Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Aug '10 22:07
    In countries such as Mexico, big reforms still get bogged down by courts and fought over by parties, as in many countries with multiple strong parties.

    Calderon has wisely passed some micro-reforms early one, then other big reforms were stalled by the PRI and rarely got any support by the PRD, so his PAN has been stonewalled from reforming the country. It turns out his gradualist reform, as in India, appears to have been the wisest of all strategies, though big reforms getting stalled by others does point out who is most for reform and who is most against it. PAN did better than the PRI, but the PRI has a good marketting machine with the help of the drug lorgs and the PRD has a good base of populist attack-dogs always criticizing calderon. Mexico, like maybe other parties, really needs to work on delivering its message during non-election times to garner support and pass reforms. There is talk of the tax on food and medicine finally garnering support.
  2. 08 Aug '10 22:12
    That's how you do it. It is best to make reforms based on reactionary measures. It has worked great here in the US.
  3. 09 Aug '10 00:10
    Originally posted by Eladar
    That's how you do it. It is best to make reforms based on reactionary measures. It has worked great here in the US.
    meaning what?
  4. 09 Aug '10 00:18 / 1 edit
    Here's one:

    Gay rights to marriage.

    First it was the "stay out of bedrooms".

    Now it is "Recognize the fact that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality".

    Before they could demand such a 'right', it first had to be made legal. It took gradual steps just as you described.


    The government's right to tell private business who they had to do business with and having any say in hiring practices is an example of reactionary reform. Abuse of the public sector by the private led to not only the rightful control of the public, but now also the private.
  5. 09 Aug '10 00:36
    Ok, to each their own take.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    09 Aug '10 17:04
    Originally posted by Eladar
    That's how you do it. It is best to make reforms based on reactionary measures. It has worked great here in the US.
    E.g. 1776
  7. 09 Aug '10 18:17
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Here's one:

    Gay rights to marriage.

    First it was the "stay out of bedrooms".

    Now it is "Recognize the fact that there is nothing immoral about homosexuality".

    Before they could demand such a 'right', it first had to be made legal. It took gradual steps just as you described.


    The government's right to tell private business who they had to do ...[text shortened]... he private led to not only the rightful control of the public, but now also the private.
    Should the situation be reverted as to meet Iranian stardands of draconian punishments for individuals involved in immoral sexual acts?
  8. 09 Aug '10 22:16 / 1 edit
    I don't think so, nor do I think the government should be telling us that immoral behavior isn't immoral.

    I also don't think a person who opens a business with his or her own money has any obligation to society. A private business owner should have the right to hire or fire anyone for any reason. A private business owner should have the right to do buisness with anyone the person chooses to do business with. If it isn't owned by the government, then the government has no more right to infringe on the freedom of the owner than the government has the right to tell people what they can or can't do in their bedrooms.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    09 Aug '10 23:43
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I also don't think a person who opens a business with his or her own money has any obligation to society.
    I can think of a few obligations. To keep its pollution and other environmental impacts within certain limits set by government. To ensure its product is not a danger to customers, and that its premesis and processes are not a threat to its customers or to the surrounding community, as defined by certain standards deemed acceptable by society. To not engage in commerce involving illegal products or services. To not commit fraud. To pay its taxes.
  10. 10 Aug '10 02:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    I can think of a few obligations. To keep its pollution and other environmental impacts within certain limits set by government. To ensure its product is not a danger to customers, and that its premesis and processes are not a threat to its customers or to the surrounding community, as defined by certain standards deemed acceptable by society. To not engage in commerce involving illegal products or services. To not commit fraud. To pay its taxes.
    Yes, you can't be an outright danger to society. Of course there is a limit to that one too. Is a life guard obligated to save someone if the life guard is not on duty? Is a doctor obligated to save a person's life who is having a heart attack on the street?

    Those were a couple of examples I heard on the radio. I think it fits. A doctor or lifeguard who doesn't act could very well be the difference between life and death, but there is not law that says they must act.

    Yes, we all have to pay taxes. The question is how much and for what purpose. In the US the traditional role of the federal government funds is for common defense (military) and infrustrature (roads and bridges). Over time government has grown and so has the need to suck money away from people.
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    10 Aug '10 06:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes, we all have to pay taxes. The question is how much and for what purpose. In the US the traditional role of the federal government funds is for common defense (military) and infrustrature (roads and bridges). Over time government has grown...
    And I, for one, say bravo. I pay taxes where I live. I believe in social democracy and freedom of speech and all the rest. I am an active citizen. I am an educated adult, interested in the development and sustainability of my economy and society, which are things I have a good understanding of, and feel to be serious responsibilities as a citizen.

    So, if - for the sake of argument - we reduce the definition of the political sphere to "The question of how much tax and for what purposes", I have no doubt that you and I would be political opponents, and I would rejoice each time my representatives end up outnumbering yours.

    As for your possible "constitutional objections" to the 'purposes' that the taxes are put to, along with your philosophical 'tax is theft' kind of thing, I personally wouldn't bat an eyelid - as long as you lose the political battle. You have come out and stated catagorically on this forum that you are not willing to change your mind about anything, so there can be no political discourse with you. You are either beaten in a political contest or you win.

    So I would be totally unconcerned with your discomfort or your laments about what you perceive to be freedom and/or your views on the compromise between 'freedom' and the reality of managing and maintaining a good, fair, safe, fertile democracy and society. Without social democracy, I think "capitalism" would be a nightmare. Just as I think that without "capitalism", social democracy would not work. As you say, over time government has grown. Good.
  12. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    10 Aug '10 06:20
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I don't think so, nor do I think the government should be telling us that immoral behavior isn't immoral.

    I also don't think a person who opens a business with his or her own money has any obligation to society. A private business owner should have the right to hire or fire anyone for any reason. A private business owner should have the right to do buisn ...[text shortened]... an the government has the right to tell people what they can or can't do in their bedrooms.
    Don't come crying to the cops when your business is robbed.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    10 Aug '10 06:22
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes, you can't be an outright danger to society. Of course there is a limit to that one too. Is a life guard obligated to save someone if the life guard is not on duty? Is a doctor obligated to save a person's life who is having a heart attack on the street?

    Those were a couple of examples I heard on the radio. I think it fits. A doctor or lifeguard ...[text shortened]... bridges). Over time government has grown and so has the need to suck money away from people.
    "Traditional role" is defense and infrastructure only? Where are you getting that from?
  14. 10 Aug '10 15:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Don't come crying to the cops when your business is robbed.
    Then don't expect the business owner to pay taxes. The fact is that having police protection is a function of local government and is due to the business owner pays taxes.

    People shouldn't just give their money to the government. There is an agreement between the people and the government. Each part must keep its part to make things work.
  15. 10 Aug '10 15:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "Traditional role" is defense and infrastructure only? Where are you getting that from?
    I suppose they also pass laws when it comes to interstate commerce. Most of the laws that we live by are local laws.

    I suppose it is worth noting that the federal government passes laws about immigration, which fits in the overall category of national defense.