View Poll Results: What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • Equality

    15 23.08%
  • Solidarity

    7 10.77%
  • Wealth redistribution

    23 35.38%
  • Socialism

    20 30.77%
  • Justice

    19 29.23%
  • Unjustice

    14 21.54%
  • Good

    9 13.85%
  • Evil

    10 15.38%
  • Prosperity

    7 10.77%
  • Other

    18 27.69%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 224

Thread: Social justice

  1. #161
    User kenc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    06-22-13 @ 03:49 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    108

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    no ,I am not saying give up your vote, I am saying that in republican government the people vote for their u.s. house representatives, and the people vote for their state representatives, those state representatives then appoint the u.s. senators of their state.

    this is know as separation of powers through representation. the people elect the house, and the state appoint the senate, this way power in not just in the hands of the people but the states also, so there can be no majority rule by the voting public.

    this is what as know as 1 direct vote , and 1 indirect vote, and the president is elected by the electoral college, another indirect vote, those are also chosen by the state legislatures.

    the founders say power should never be in just one set of hands, because that power will corrupt, that is why republican government puts powers in two different sets of hands, so it will limit corruption.

    problem is we have depart from republican government 100 years ago and moves towards democracy which has corrupted the u.s.
    I am surprised the founders actually chose to let the people vote on the president in this republic. Anyway, I think what you are actually saying is that we should further limit the consensus of the mob and only let the mob vote indirectly, infrequently and at the lowest levels possible. Direct democracy is reserved only for our representatives because only they know what is the best interest of the country.

    Why not just take the mob out of the picture? Maybe the founders were actually a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who catered to the will of the people too much by giving them an indirect, limited say in the matters that affect their lives. They were pansies; they really should have let those few real people who know how to get things done, make a country rich, get the most out of human and natural resources, etc. run the country. You know where I'm going right? The elite, or in today's terms, the top .1%. They are rich for a reason. They know how to manage human and environmental resources to make the most wealth possible. Why not just stop with all this facade of democracy, both of the people and within the government, and just let the elite run things, and vote with their dollars on how things should be run?

    Starts to put democracy in better perspective, huh?

  2. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    Read it's history....
    No thank you, I know everything I need to know on how the term impacts my life today

  3. #163
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,119

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Strucker View Post
    What i meant was that there are no bureaucrats sitting about and discussing what should or should'tbe done, re individuals and their health care
    That is sort of correct - they make decisions only on what the state will or will not pay for. And, for a while there, attempting to escape their decisions (if they denied you) by purchasing your own healthcare was illegal.

    Because the nanny state is still a state - and states are build upon coercion.
    .
    There are bureacracies sitting around and doing exactly that for you, however. "Death panels" is more of a private insurance concept that a universal health care one.)
    That is not correct. I would urge you, for example, to read up on the properly Orwellian named N.I.C.E. in Britain. The IPAB under Obamacare is simply the same concept - use the ability of the government to refuse to pay to hold down costs.

    After all. one of the arguments y'all have been having for universal health care is that it's more efficient and bureaucratically cheaper than the system you'e using now.
    Well the system we're using now is sort of a public utility model dominated by third-party payers. Not exactly a market. Where we do use the market, however, it beats universal hands down, even as our current system beats universal in terms of actually providing care to the sick.

    And again, I'm not declaring that it's the necessary way to go. That's an American choice.

    You, however, don't quite seem to grasp that the Amrican method of...well, everything, might not always be inherently superior.

    Not exactly a controversial suggestion.
    First off: 'Mericuh.






    ....Now, if that argument doesn't convince you, you are probably beyond reason. However, the ability of the market to provide superior results for reduced costs over time to the populace has been historically demonstrated across cultures and national borders - and the inferior results of government planning in terms of economic efficiency and the provision of goods has also been consistently demonstrated across cultures and national borders.

  4. #164
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    all you have told me is, you don't believe the men who created the constitution and the DOI

    right to property is the corner stone of all rights, without a right to property, everything would belong to the state.

    of coarse you do understand the communist manifesto calls for the abolishment of all property rights
    Why would not having a right to property mean everything belongs to the state? That doesn't follow at all ... It could be common, it could be possessional but not property based, it could be individual but not corporate, it could be community it could be many things.

    There is nothing that follows in the statement. "no right to absolute private property = Everything belongs to the state."

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-con...overnment.html

    The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.


    the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals do not retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.

    The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form to the states. (See Art.4,Sec.4)
    You're just making up these definitions .... Article 4 Secion 4 is NOT a definitional statement.

    A Democratic form of government IS A TYPE OF republican form of government, the soviet union was a republic, not a democracy, democracy is a concept that can apply to many different things, companeis can be democracires (cooperatives) but nto republics since they are not nation-states.

    You're just making up definition that no one uses and arguing against strawmen.

    BTW, you cannot own yourself, since you ARE yourself, ownership is agent in relationship to object, you are not an object, you are the agent.

    Also you can't own your labor, only the result of your labor, which capitalists DO NOT respect since they take capital ownership to as primary, i.e. the result of your labor is only yours if you also own the capital.

    Just some logical faults in your argument.

  5. #165
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Well the system we're using now is sort of a public utility model dominated by third-party payers. Not exactly a market. Where we do use the market, however, it beats universal hands down, even as our current system beats universal in terms of actually providing care to the sick.
    Not according to the WHO rankings - but perhaps you meant to write "providing care to those Americans who can afford it".
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  6. #166
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Yeah. Just like I need food and shelter, right? Which is why government housing and government food is such higher quality.

    Insurance companies can only abuse me to the extent that government enables them to do so by protecting them from competition. Which, agreeably, is currently to say quite a bit.
    Government housing is taking care of the market failing to make low income housing, its lower quality because it's LOW INCOME, private construction or real estate doesn't find it profitable to make low income housing, it's a problem with capitalism, so the state has to fill in the holes, unless you want mass homelessness, squatting and so on.

    That's an argument for why Capitalism doesn't work, that we need government housing.

    There is no such thing as government food ....

    The government does not protect them from competition ... Capitalism does.

    No it's not, except in the most theoretical of states. No ones' healthcare is beholden to the voters. At best general arguments about the shape and funding is beholden to the voters. If the election is on that single issue.
    Healthcare insurance is ONLY DEALING WITH THE FUNDING, not delivery of healthcare ..... for gods sake, pay attention,

    [QUOTE]Yeah.



    No thanks.

    Is that supposed to be an arugment? the main aspect of progressivism is left out, i.e. democracy and individual autonomy, it's an idiotic strawman.

  7. #167
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    On the contrary, every animal in nature has a feeling of own territory, especially nests and dens.
    OK, try this one - give a bone to your dog and try to take it back. Unless you have a very civilized or dribbler dog, the chances are you will get bitten. How about that for property rights?
    Not at all, some animals do, some animals don't, also territory is generally collective, and it isn't absolute, it's liquid and chances based on needs.

    No one is saying people shouldn't have their own stuff, but that isn't what property rights are, when I say property rights, I mean you can own a farm miles and miles away, and never have seen it, it was passed down 5 generations to you, and people around it are starving but you can still use the police and violence of the state to stop them from picking apples from that farm because it's "Yours" Even though you have no relationship with it, whereas people who worked on the farm as workers for decades have literally 0 claim to the fruits of their labor.

    THAT'S what property rights are. Not a dog wanting a bone, lets be serious.

  8. #168
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    No thank you, I know everything I need to know on how the term impacts my life today
    There we go, this is basically the mantra of the right wing. You are basically saying you want to stay willfully ignorant, but still want to have **** to say ... which is why no one takes the American right wing seriously, the whole world looks at you as the clowns you are.

  9. #169
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by RGacky3 View Post
    whereas people who worked on the farm as workers for decades have literally 0 claim to the fruits of their labor.
    They got their pay for the job, didn't they?

  10. #170
    Sage
    RGacky3's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Last Seen
    08-25-15 @ 05:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,570

    Re: Social justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    They got their pay for the job, didn't they?
    That isn't the fruits of their labor, the fruits are what they reaped and harvested.

Page 17 of 23 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •