO, business owner, movie star or pro athlete. It's only fair that we all get paid the same. I am relatively qualified for these tasks and the ones I am not I will go to free school to learn.

Sorry just a little levity!

About the brain surgeon I don't know I mean effort should only count as much as it makes people want you to be their surgeon. I don't see why this would be any different then it is now.

Because now the vast majority of people do what they do for compensatory reasons. When that motivation is removed there will be less brain surgeons. I don't mind my job. As far as jobs go it's pretty good. But if you told me I could sit at home in PJs sippin' a beer and screen new TV shows for the same money I'm out of here.

Because I believe that some people would like the gratitude of the high stress job. Maybe not. Maybe I'm too idealistic here but it seems to me that people like to give to charity, like to help others, like to explore new and exciting things. Maybe the kind of people I tend to hang around though influence me in this way I don't know.

I think you are right some people would but it would be a very small minority that would spend 10+ years in school, work long hours, be on call, live with the high stress to make the same money as the paper boy across the street.

About the "general populous admitting that they are wrong" I meant that the population as a whole if they make a mistake I think would be more willing to change their vote to vote the other way in order to fix their mistake. They see the damage it is doing and want to stop the damage.

I am trying hard to be respectful and not laugh at this but really? You my young friend have far more faith in humanity than they deserve. I would venture you couldn't even get the populous to agree on whether something was a mistake or not, let alone agree on a corrective action.

Where as a politician or any singular person for that matter would have to publicly admit that they are wrong there by shaming themselves and also have a lot to lose with not being reelected because of bad decision making. Sometimes for those politicians it might be easier to keep saying they were right and it was something else that made whatever it was go wrong.

Now you're understanding human nature some.

About "a largely unfettered and largely unregulated capitalist system is the best performing to date." There are highly socialist countries that are doing well some even better then the U.S. right now. I don't know exactly what it is that makes a country do well. I know that historically the highly socialist countries of Sweden, Finland, Denmark have had higher levels of "happiness" however that is measured and they do pretty well economically. As of 2010 in terms of growth Sweden is doing really well, Finland is doing better then the U.S., Denmark is doing pretty crappy https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html

About California and the direct democracy there see my suggestions in my reply to Nova

As for "One place we have failed in the US is allowing market forces to be corrupted. Allowing corporations to influence politics was a major mistake. Representatives should answer only to the people." this is one place where I totally agree with you. YAY!!

I will try and reply to the rest of this later.

 

[Nova_C]

Personally in 2008 I voted no on having the driver registration fee go up to help pay for state parks and there by getting into state parks for free with a california license plate. But then when I saw that not funding it was going to have real implications with parks shutting down I would have voted yes on that proposal then but it was too late. If there was some quick easy way that we could constantly be voting say using your cell phone or every voter be issued a device from which to vote maybe that would have been changed. Or if they make it to where every time we vote on something that we want (like the highspeed rail) that there is the funding for it included in the bill so when people say yes to it they are not only saying yes to the rail but also to some kind of tax that will help pay for the rail.

This is the perfect post to argue against your own point of view. It's interesting, actually, and it shows you're engaging in a fairly textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

"Personally in 2008 I voted no on having the driver registration fee go up"

Really. And then you saw the consequences of that choice, that state park funding was insufficient. Well, too bad, the vote already happened and you didn't bother educating yourself about the consequences of your choice.

You say you would change your vote knowing the consequences. Well, great, but that's still predicated on you putting in the effort to know those consequences before hand. Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't, but right now, by engaging in this conversation, you are putting far more effort into politics than most people are willing to do. Think about that. Do you want the majority, who have no idea what sort of awful things are about to happen, make the choice? Who cares what your intentions are at that point?

It's reckless, dangerous and frankly outright destructive to leave those decisions to general public. We elect representatives to (hopefully) act in our best interests. Their job is to educate themselves about the possible consequences of their actions. If they screw up, you vote someone else in next time.

It's not ideal because humans are too selfish to ever live up to an ideal, but it's the best we got right now.

Tsst: Thanks for the kind words. I know we butt heads basically every time we post in the same thread, but even if our politics are pretty much diametrically opposed, I respect how smart you are and how engaged you are.

 

[Nova_C]

Nova, yes he is very intelligent. Overeducated maybe?

I'm not sure anyone can accuse me of being overeducated. I have a high school diploma! Spent some time in a technical college but I didn't graduate.

I make it a point to research the things that I say. Most of the time, anyway. >.> People have said that I have a 'need to be right'. Perhaps, but I prefer to know what things work in the real world. I do that research so that I know if what I propose or what I suggest is actually going to work in practice, not just in theory.

 

[Michael823]

I really don't know the gritty details of "occupy wallstreet", other than the basic information on the news, but I think I've gotten a better understanding from reading a lot of these posts.

I must say, I really am impressed reading how much some of you guys know about all of this, and I can legitimately say that I agree with (or can understand) a lot of differing points of view. It's nice to have a discussion to read that's more about information than emotion, and I appreciate all of you who have taken the time to type some of your lengthy responses.

 

[willderphil]

This is the perfect post to argue against your own point of view. It's interesting, actually, and it shows you're engaging in a fairly textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

"Personally in 2008 I voted no on having the driver registration fee go up"

Really. And then you saw the consequences of that choice, that state park funding was insufficient. Well, too bad, the vote already happened and you didn't bother educating yourself about the consequences of your choice.

Your right I didn't really believe that a no vote would have any effects and didn't do research to do it, but if the voting system was more fluid, say you vote every single day on issues while you drink your morning coffee then you can change it. Most people in California know that start parks are closing now and if they also voted they realize they could have changed that. If the populous as a whole wanted to then change their decision we could do it quickly if we had say a voting device that was issued to every voter.