one of of the reasons i am an atheist is because i am more <--- 1000 times xD---> free being an atheist, you decide for your self, you take responsibility for your acts, not like a christian who thinks that every thing is god's will.
so my question is, i hate religion and do not believe in it because it shrinks my freedom, and if you want to be free, you should separate your self from it, do you think we atheist, who, also like me want to be free should oppose the government, corporations, capitalism and every agent who takes our freedom??
ok many people disagree with me and abolishing the government with the argument "who will stop crime, the leeches?.
first of all crime, why people rob you today? maybe if you are poor you will try to rob food because you were hungry, an individual will do anything that it takes to survive ;), instead of making laws and having brutal policeman why don't we eliminate the need of people to steal to survive?
corporate crime, corporations and people rob you in any level the can to perpetuate their power in the system some thing similar like the first example =) one of my favorite examples is the bank-
let's say, a poor couple need money to pay their health bill, so they go to the bank to asks for a lone, of course they will pay interest, in an other part of the world a rich man buys some financial products of the bank and the bank will pay him with interest, with the money the poor couple paid of interest their lone, and all this mafia, low wages, banks , high health cost is to gain profit and maintain the establishment of cartels and sick corporations.
leechers, well not even me want to go to work, to school in this stupid system that its made to rob me and maintain their establishment.
Well, I have to say... I do agree. But, as you stated, even the programs they have don't work all the time. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't offer them help. The problem is, we can't get to the kids in the womb (I think you already know that), and we can't force our ideals on them once they're born, either. It's a huge problem and there are no easy answers.
Now, at the risk of sounding cold, I must continue by saying there's no one to blame per say. I think there should be, and will always be, help extended to the less fortunate. I do know there are many, many stories, and that it's dangerous to generalize about the reasons they're in the position they're in. Reiterating this again... I think we should help... but, simultaneously realize... there will always be people who are less fortunate. We can't save them all. And, I do firmly believe it's up to them.
This may not be an appropriate parallel, but I'm going to make it anyway: I was raised Christian, and education has never been high on the list of priorities. My family was never well off, though I won't pretend that we were destitute. I was completely sheltered from any kind of real information about evolution and science. ALL of what I knew stemmed from a Christian perspective. The only way I broke out of this was because I knew something was wrong; because I wanted the Truth, though I didn't realize the Truth had nothing to do with religion. I had to dig really deep for answers, with no help from anyone. I'm now Atheist because I took an active role in learning and, essentially, in the direction of my life.
We can feed them, we can TRY to educate them, we can offer them public housing, etc... but they won't ever have a better life if they won't, or cannot, take an active role in their own success. As much as I don't think it's right to let people suffer (and I honestly don't), I don't think we should hand ANYONE who claims poverty a hand-out. It needs to be determined that they are truly disadvantaged and not JUST a victim of circumstance/environment. We've all had damaging experiences, but it's ultimately our choice how we deal with them.
They preach to no end about how democracy is broken and capitalism does not work because of greed and the way the powerful dominate the weak and poor.
Their solution to the problem is to then remove the only system that provides ANY kind of protection for the weak/power from the strong. As if suddenly all those people whose greed and lacking morality will suddenly turn over a new leaf and decide to do whatever is best for humankind if you just remove government from the equation.
Sorry but it doesn't work like that. It would be great if we could create a Utopian society where government and law enforcement were unnecessary, where everybody liked everybody, and all of society were merely interested in progressing humanity towards the greater good.
Reality is a much more brutal and harsh thing to cope with. All people are greedy to some degree, some people are utterly callous and uncaring about the welfare of others, still others are lazy and more than happy to leech off the hard work of others, and the kind and benevolent are VASTLY outnumbered by the brutal and repressive. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the greedy and uncaring ones are generally MUCH more willing to go to any degree to satisfy their lust for money and power.
There is no such thing as no law - when you remove the laws of the government, the laws of the jungle take over. Survival of the fittest. There will still be those with power - the only difference is instead of the ones that can lie their way there (and the occasional honest person who really wants to improve the world) that we have now it'll be the ones most willing and able to take it by force. The result of anarchy wouldn't be the complete fall of modern society that Sophie predicts, it would be a far worse place. A constant struggle for power with anyone in a CURRENT position of power having a head start and the rest of us having to fight just to hold onto the piece of the pie we have right now.
I suppose if you're a social Darwinist it would be a fun place to live but for everyone else it would be hell. There is a place where the only government is anarchy in the world today - it's called the animal kingdom and life is a constant, unending fight for survival. You have to fight for your home, you have to fight for your food, and you have to fight in order to not become food (or more likely in our case - slave labor) for someone else.
The real problem with anarchists is they have far too high an opinion of human nature, to an almost delusional degree. The real world does not work that way.
SabreNation says "That is not so much a failing of government, though, as it is of the American public and more specifically the conservative political world view. Again, a pitfall of human nature. There are some who view *ANY* type of government handout as wrong and they are fiercely defensive against anything they view as a government handout no matter how much good it may do in the long run." And there was more.
I'd hate to politicize it even if you are correct politics AND religion, are you nuts?!?!). I think for many people it is a throwback to our Puritan roots. Hard work begets success and if you are unsuccessful, then you simply did not work hard enough and don't deserve success. It completely ignores the fact of hard working Americans who are falling under the poverty bus and obsesses on "Welfare Queens" in an attempt to demonize the whole system. It is a failing of a too simplistic world view and conservatives have generally been guilty of that of late.
I somewhat agree, but I think it has more to do with outdated holdover views from the Cold War. A lot of Americans still hold firmly to the view that anything falling under the scope of Capitalism is automatically good and anything that could be classified as Socialism is inherently evil. They are still stuck in the Cold War.
The truth is that both systems have their flaws and the best possible way is probably a hybrid system a la China (hence China's positively BOOMING economy and middle class.) Of course, China has it's own problems. Mainly that it is a Communist, totalitarian state. However they've got the economy part right, that's for sure. However, a large chunk of America is still stuck in the Cold War and even SUGGESTING that an infusion of a small amount of Socialist policies into our economy MIGHT be good for us would certainly end any political aspirations immediately and likely get you killed on the spot in some areas. I mean, shit, Obama just wants a public OPTION for Health Care for people that can't get it any other way and people are holding up signs comparing him to Stalin for fuck's sake. (as if any of those spoiled suburban and rural American fucks could even BEGIN to imagine the hardship of living under a sadistic megalomaniac like Stalin but don't even get me started on that.)
That's where the disconnect is happening with the Republican Party right now and why it is in danger of becoming the new Whig Party. When your base is a combination of religious whackos and people who's world view is still stuck in the 60s and 70s you are in deep shit. Unless Republican/Conservative leadership wakes up and decides to join the rest of us in the 21st Century, that party is doomed.
"The truth is that both systems have their flaws and the best possible way is probably a hybrid system a la China"
are you crazy? now Norway and Sweden are hybrid states, but china it's just a totalitarian state no more words.
by the way, republicans are just sick, they defend a system where 45million people don't have health care !!! i also disagree a lot with obama but that's an other thread xD.
China's economy is quite ingenious. It's primarily capitalist with a large, powerful private sector. The government steps in and has partial to full control of things that play a vital role in the lives of all citizens. Energy, infrastructure, education, housing, health care, banking, and the country's most vital import/export industries - all are either fully controlled or directly accountable to the federal government.
The problem is that China's totalitarian government is in no way accountable to it's people for how it performs in these areas. So even if the infrastructure were crumbling, health care was as abysmal as America's, etc, etc the people have no power to do anything about it.
It is my opinion that the perfect system (or at least as close to perfect as we have right now) would be China's economy with America's election system (minus the ridiculous and pointless electoral college but that's a whole different discussion.) Capitalism is the primary driving force of the economy but the most important industries and businesses to people's quality of life are directly accountable to the federal government (who would possess the power to step in and immediately remove a CEO or entire board from power for example) and the federal government is, in turn, accountable to the public. All in all, it's a further expansion of the checks and balances system that lies at the core of democracy.
i agree with you, but a hybrid state between capitalism and socialism would be Sweden or Norway, china was never communist, nether the USSR, and cuba is near it, but again it has a totalitarian government.
Yes they are/were. They were not communist in the truest Marxist sense of the term but that's simply because none of them has managed to get past the initial, supposedly "temporary" stage of dictatorship necessary for the establishment of a communist society.
Then again true Marxist communism is every bit as much of a pipe dream as your earlier Utopian anarchy. The problem is it necessitates the establishment of a dictator ship (something Marx himself stated) and, funny thing, once dictators get a taste of totalitarian power, they never seem to want to give it up. It goes back to that whole nasty human nature thing we discussed earlier.