Can government be expected to make life "fair"?

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

"Those who level do not equalise"

-Edmund Burke


There are two main philosophies in politics today; one is that the role of law and government is to render justice, to stop corruption, and to be sure that no one's fundamental human rights are stepped on. The other is that government has the responsibility to ensure equal outcomes in every situation, regardless of the individual's actions and/or the level of their participation.

Of course, the first one is a basic description of our own Constitutional and limited form of government. The second is the political philosophy of Marxism, and arguably is also that of what's been called "The Obama Doctrine".

We've all heard the saying; "no one ever said that life was going to be fair". This always seems to have a bitter ring to it and is usually said by someone who's essentially throwing a bucket of cold water on someone's hopes and dreams -- however naive they may have been. But the facts still bare out that life (nature) is anything but equal or egalitarian, in reality, it's as diverse as the number of species there are on the planet. So the question is; is it realistic to expect that government can be used to do something that appears to be impossible given the facts of life? Or, do we have a chance now to use government control to do what previously has only lead to the empowerment of a corrupt few, and the poverty and enslavment of the masses? ...Can we 'get it right' this time, or are we just getting duped again by those who have no intention of sharing power once they've claimed it all for themselves?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No. We have the PURSUIT of happiness. There is no guarantee of anything and no person, entity, govt can bestow it upon anyone.

 

[rdean]

"Those who level do not equalise"

-Edmund Burke


There are two main philosophies in politics today; one is that the role of law and government is to render justice, to stop corruption, and to be sure that no one's fundamental human rights are stepped on. The other is that government has the responsibility to ensure equal outcomes in every situation, regardless of the individual's actions and/or the level of their participation.

Of course, the first one is a basic description of our own Constitutional and limited form of government. The second is the political philosophy of Marxism, and arguably is also that of what's been called "The Obama Doctrine".

We've all heard the saying; "no one ever said that life was going to be fair". This always seems to have a bitter ring to it and is usually said by someone who's essentially throwing a bucket of cold water onto someone's hopes and dreams -- however naive they may have been. But the facts still bare out that life (nature) is anything but equal or egalitarian, in reality, it's as diverse as the number of species there are on the planet. So the question is; is it realistic to expect that government can be used to do something that appears to be impossible given the facts of life? Or, do we have a chance now to use government control to do what previously has only lead to the empowerment of a corrupt few, and the poverty and enslavment of the masses? ...Can we 'get it right' this time, or are we just getting duped once again by those who have no intention of sharing power once they've claimed it all for themselves?

Why do you clowns say such stupid shit? Are you ALL fools? Is it the "inbreeding"? What is it that causes you guys to write such nonsense?

 

[boedicca]

Speaking of inbreeding, redean is the Single Branch Family Tree Poster Moron.

Equality under the law is not the same as equality of outcome. We can't have both.

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

Glad to hear that you see the stupidity of this kind of thinking -- we still have a chance to stop this mindlessness.

 

[rdean]

Speaking of inbreeding, redean is the Single Branch Family Tree Poster Moron.

Equality under the law is not the same as equality of outcome. We can't have both.

So you believe that nonsense too? Didn't see that one coming.

 

[johnrocks]

Government fails because of it's very design, for every Reagan or FDR(depending on your idea of a great leader) there are several Jimmy Carters and George Bush's to mess it all up.

I can't get 4-5 friends to agree on anything from what movie to watch or restaurant to eat at and we expect 535 Congressman/Senators, a President and thousands of bureaucrats to get 300 million citizens to walk in one direction like a bunch of cows following a lead bull. sorry but ;to me; that's a bit

 

[2Parties]

Government can be expected to make life fair. It's a stupid expectation to have though.

 

[snjmom]

But the facts still bare out that life (nature) is anything but equal or egalitarian, in reality, it's as diverse as the number of species there are on the planet. So the question is; is it realistic to expect that government can be used to do something that appears to be impossible given the facts of life?

And here I thought that civilization itself was to negate the role of nature and the brutal corrections she employs. The trend towards more human rights rather than a calicification at one point, a here and no further, is the mark of a successful civilization. Just as the concept of being able to hold private property rather than rent from the king or lord that provides our security is a step up from the tribal slave raiding society, the society that provides a more enveloping security allows it's people to take the risks and create the wonders of the new generation. The massive sharing of information on a global basis is going to be the next industrial revolution.

So, I don't know about you, but I'll use my tech, share with my fellow man and tell nature to fuck off.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Good question , not while being impartial or constitutional.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Unlikely we will have a constitutional government ever again, we will slide into tyranny fascism and Islamic chaos, withholding divine intervention of course.

 

[Flopper]

Government fails because of it's very design, for every Reagan or FDR(depending on your idea of a great leader) there are several Jimmy Carters and George Bush's to mess it all up.

I can't get 4-5 friends to agree on anything from what movie to watch or restaurant to eat at and we expect 535 Congressman/Senators, a President and thousands of bureaucrats to get 300 million citizens to walk in one direction like a bunch of cows following a lead bull. sorry but ;to me; that's a bit

As long as legislators can see the other sides point of view, then the two sides can work together. Legislation can be passed that everyone can support. Today, we are so entangled with our own political philosophy that we can't admit that the other side might just have a good idea. John Q Public doesn't give a damn about all the political philosophies. He just wants a good job, a decent home, a good education for kids, healthcare he afford, and a chance to build a nest egg.

 

[rightwinger]

Glad to hear that you see the stupidity of this kind of thinking -- we still have a chance to stop this mindlessness.

Nobody actually thinks like that...it is just right wing propaganda telling you how liberals think

"ensure equal outcomes" what nonsense

 

[∑₭o Đ∆Żə]

"rightwinger" (not sure yet how to link replies together and have them appear in my post), whether or not you think this is the reality, or if I've just been indoctrinated to think this way by right wingers, the facts still bare out that this is exactly what's being done to our government. Take Universal Health Care for example; the idea is that ALL Americans are entitled to the same health care regardless of what they put in to it. Let's start with some facts; no one (that I've ever heard of) dies in the U.S. from lack of medical attention, there are plenty of government subsidized health plans, as well as the good ol' "hit the emergency room and ditch" plan which still works today. But the same cannot be said for countries where socialized medicine has been employed (Britain, Switzerland, Canada, etc.). In those countries there are numerous cases where people die while on months-long waiting lists to see physicians, plus, there are far fewer tests and procedures available to them -- regardless of how much they'd be willing to pay to get them.

This ties into my overall thesis; the 'idea' of Universal Health Care is that all people should receive the same health care -- even if it turns out to be very poor health care. The reality also turns out that Americans who can afford health care *must* now pay for it (under penalty of law) to help pay for those who don't work, or who just can't afford it. So now we have a system that will penalize those who work and produce -- by taking their money -- and reward those who do nothing. But so long as we hold to this notion that "the rich" are evil and therefor deserve it, then this will be seen as a justice, rather than an injustice. "those who level do not equalize".

 

[loosecannon]

Glad to hear that you see the stupidity of this kind of thinking -- we still have a chance to stop this mindlessness.

Nobody actually thinks like that...it is just right wing propaganda telling you how liberals think

"ensure equal outcomes" what nonsense

Yes and no. Take the healthcare deform legislation. Was it's stated goal not to insure equal healthcare for all regardless of how they managed their lives and finances?

 

[loosecannon]

"rightwinger" (not sure yet how to link replies together and have them appear in my post), whether or not you think this is the reality, or if I've just been indoctrinated to think this way by right wingers, the facts still bare out that this is exactly what's being done to our government. Take Universal Health Care for example; the idea is that ALL Americans are entitled to the same health care regardless of what they put in to it. Let's start with some facts; no one (that I've ever heard of) dies in the U.S. from lack of medical attention, there are plenty of government subsidized health plans, as well as the good ol' "hit the emergency room and ditch" plan which still works today. But the same cannot be said for countries where socialized medicine has been employed (Britain, Switzerland, Canada, etc.). In those countries there are numerous cases where people die while on months-long waiting lists to see physicians, plus, there are far fewer tests and procedures available to them -- regardless of how much they'd be willing to pay to get them.

This ties into my overall thesis; the 'idea' of Universal Health Care is that all people should receive the same health care -- even if it turns out to be very poor health care. The reality also turns out that Americans who can afford health care *must* now pay for it (under penalty of law) to help pay for those who don't work, or who just can't afford it. So now we have a system that will penalize those who work and produce -- by taking their money -- and reward those who do nothing. But so long as we hold to this notion that "the rich" are evil and therefor deserve it, then this will be seen as a justice, rather than an injustice. "those who level do not equalize".

Oops, you beat me to it.

However this health care legislation IS a big departure from all previous nanny state programs in that it is the first to actually attempt to provide an equal outcome, your actual premise.

So this is a brand new advent, not a trend.

 

[rikules]

"Those who level do not equalise"

-Edmund Burke


There are two main philosophies in politics today; one is that the role of law and government is to render justice, to stop corruption, and to be sure that no one's fundamental human rights are stepped on. The other is that government has the responsibility to ensure equal outcomes in every situation, regardless of the individual's actions and/or the level of their participation.

Of course, the first one is a basic description of our own Constitutional and limited form of government. The second is the political philosophy of Marxism, and arguably is also that of what's been called "The Obama Doctrine".

We've all heard the saying; "no one ever said that life was going to be fair". This always seems to have a bitter ring to it and is usually said by someone who's essentially throwing a bucket of cold water on someone's hopes and dreams -- however naive they may have been. But the facts still bare out that life (nature) is anything but equal or egalitarian, in reality, it's as diverse as the number of species there are on the planet. So the question is; is it realistic to expect that government can be used to do something that appears to be impossible given the facts of life? Or, do we have a chance now to use government control to do what previously has only lead to the empowerment of a corrupt few, and the poverty and enslavment of the masses? ...Can we 'get it right' this time, or are we just getting duped again by those who have no intention of sharing power once they've claimed it all for themselves?

"one is that the role of law and government is to render justice, to stop corruption, and to be sure that no one's fundamental human rights are stepped on."

sounds nice

and I certainly agree that the government shouldn't be "guaranteeing" people EQUAL OUTCOMES

but
I can see a day in the future in which computers/ machines/robotics are doing MOST OF THE WORK (they are even developing robotic military personnel)
at which point 50-70 of the population will be unemployed

(even if you do not agree that that day might be fast approaching can you AT LEAST AGREE that in a free democratic capitalistic state the tiny handful of people who OWNS MEGACORPS have a RIGHT to unemploy as many people as they want to? to "Earn" and "KEEP" as MUCH MONEY as they are able to?)

what then?

let them die in the streets? oh wait...that would be illegal...we have LAWS about dead beats hanging around our streets

let them die in the wilderness? oh..wait...that would be illegal...the widnerness is ALL OWNDER by MEGACORPS or the GOVT and we have LAWS about dead beats trespassing on private or government property


the oceans?
shark bait?

round them up and sell hunting licenses and permiits to use as target practice?

seems to me that "you do NOT have the right to a job"
and "we do NOT want to help you of you do NOT have a job"
is tantamount to ..."you'll just have to die...."

 

[xotoxi]

...yadda...yadda...

Question: How did you get those special symbols for your name?

∑₭o Đ∆Żə

Pretty motherfuckin' cool!

 

[Big Black Dog]

Sorry folks. Life is not "fair" so how can you expect the government to do something that was never meant to be?

 

[rightwinger]

"rightwinger" (not sure yet how to link replies together and have them appear in my post), whether or not you think this is the reality, or if I've just been indoctrinated to think this way by right wingers, the facts still bare out that this is exactly what's being done to our government. Take Universal Health Care for example; the idea is that ALL Americans are entitled to the same health care regardless of what they put in to it. Let's start with some facts; no one (that I've ever heard of) dies in the U.S. from lack of medical attention, there are plenty of government subsidized health plans, as well as the good ol' "hit the emergency room and ditch" plan which still works today. But the same cannot be said for countries where socialized medicine has been employed (Britain, Switzerland, Canada, etc.). In those countries there are numerous cases where people die while on months-long waiting lists to see physicians, plus, there are far fewer tests and procedures available to them -- regardless of how much they'd be willing to pay to get them.

This ties into my overall thesis; the 'idea' of Universal Health Care is that all people should receive the same health care -- even if it turns out to be very poor health care. The reality also turns out that Americans who can afford health care *must* now pay for it (under penalty of law) to help pay for those who don't work, or who just can't afford it. So now we have a system that will penalize those who work and produce -- by taking their money -- and reward those who do nothing. But so long as we hold to this notion that "the rich" are evil and therefor deserve it, then this will be seen as a justice, rather than an injustice. "those who level do not equalize".

You folks still seem to be of the opinion that there is a Government controlled health plan in the bill. Otherwise, how would you think that everyone in the country has the same plan. Remember the "You get to keep your existing plan" stuff?

Not all health insurance is created equal....it still isn't