• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Future of The USA

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin


  • Total voters
    30

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
After reading some interesting arguments and articles regarding governmental structures and how the US should move forward, I constructed the following hypothetical situation. I realize that these options may seem limited, but from what I’ve read, they seem to key in to some of the main large issues that are argued and or contemplated. I am on the fence with which option I would prefer. So I’d like to hear some other people’s opinions.

If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the following options would be best for the US?


Option A:
Being number one in the world economy.

Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.

No free access to healthcare.

No free access to any level of education.

No food and shelter safety nets.

Being number one in military power.

Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.



Option B:
Being among the top 10 economic forces in the world.

Slightly decreasing the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

Free access to only the most minimal health care for the poor.

Free access to no more than secondary education for the poor.

Food and shelter safety nets that serve only to keep people alive.

Being among the top 10 military powers in the world.

Everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes.


Option C:
Being among the top 50% of the economic forces in the world.

Almost complete removal of the disadvantage of those born into poor families.

Free access to quality health care for the poor.

Free access to all schooling levels and all schools for those capable of completing the coursework.

Food and shelter safety nets that serve to allow equal physical health.

Being among the top 50% of military forces in the world.

Progressive taxation is applied without loopholes.


Option D:
Unknown world economic power status.

Enforcing equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity).

Unknown world military power status.

Taxes are decided based on the amount needed to create equality of outcome.


Also, if there are other areas that are important for consideration that would not effect the position of the other parts of the options, please list and or explore those.
 
Last edited:
US will be fine. compare our economy, military, resource reserves, and level of civilian education and general scale/quality of national-infrastructure to any other of these 'rising superpowers' and you'll see that doomsaying about the US is a joke in this century.

really: just put them side by side.

put those factors listed above for

usa vs russia
usa vs china
usa vs india
usa vs brazil
usa vs EU
usa vs etc

generally the gap is staggering, except for the EU, but who knows where that organization is heading in the short-medium term i'm guessing into a great depression considering they're trying the policies we used under Hoover (they don't work).
 
Last edited:
Option E: none of the above.
 
Option E: none of the above.

I don't want any of the above either - but I wonder which option is closest to what people want? This is what's called an ethical dilemma. It helps to bring up important issues so that we can be prepared if we had to make decisions. Its an exercise of the brain. What do you value? What would you sacrifice?
 
Thats a weighted question so I vote none of the above
 
US will be fine. compare our economy, military, resource reserves, and level of civilian education and general scale/quality of national-infrastructure to any other of these 'rising superpowers' and you'll see that doomsaying about the US is a joke in this century.

really: just put them side by side.

put those factors listed above for

usa vs russia
usa vs china
usa vs india
usa vs brazil
usa vs EU
usa vs etc

generally the gap is staggering, except for the EU, but who knows where that organization is heading in the short-medium term i'm guessing into a great depression considering they're trying the policies we used under Hoover (they don't work).

If you read my introduction, you would see that what I listed were hypothetical situations. I am under no disillusionment that these options are necessarily going to occur, although I acknowledge the possibility that they could be close to some situations that may occur. Let me ask you this... which option do you think is currently the most similar to the situation the US is in today?
 
Thats a weighted question so I vote none of the above

Its simply choosing the greater of 4 evils. If it were easy it wouldn't be considered an ethical "dilemma" .... :):mrgreen:
 
I don't want any of the above either - but I wonder which option is closest to what people want? This is what's called an ethical dilemma. It helps to bring up important issues so that we can be prepared if we had to make decisions. Its an exercise of the brain. What do you value? What would you sacrifice?

If we do it right, we don't have to sacrifice anything. There is no reason we can't provide safety nets, retirement income protection, excellent medical care for all, taxpayer-subsidized education through high school, a powerful mililtary, and equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

All within budget. We just have to convince Congress that they need to stop buying their incumbencies by voting out of the Treasury of the United States of America.
 
If we do it right, we don't have to sacrifice anything. There is no reason we can't provide safety nets, retirement income protection, excellent medical care for all, taxpayer-subsidized education through high school, a powerful mililtary, and equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

All within budget. We just have to convince Congress that they need to stop buying their incumbencies by voting out of the Treasury of the United States of America.

This is an experiment, an exercise, its to help strengthen and realize one's priorities. Dealing with any ethical dilemma is never easy. I'd like to believe that what you are saying is true, but somehow I don't think its as simple as that. I realize that no system will ever be perfect and I think realizing that helps us move forward. Still, I have hope that it isn't as complicated at I have made it in this dilemma.

For me, being the top dog of the world is not as important as sticking to certain ethical principles.... what about you? what principles would you be willing to sacrifice to be top dog in the world?
 
This is an experiment, an exercise, its to help strengthen and realize one's priorities. Dealing with any ethical dilemma is never easy. I'd like to believe that what you are saying is true, but somehow I don't think its as simple as that. I realize that no system will ever be perfect and I think realizing that helps us move forward. Still, I have hope that it isn't as complicated at I have made it in this dilemma.

For me, being the top dog of the world is not as important as sticking to certain ethical principles.... what about you? what principles would you be willing to sacrifice to be top dog in the world?

Depends on who's Top Dog #2.

We are peacekeepers in the world -- as much as we like to moan, that's what we are. That's what we inherit by being the most powerful nation in the world. I'm at a loss to engage this topic, because I don't think we have to give up any ethical principles to accomplish what we'd like. Heck, we're almost there. We just have to figure out a way to afford it. ;)
 
Its simply choosing the greater of 4 evils. If it were easy it wouldn't be considered an ethical "dilemma" .... :):mrgreen:

Weighted evils. Thats the point, because the choices arent "even" the individuals will not vote in a representative manner voting against what they believe in to produce a skewed result.
 
Depends on who's Top Dog #2.

We are peacekeepers in the world -- as much as we like to moan, that's what we are. That's what we inherit by being the most powerful nation in the world. I'm at a loss to engage this topic, because I don't think we have to give up any ethical principles to accomplish what we'd like. Heck, we're almost there. We just have to figure out a way to afford it. ;)

Perhaps your ethical principles differs from mine.

Its telling that you won't give a direction that you are leaning in. Its not going to hurt anyone if you give an option that you lean toward. The only way it would be impossible for you to say that you did not lean toward one of these options is if the pros outweighed the cons equally for each option for you, which is highly unlikely, which leads me to question your motives for not giving a leaning. ;)
 
Weighted evils. Thats the point, because the choices arent "even" the individuals will not vote in a representative manner voting against what they believe in to produce a skewed result.

unfortunately, there are certain ethical values that all people value over other values - the problem is that people don't want to actually look at those - it's difficult to make decisions like this - have you ever heard of the life boat dilemma? if not, this is likely your first time to face a difficult ethical dilemma, so I can understand how it can be hard... I remember the first time I was faced with a hypothetical dilemma like this... it was really hard to answer... however, I found that when forced to, I was able to answer - it takes a lot of courage though - either way, thank you for taking the time to consider it even if you didn't want to participate
 
I can't vote because I don't think these options reflect reality very accurately, or at least that the effects of the various trade-offs are too strongly skewed.

We could cut social spending by 40% and still help poor people as much or more than we currently do, if we cut the waste and graft and pork out of the system.

We could cut the military 20% and still have the most powerful military in the world by far... especially if we cut the pork and graft and waste out of the system.

If we did those two things we'd still be top dog, and we'd have a balanced budget.
 
If you read my introduction, you would see that what I listed were hypothetical situations. I am under no disillusionment that these options are necessarily going to occur, although I acknowledge the possibility that they could be close to some situations that may occur. Let me ask you this... which option do you think is currently the most similar to the situation the US is in today?

Indeed, I read your post. I voted A, but proceeded to explain why in my view none of the options are likely.


I can't vote because I don't think these options reflect reality very accurately, or at least that the effects of the various trade-offs are too strongly skewed.

We could cut social spending by 40% and still help poor people as much or more than we currently do, if we cut the waste and graft and pork out of the system.

We could cut the military 20% and still have the most powerful military in the world by far... especially if we cut the pork and graft and waste out of the system.

If we did those two things we'd still be top dog, and we'd have a balanced budget.

Can you identify what pork, graft, and waste you would cut from the military/system? I see those words thrown around quite a bit, but rarely with specifics behind them.
 
I can't vote because I don't think these options reflect reality very accurately, or at least that the effects of the various trade-offs are too strongly skewed.

We could cut social spending by 40% and still help poor people as much or more than we currently do, if we cut the waste and graft and pork out of the system.

We could cut the military 20% and still have the most powerful military in the world by far... especially if we cut the pork and graft and waste out of the system.

If we did those two things we'd still be top dog, and we'd have a balanced budget.

Seriously? This is an ethical dilemma, its supposed to be hard; that's the whole point. I wouldn't have made the options so skewed if I just wanted things to be easy. I dare you to think about what this is all about and truly try to answer a hard question. Situations like this often shake people to their core, leaving them resistant to taking a stance. Everyone who reads the post has a knee jerk reaction, but refuses to share it as it. Only those who are secure and confident in their arguments and in their values will be able to answer the question. The other problem is that most people have no experience with dealing with these issues and perhaps they don't want to. People are faced with hard decisions every day of their lives, harder than you would know. The least we could do is to figure out where we are leaning. This kind of exercise is preparatory. A nation with citizens that are unwilling to answer hard questions, will not succeed. Oh well, its an opportunity for growth, take it or leave it.
 
I second this. None of the choices are valid.


I don't remember anyone saying that these choices were valid. That's why I said "hypothetical". Just pick one you lean toward. The validity of the options is not necessary for picking a leaning. Read some of my other posts. This is an exercise for growth and grounding.
 
Long view. Exploiting the **** out of a relationship with burgeoning, relatively culturally similar, ideologically passive economies down south and north whatever else comes?

You can always rely on what you know. Don't **** it up on the hypothetical way down. Eurasia is for gamblers.
 
Indeed, I read your post. I voted A, but proceeded to explain why in my view none of the options are likely.

Oh, OK, sorry, I didn't realize that. I think I pick option C, however I would most like something that is a mix between option b and c. It just seems to be the most ethical to me. I believe wealth and power are under rated if you have the right allies. I believe that it is hard to compete with certain other immoral countries, e.g. china. However, I believe that if enough like minded countries banded together we could see option C realized while still keeping a lot of wealth and power.

Can you identify what pork, graft, and waste you would cut from the military/system? I see those words thrown around quite a bit, but rarely with specifics behind them.[/QUOTE]

Yes I agree with you roflpublican, ambiguous statements like these are nauseating and non-committal.
 
Indeed, I read your post. I voted A, but proceeded to explain why in my view none of the options are likely.

Oh, OK, sorry, I didn't realize that. I think I pick option C, however I would most like something that is a mix between option b and c. It just seems to be the most ethical to me. I believe wealth and power are under rated if you have the right allies. I believe that it is hard to compete with certain other immoral countries, e.g. china. However, I believe that if enough like minded countries banded together we could see option C realized while still keeping a lot of wealth and power.

Can you identify what pork, graft, and waste you would cut from the military/system? I see those words thrown around quite a bit, but rarely with specifics behind them.

Yes I agree with you roflpublican, ambiguous statements like these are nauseating and non-committal.
 
Last edited:
Long view. Exploiting the **** out of a relationship with burgeoning, relatively culturally similar, ideologically passive economies down south and north whatever else comes?

You can always rely on what you know. Don't **** it up on the hypothetical way down. Eurasia is for gamblers.

Wow... would you like to elaborate on this? What exactly are you saying and why exactly are you avoiding making a difficult decision?
 
Seriously? This is an ethical dilemma, its supposed to be hard; that's the whole point. I wouldn't have made the options so skewed if I just wanted things to be easy. I dare you to think about what this is all about and truly try to answer a hard question. Situations like this often shake people to their core, leaving them resistant to taking a stance. Everyone who reads the post has a knee jerk reaction, but refuses to share it as it. Only those who are secure and confident in their arguments and in their values will be able to answer the question. The other problem is that most people have no experience with dealing with these issues and perhaps they don't want to. People are faced with hard decisions every day of their lives, harder than you would know. The least we could do is to figure out where we are leaning. This kind of exercise is preparatory. A nation with citizens that are unwilling to answer hard questions, will not succeed. Oh well, its an opportunity for growth, take it or leave it.


Yes, seriously. If you're saying this OP is an abstract hypothetical dilemma that has little connection to reality, then I agree. I wasn't shaken to my core; I was unimpressed. I am not unwilling to answer hard questions, I'm unwilling to be bound by false dichotomies. I don't lack experience with these issues, I apparently have more experience with them than you because I can recognize when I'm being presented with an unrealistic set of options.

I decline to let other people define my options for me, particularly when those options are not realistic.




People are faced with hard decisions every day of their lives, harder than you would know.


:lamo You don't know me bud. I'm not some college freshman, I'm an ex-cop. I'm a middle aged blue collar single father with a teenage son and a mortgage: I make hard decisions every day. You talking down to me is pretty damn funny.
 
unfortunately, there are certain ethical values that all people value over other values - the problem is that people don't want to actually look at those - it's difficult to make decisions like this - have you ever heard of the life boat dilemma? if not, this is likely your first time to face a difficult ethical dilemma, so I can understand how it can be hard... I remember the first time I was faced with a hypothetical dilemma like this... it was really hard to answer... however, I found that when forced to, I was able to answer - it takes a lot of courage though - either way, thank you for taking the time to consider it even if you didn't want to participate

I guess you just dont get it. It doesnt matter that much it just means you'll hit a lot of none of the aboves (or people just not voting) & you'll end up with a meaningless results.

I was only trying to help you
 
Back
Top Bottom