Do you rememer Old Cliffie from Cheers explaining about The Buffalo Theory? You kill off the weakest and the rest of the herd can move faster?
Social Darwinism does allow the lucky, privileged and the gifted to move faster than the pack. But an unequally stratified society with no large middle class to act as a buffer between the rich and poor is a weak social model.
I think the countries that get it right are the ones that attempt to minimize corruption, create wealth through business friendly policies and take care of those left behind for whatever reason. So it is a balancing act more than a right or wrong way to run a social-democrative country with a free market economy.
I prefer a fiscal conservative along with a social liberal approach. My philosophy is that you can have any type of government you like from cradle to grave socialism if you want, so long as you can pay for it. I take exception to borrowing money to pay for a system you cannot afford at the expense of future generations or indeed to benefit one group at the expense of another.
PeakOil is You
Mr Bill speaks out
Re: Mr Bill speaks out
by MrBill » Thu 01 Feb 2007, 06:52:02
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill - Expert
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia
Re: Mr Bill speaks out
by threadbear » Thu 01 Feb 2007, 14:13:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'D')o you rememer Old Cliffie from Cheers explaining about The Buffalo Theory? You kill off the weakest and the rest of the herd can move faster?
Social Darwinism does allow the lucky, privileged and the gifted to move faster than the pack. But an unequally stratified society with no large middle class to act as a buffer between the rich and poor is a weak social model.
I think the countries that get it right are the ones that attempt to minimize corruption, create wealth through business friendly policies and take care of those left behind for whatever reason. So it is a balancing act more than a right or wrong way to run a social-democrative country with a free market economy.
I prefer a fiscal conservative along with a social liberal approach. My philosophy is that you can have any type of government you like from cradle to grave socialism if you want, so long as you can pay for it. I take exception to borrowing money to pay for a system you cannot afford at the expense of future generations or indeed to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Social Darwinism does allow the lucky, privileged and the gifted to move faster than the pack. But an unequally stratified society with no large middle class to act as a buffer between the rich and poor is a weak social model.
I think the countries that get it right are the ones that attempt to minimize corruption, create wealth through business friendly policies and take care of those left behind for whatever reason. So it is a balancing act more than a right or wrong way to run a social-democrative country with a free market economy.
I prefer a fiscal conservative along with a social liberal approach. My philosophy is that you can have any type of government you like from cradle to grave socialism if you want, so long as you can pay for it. I take exception to borrowing money to pay for a system you cannot afford at the expense of future generations or indeed to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Oh no, Mr Bill....I agree with you. Can't have that!
I think what gets under my skin the most, is the free marketeers equating what the US has with a free market.
When you have a govt that doesn't enforce it's anti competetive and combines laws, it's anything but free. The US has plenty of red tape, much of it meaningless and useless, that the large corporations can finesse with ease. The small businessmen can't. That, together with mergers and acquistions, that wouldn't be allowed under a truly free market, create a barrier for small business, and ultimately a class barrier, which helps further devastate the middle class.
I agree that Canada is much more even handed, but we are still ruled by a corporatocracy, at this time. Perhaps this will change, as the US falls apart and multinationals take a kick in the pants.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Mr Bill speaks out
by MrBill » Thu 01 Feb 2007, 18:13:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'D')o you rememer Old Cliffie from Cheers explaining about The Buffalo Theory? You kill off the weakest and the rest of the herd can move faster?
Social Darwinism does allow the lucky, privileged and the gifted to move faster than the pack. But an unequally stratified society with no large middle class to act as a buffer between the rich and poor is a weak social model.
I think the countries that get it right are the ones that attempt to minimize corruption, create wealth through business friendly policies and take care of those left behind for whatever reason. So it is a balancing act more than a right or wrong way to run a social-democrative country with a free market economy.
I prefer a fiscal conservative along with a social liberal approach. My philosophy is that you can have any type of government you like from cradle to grave socialism if you want, so long as you can pay for it. I take exception to borrowing money to pay for a system you cannot afford at the expense of future generations or indeed to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Social Darwinism does allow the lucky, privileged and the gifted to move faster than the pack. But an unequally stratified society with no large middle class to act as a buffer between the rich and poor is a weak social model.
I think the countries that get it right are the ones that attempt to minimize corruption, create wealth through business friendly policies and take care of those left behind for whatever reason. So it is a balancing act more than a right or wrong way to run a social-democrative country with a free market economy.
I prefer a fiscal conservative along with a social liberal approach. My philosophy is that you can have any type of government you like from cradle to grave socialism if you want, so long as you can pay for it. I take exception to borrowing money to pay for a system you cannot afford at the expense of future generations or indeed to benefit one group at the expense of another.
Oh no, Mr Bill....I agree with you. Can't have that!
I think what gets under my skin the most, is the free marketeers equating what the US has with a free market. When you have a govt that doesn't enforce it's anti competetive and combines laws, it's anything but free. The US has plenty of red tape, much of it meaningless and useless, that the large corporations can finesse with ease. The small businessmen can't. That, together with mergers and acquistions, that wouldn't be allowed under a truly free market, create a barrier for small business, and ultimately a class barrier, which helps further devastate the middle class.
I agree that Canada is much more even handed, but we are still ruled by a corporatocracy, at this time. Perhaps this will change, as the US falls apart and multinationals take a kick in the pants.
I am glad. I want debate about things that matter. If we could never agree about anything then it would be a be a bad sign. I would much take the even handed approach and talk about common solutions to problems then having a class battle. I mean no one, none of you, started with such low expectations as I did! ; - )) Cheers.
The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
-
MrBill - Expert
- Posts: 5630
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Eurasia
Re: Mr Bill speaks out
by greenworm » Fri 02 Feb 2007, 14:51:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think what gets under my skin the most, is the free marketeers equating what the US has with a free market.
I second that motion!!
-
greenworm - Tar Sands
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Fri 27 Jan 2006, 04:00:00