Have I told you lately how much I love you?

And this is precisely why we (both) have a representative democracy, not a tyranny of the majority. We (hopefully) elect people that are smarter than we are to make decisions that we collectively are too stupid to make. A weak, ineffectual government blindly follows the will of the people and panders to kneejerk public opinion. It takes a brave government to lead the people, to set the agenda, make the right decisions regardless of their popularity, and hopefully educate the people in the process. It's why we have elections every 4 (or 5) years, not every 4 (or 5) months, so that we can actually see the effect of complex decisions.

It's a risky strategy that can often backfire, and is one of the reasons that Winston Churchill lost the 1945 general election. Gordon Brown is in a similar position right now, though more out of necessity than personal choice, having received much praise from the IMF for his response to the recession but suffered terribly in public opinion as a result. Both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have adopted blindly populist positions in response to banker's bonuses and this expenses 'scandal', while Brown has taken calm, calculated and (to some degree) sensible action. As a result, he'll almost certainly lose the next general election. I think Obama will have much more success than Brown, as he has a much better grasp of presentation and delivery of difficult and complex policies.

Before you inevitably make this partisan, I'm certainly not claiming this follows some left-wing/right-wing trend, there are very good examples of both types of government across the spectrum and historically populism has been dominated by socialists. I'm simply arguing that making decisions that oppose popular opinion is certainly not undemocratic, nor is it necessarily a 'bad thing' for a country.

Yes, because if you can't afford health insurance, thanks to government subsidies you pay only €9 a month for health insurance. And we still have the benefits of privatized health care.

I guess the difference is that I don't mind contributing to general welfare. We pay more taxes, sure, but it's for the benefit of all.

I'm personally tired of people who, just because of the right connections/genetics/etc, have a bigger car/tv/house than I do. The government should step in and put a stop to these unfair situations. Just because I wasn't born with natural physical ability, I cannot enjoy the lavish lifestyle that Kobe Bryant has. For that matter, I was not born with the looks of Brad Pit, and thus am not swimming in ladies.

These are unfair situations the government must rectify! These men were born with natural advantages over me, and this inequality must be addressed! They should be brought down to my level, and we must all be made equal. And who better to handle it, than the government! A government which is not made up of people, but some superior uncorruptable group of men whose interests will never conflict with mine, and will always know what is best for me. We should definitely defer to their superior ability, and let them correct the various inequalities that nature has created.

Also, it's dumb satire for dumb satire. Comparing law, which needs to be universal to be obeyed, to healthcare which is a personal issue, is idiotic.

Yes, somehow you see that as a good thing. Just reinforces a continuing point of mine that people from other countries are less likely to understand our values. No offense, I consider yours alien, so I'm in the same boat.

I'm american, born and bred, and agree with most of what the non-americans have said in this thread.

so please stop putting me in your collective "we/us/our."

Just because you're born in america doesn't make you a REAL american.

You just got wookied.

(I think he meant "our values" as in "conservative values" but I may be wrong)

How can I understand your values when you don't even explain them? Besides, you don't speak for every American, as others have pointed out.

Who is the "us" in "our values?" Because almost every other American on these forums disagrees with you. It clearly has nothing to do with nationality.

I was born & raised in Kentucky, a very conservative state & I don't share those "values". At least I don't think I do. Which values are we talking about again? It seems to me that if you're representative of people with American "values" then we're screwed because it doesn't appear that "empathy" is one of them.

Yeah wookie, please clarify.

I don't think you can expect him to explain. He's talking about American values. If you don't understand then you're a communist.

I think he's referring to conservative-christian values but I don't want to put words in his mouth. You know, the ones that don't believe in evolution because it's "just a theory" but at the same time believe in the theory of gravity. Yeah, those guys...

Actually in that case it makes a lot of sense to have the food provided by the free market, because there's no product differentiation. A single product that can be identically produced and consumed by many people is the one situation where the free market works almost flawlessly.

It is my opinion that Wookie06 has no values, because he has no actual understanding of the values he claims to possess.

Have I told you how much I love you?

That's true. I was just suggesting a situation where it would be possible, because other than food stamps it's not ever feasible to distribute food because of the ridiculous differentiation.

Not that I think this is a serious or relevant discussion necessarily, but what if EVERYONE got food stamps? You know, you could still use your money to buy food, but you'd also all be eligible to receive food stamps no matter what.

Then we should probably stop waging costly war around the world in order to fund it.

Although—

I will admit, that would drive prices up drastically, as more and more countries would stop taking our economic blackmail seriously when it became apparent we couldn't back it up militarily. We're standing on the backs of the third world, and pulling out of world affairs would probably end up hurting us financially. I'm not saying we shouldn't pull out. I'm saying we shouldn't expect it to help the economy, sadly.

Yeah, isolationism worked great before.

The US government already has an enormously costly and borderline socialist price fixing scheme for the agricultural sector, most prominently a buyback based price floor. It wouldn't take much more for the US government to simply buy the food.

You say "standing on the backs of the third world," I say "productive efficiency." Developing nations are getting more out of the trade arrangement than they are putting into it, just like the United States is. If they weren't there would be no trade taking place.

Wow, really? ...Wow.

comparative advantage

The Soviets fell for a reason: we pretend to pay you, and you pretend to work. In the long run you cannot force someone to sell a good if it is not beneficial for them to do so.

Exactly.

In my opinion the United States is better than China at pretty much everything, which means I think they have an absolute advantage. However, if the United States produces more intellectual property, and China produces more manufactured goods, the United States and China both end up with more of everything than they would have otherwise.

All US citizens have the right to claim possession of any island containing guano, under the 1856 Guano Islands Act - which has never been repealed. You guys need to stock up on anchovies and seagulls and direct them to China.

Except censorship lol

And tabletennis. And a whole bunch of other sports. But I'm getting off-topic.

It takes skill to be that terrible at everything.

I'm not sure what I should be more concerned about: The fact that I immediately looked this up instead of just laughing at your clever joke, or the fact that this is actually true.

Though of course, "any island" is subject to the qualification that the island isn't already claimed by anyone else. Personally I'd be more worried about the Hague Invasion Act.

In this case I was speaking about the majority of Americans who tend to always oppose government health care reform in its various incarnations whenever it comes up. So, essentially, the predominate American values as they relate to this issue. Of course there are Americans that hold values contrary to those held by the majority. Like every democrat senator, for example.

I assume you're prepared to show us that a majority of Americans oppose universal health care in every form?

I wouldn't think I'd need to be since that isn't what I said.

Although, what I said could have been worded better. I'm sure a majority of Americans would support meaningful reform such as tort reform and somehow eliminating the mandate that you have to buy insurance in the state you're in (at least that is as I understand it).

Oh, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your shibboleths. In that case, please show me that Americans oppose all the federal interventions in health care that you oppose.



Well, considering that most variations on tort reform are horribly shortsighted and show no recognition of the realities of the legal system, that doesn't say much for your imagined majority, does it?

Wookie, despite what you are thinking, those aren't values but sentiments and opinions. 'Compassion', 'welfare', or 'security' are examples of values. Things that people deem of value.

And I don't care if a minority or a majority shares your opinion, what I would especially like to hear is WHY you 'oppose government health care reform in its various incarnations'.

Not that I'm actually expecting you to elaborate on that, but one can try.



Ouch, yeah. People are pretty pissed off about that. Doing 'your' dirty work in Afghanistan. You know, being NATO allies and all.

Devil's Advocate:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

It's not exactly what you're referring to, but there it is.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly tracking update shows that 41% of voters nationwide favor the bill and 55% are opposed."

Polls show that 99% of poll statistics are inaccurate.

Besides, if you had actually read what I wrote, we don't have 'government health care'. It's a privatized system, like in the US. The difference is that in our country, the government makes sure everybody can actually pay for insurance and that insurance companies can't refuse people on the ground of pre-existing conditions.

You are correct. I'm not going to elaborate. As Jon'C points out, I don't even have a basic understanding of the values I claim to possess. You would probably be better off going to Fox News to get an understanding of why I think I'm opposed to a superior system.



I know. I understood that and I think it is atrocious.

This is why no one ever takes you seriously. You think we are all "intellectual elite..." no, you're just being a douche. You never answer questions straight on and when you're backed into a corner you go, "haha, I can't believe you all thought I was serious!"

I'm serious. There just isn't any reason to explain myself.