<p>
</p>
<p>Can’t see why anyone would oppose this. I mean it’s worked perfectly in California.</p>
<p>L O L</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a slightly narrow-minded view. Really, ‘radical’ is merely a matter of perspective. In fact, to me, YOU’RE the one who appears ‘radical.’</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are correct insofar as assuming the standard politician’s end, but from that, it is silly to assume their means. There are many, many approaches to getting re-elected, and some work better than others. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it depends on your definition of “stimulate”, but governments in general can only redistribute, not create. That, plus our government in particular is grossly inefficient and corrupt (compared to the likes of Sweden and other Euro-countries). </p>
<p>As for corruption, I don’t know how you can make the statement you have. Politicians have near no accountability as their tax money is almost guaranteed (by coercion); a business man must have a customer voluntarily hand over his/her money. Who do you think is more prone to corruption? </p>
<p>And working conditions improve over time do to increases in capital investment and improvements in technology combined with the scarcity of labor (competition over workers)…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand how theft can ever be moral… I personally think all normative statements are unscientific garbage, but maybe you can explain your (or Rawls’) position in a more detailed manner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know, the positions Kennedy held were also almost exclusively in favor of the government claiming control over recourses. If you accept that many in the government are part of the “elite”, than it could surely be seen that he was advocating for the elite.</p>
<p>Because the government doesn’t provide jobs or stimulate the economy at all, right? Yes, private businesses are likely more efficient, but the problem is that they’re much more prone to corruption and atrocious working conditions without sufficient government regulation (see post-Civil War robber baron mentality). ~ The Acsendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>Right, and the government isn’t prone to corruption? I guess you don’t read the newspaper - Blagojevich ring a bell?</p>
<p>BTW, the government can only make jobs, but it can create NOTHING. It’s just recycled taxpayer money. Creating a larger, bloated system (what you call job growth), just makes taxes go up to fuel their addiction to government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course if a business man builds up a monopoly the customer’s actions become a little less voluntary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, that’s incredibly fallacious reasoning</p>
<p>What about all the Midwest and Southern congressmen? A lot of them DID grow up on farms. ~ The Acsendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>Yeah, what about them?</p>
<p>They may have grown up on a farm - by they sure as hell weren’t working on a farm when they got elected.</p>
<p>If they were, they couldn’t have gotten elected, we both know that. They somehow or another became wealthy (which I applaud, unlike you I don’t hate the rich) or became part of the political machine.</p>
<p>They surely didn’t walk off the farm on Tuesday and get elected to Congress on Friday - so stop playing stupid. You know damn well that nearly every single Senator/Congressman was wealthy (elite as some say) before they were elected to office, so drop the act, it’s the old “pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining” story, but I’m not buying it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First and foremost, this is a complete straw-man. How does this refute that government is by definition always a monopoly and is therefore less accountable. Moreover, monopolies in a truly free-market are short lived if there is free entry into any such marketplace. Government has a permanent monopoly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I didn’t mean to say we could be certain of who he was advocating for; we can’t. But I don’t think it’s that outrageous to say that:</p>
<p>1) Kennedy advocated legislation that redirected recourses into the hands if the government</p>
<p>2) The government is filled with “elites”</p>
<p>3) Kennedy advocated for the “elites”</p>
<p>Edit: To both sides of the arguments, lets keep it civil and friendly 
There is no need to feel threatened by anothers’ ideas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Election is the only direct means of getting…elected. No matter how many PACs support them or how much they can afford on campaign spending, no politicians will get elected if they don’t serve the interest of their constituents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Private enterprise is still more prone to corruption. The government is constantly subjected to the mediating effects of a watchdog media and fickle public opinion. Thus, they’re held more accountable than private businesses. Does this mean that no government agency is corrupt? Of course not, but corporate corruption is much more likely to go unnoticed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This applies to a well-educated and specialized labor force. But, should social stratification become more pronounced, there will be no scarcity of labor, which will be provided by low-income workers. Moreover, technology says nothing about how a corporation will distribute its wealth. Yes, it could use its revenue to develop safety standards and increase worker pay, but those are all viewed as additional costs. If it weren’t for safety regulations and minimum wage, the low-income worker’s life would be a lot more difficult in the face of corporate greed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Making jobs IS creating something. I mean, money circulates throughout the entire economy, so you might as well say the jobs created by private enterprise are also ‘recycled taxpayer money’. Moreover, who is more apt to deal with recessionary environments than governments that can subsidize certain key industries and stimulate certain sectors of the economy? Private businesses would be far too self-interested to protect the interests of society at large.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a fallacious argument. If you want to argue strictly teleologically, the agencies of the government which Kennedy supported all worked to support the poor. Even if the government were part of the “elite” (a claim that is dubious at best), it still serves its constituents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m too lazy to type out the entire theory, but, in short, it’s premised on the veil of ignorance argument wherein society agrees in its social contract for some means of self-protection through distribution of wealth. If you’re interested in political philosophy, definitely read it. It’s quite a sensible argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s as if you’re arguing that a representative loses all characteristics of his backgrounds once he becomes elected. Even if someone were elected to Congress, said person doesn’t automatically become one of the corrupt, politically elite. They still retain their life stories and their personal stances, which is also why many Midwestern/southern representatives support agriculture subsidies and farm protections – they didn’t forget their roots.</p>
<p>Moreover, as I’ve already argued, substantive representation allows even the supposed ‘elite’ to support the interest of the poor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where did I say I hated the rich? I hate grossly inequitable distributions of wealth and corporate corruption, but I don’t hate the ‘rich’ in general.</p>
<p>I’m too lazy to type out the entire theory, but, in short, it’s premised on the veil of ignorance argument wherein society agrees in its social contract for some means of self-protection through distribution of wealth. If you’re interested in political philosophy, definitely read it. It’s quite a sensible argument. ~ The Ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>Basically you are saying that you want to take something that doesn’t belong to you (money/wealth) and give it to someone else, who didn’t earn it.</p>
<p>That is called theft and just because you disguise it as a political philosophy doesn’t change a darn thing, as your Comrade Obama once said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”</p>
<p>Here’s how it works. I go out and earn my paycheck, and I use that paycheck how I want - for my family and myself. You keep your dirty lil socialist hands off it and go earn your own money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, that’s a [clear</a> logical fallacy](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle"]clear”>Fallacy of the undistributed middle - Wikipedia). I thought you were a philosophy major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>L O L</p>
<p>
Politicians in democratic governments don’t have a monopoly. In the end, the voters can kick them out if they’re not satisfied. Now the politicians can market themselves misleadingly - just like a business can. Politicians are charged with working for the people; businessmen are charged making money at the expense of other. Who’s more likely to be interested in the well-being of the people?
And in a true communistic society everyone has all the resources they need.
= Don Quixote</p>
<p>Where did I say I hated the rich? I hate grossly inequitable distributions of wealth and corporate corruption, but I don’t hate the ‘rich’ in general. ~ The ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>Right, you don’t hate them - you just want to steal their money and give it to people who didn’t earn it, right?</p>
<p>@BIGeastBEAST: I think it is respectful to call a president by either his full name or last name. Dubya is also disrespectful.</p>
<p>ETA: Unless, of course they prefer the nickname. (Bill Clinton?) At the time, Barack Obama seems to want to be called Barack Obama.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really now? That’s sounding less like a coherent argument and more and more like mindless complaining.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think distributive justice is as simple as “I earn a paycheck and you keep your ‘dirty lil socialist hands’ off it?”</p>
<p>I honestly urge you to read the book. Like I said, the argument is clear and sensible.</p>
<p>And in a true communistic society everyone has all the resources they need.
= Don Quixote </p>
<hr>
<p>And no freeomds to go with it.</p>
<p>That logic is based on a dependent mind-state, one that requires the government to hold their hand through life.</p>
<p>Sad and pathetic.</p>
<p>You want Obama to change your diapers for you too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, you completely missed the point. Amazing.</p>
<p>Really now? That’s sounding less like a coherent argument and more and more like mindless complaining.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think distributive justice is as simple as “I earn a paycheck and you keep your ‘dirty lil socialist hands’ off it?”</p>
<p>I honestly urge you to read the book. Like I said, the argument is clear and sensible. ~ The Ascendancy</p>
<hr>
<p>I’ve read it, as well as just about any political philosophy text you can cite.</p>
<p>Do I think people who have money/resources should help people in need (ones who can’t help themselves that is)? Yes!</p>
<p>Do I think the government should force them too? NO!</p>
<p>Here is clear and sensible:</p>
<p>I’m responsible for myself and you’re responsible yourself.</p>
<p>Sensible enough?</p>
<p>@BIGeastBEAST: There’s no point in quoting if you’re going to add your own ideas to it. In a true communist state, there is no government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Somehow, your lack of political common sense leads me to doubt the claim that you’ve read any philosophical text I can cite.</p>
<p>But, supposing you have, you’d understand that individuals in society don’t operate on a strictly autonomous level – what would be the point of forming a society then? Rather, the members of society agree to a certain social contract where the individual gives up certain rights in order for the collective benefit of the whole. None of this is revolutionary ideology, and, as such, to claim that you’re only responsible for yourself and I’m only responsible for myself is ignorant. We’re both inevitably accountable for the well-being of society in general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Communist theory is strictly economic. In fact, the best political system for a communist economy would be complete anarchy in small, communal societies governed by Rousseau’s general will.</p>