World Politics

[rhubroma]

The film is anti war, anti imperialism, and pro environment. There are hits against U.S. Iraq/war on terror policy. It is also gorgeous with incredibly detailed special effects, and good use of 3D. It is james Cameron's first movie since Titanic. It is the "event movie" of the year. And it will be hugly popular based on the visuals alone, especially with young people. Theaters are selling out.

The film's politics are basically everything the conservatives hate about the "Hollywood elite" and its sure to be, massive popularity is sure to infuriate them to no end.

The ironic thing is that the film was made by Fox studios.

Nicely summed up, as usual BroDeal. In fact you sinthesize, perfectly, what I had read just a couple of days ago by an Italian film critic. These type of sci-fi films, with over-the-top digital effects, are usually not my cup of tea (nor that of a certain leftist film going audience in Euroland - of course made up of "cultured intellectuals"), but I will have to see this one.

 

[rhubroma]

I figure I will see it and seriously doubt that it will both me since I usually consider movies to be entertainment and not reality.

This is why conservatives find it so difficult to think critically through metaphor, or to see film as social criticism. Being as concrete as they are. Or right, but we were talking about movies.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Question: how much wealth is too much? Where should the cut off be?

 

[Bala Verde]

Question: how much wealth is too much? Where should the cut off be?

Question: how much 'physical security' is enough? Where would the cut off be?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Question: how much 'physical security' is enough? Where would the cut off be?

I would be happy to discuss your question but feel it would be fair to acknowledge and discuss what I posted. I get the feeling you are evading my question, perhaps as there are serious problems when they question is asked in defending the liberal viewpoint that capitalism is inherently evil and that socialism is inherently good.

For what is worth, I would be much more comfortable with socialism if it werre not for man's basic nature of selfishness in combination with a limitation on resources and an incredible increase in consumers.

 

[titan_90]

I would be happy to discuss your question but feel it would be fair to acknowledge and discuss what I posted. I get the feeling you are evading my question, perhaps as there are serious problems when they question is asked in defending the liberal viewpoint that capitalism is inherently evil and that socialism is inherently good.

For what is worth, I would be much more comfortable with socialism if it werre not for man's basic nature of selfishness in combination with a limitation on resources and an incredible increase in consumers.

Yet, you support a philosophy in which the main value is selfishness

I understand that no system will ever be perfect. I am not against wealth but I am against a system that is so corrupt it is destroying this country and what it stands for. America has become derailed from it's ideals in a large part by the conservatives but the left has played it's role. The Europeans have proven that democratic socialism is a successful and socially just form of government. Meanwhile the US continues to lag further behind in education, health care, quality of life and infrastructure to just name a few.

You never commented on the issue of 45,000 people dying every year because they have no access to health care. Does this not bother you? 3,000 people died on 9/11 and how many 100's of billions of dollars have been spent on two wars and other anti-terrorism activities, hell we even created a new government agency. But, spending money to make sure everyone has health care, is too expensive and is evil

 

[Anonymous]

"For what is worth, I would be much more comfortable with socialism if it werre not for man's basic nature of selfishness in combination with a limitation on resources and an incredible increase in consumers"

Well, that IS the point isn't it? So it is better to go then for the complete free-range capitalism where you promote those values...instill and reward them?

The decent "socialist" governments recognize what you say and that is why they don't allow the sort of free market trench warfare we all live under here in the U.S...for example, why they would have health care for all and let it not be at the mercy of "man's basic nature of selfishness".

 

[Cobblestones]

This is why conservatives find it so difficult to think critically through metaphor, or to see film as social criticism. Being as concrete as they are. Or right, but we were talking about movies.

Not quite true. The right has emphatically embraced Jack Bauer.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Well, that IS the point isn't it? So it is better to go then for the complete free-range capitalism where you promote those values...instill and reward them?

You cannot change the basic nature of man - it really does not matter how much you promote it. Fore instance, no one wants to put a tag on how much wealth is too much, they just want to say that those who have the most have too much and should give it to the government so it can give it to those who do not have as much. Unless you say what is too much the people with the most will always be envied, and the claim will always be that they have too much and are selfish not to share.

In addition, there is no consideration about what to do with those who look at government support as their right with no comparative responsibilities.

As far as I have been able to see, socialism in practice only focuses on what others have that should be given to the poor - basically state enforced charity, with no consideration about what should be done for those who have no motivation to benefit others or to support themselves.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Yet, you support a philosophy in which the main value is selfishness

Selfishness is not a value, it is human nature. Capitalism, for the most part, recognizes the basic nature of greed and limits it by stating if your goal is a life of wealth and ease you are going to have to work for it (or win the genetic lottery) - that socialism will not work because it does not consider the fact that 100% of people are basically selfish (the goals differ but the basic nature is the same) and that a majority of individuals are more than happy to do the minimum effort for the maximum gain.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

How is one defining "selfishness"? In the way of egoism - that you live for yourself first? Most people do that. Or is it being defined as a brutal thug who will take advantage of anyone to any end, justice set aside?

Fore instance, no one wants to put a tag on how much wealth is too much, they just want to say that those who have the most have too much and should give it to the government so it can give it to those who do not have as much.

You're collapsing everyone to the left of you again. Some people think the wealthy could pay more for things like education, justice, infrastructure, debt reduction even, and that none of that money should go as cash or direct benefits to those poorer than them. Unless you consider the wealthy paying more for things like the fire department or bridges and roads, or safety so the roof of the local school doesn't cave in is in it's current state weighted to benefit those in financial hardship.

A lot of conservatives to view things that way. That people should pay for their own education, including K-12 and if you can't afford it, it's your own damn fault. And that this philosophy will somehow motivate people to be smarter or more productive.

Not quite true. The right has emphatically embraced Jack Bauer.

True. There are plenty of films and TV shows the so called "right" likes. It's not as cut and dry as people think.

Good post Titan 90, bringing up good points about war. But health care doesn't necessarily mean saving lives, though I do believe in some form of national health care for all, yes.

Meanwhile, it looks like the convoluted health care bill that's in the US Senate now has the votes to pass.

 

[Anonymous]

Selfishness is not a value, it is human nature. Capitalism, for the most part, recognizes the basic nature of greed and limits it by stating if your goal is a life of wealth and ease you are going to have to work for it (or win the genetic lottery) - that socialism will not work because it does not consider the fact that 100% of people are basically selfish (the goals differ but the basic nature is the same) and that a majority of individuals are more than happy to do the minimum effort for the maximum gain.

I think you will find if you read some Karl Marx that socialists surely recognize that fact of human nature...it ain't all magic teacups and free ***...BECAUSE that is human nature, good government steers society as a whole for it's own good. I will give you an example...civil rights. Even as far right as you seem to pride yourself to be...you probably agree black folks should vote...yet, not so long ago (within my lifetime), if you put that up to most people in America via a national referendum, they would have said "nope". Government, if well intentioned, legislates for it's nation's good. Another example, Bush and his wrecking crew came in and pulled out every regulation, every damn stop they could to ensure total capitalism via the markets...and we are, now, all of us, seeing what that did and the total destruction of our system that that led to. That wasn't a mistake in judgement...it is exactly what they wanted. Should Bush and his boys been around during the American Revolution, he and his cronies would undoubtably been loyalist...and would have been hung immediately as a danger to american democracy.

In so called ''Socialist" Belgium, you can become rich and you can be fairly poor...but you will never find anything like what we have here in the sense of just a unfettered dog eat dog philosophy...and they wouldn't have it because ultimately it is pure national self destruction...which is what we now are seeing and have been since Reagan. Capitalism here is capitalism on crystal meth.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

How is one defining "selfishness"? In the way of egoism - that you live for yourself first? Most people do that. Or is it being defined as a brutal thug who will take advantage of anyone to any end, justice set aside?

Egoism, it gets in the way of socialism when there are limited resources. Beyond that, it also causes problems when a person is satisfied with having a roof over their head and food in their stomach - if they are provided all by the state, that person is not likely to find any motivation to be productive. There are plenty of wealthy people who have this attitude as well, their wealth may get them to their old age, but it will continue to decrease into the pockets of others under capitalism.

You're collapsing everyone to the left of you again. Some people think the wealthy could pay more for things like education, justice, infrastructure, debt reduction even, and that none of that money should go as cash or direct benefits to those poorer than them. Unless you consider the wealthy paying more for things like the fire department or bridges and roads is in it's current state weighted to benefit those in financial hardship.

I suppose you are correct in that I was not clear - I do not think of this as completely a left ideology (it fits with those on the right as well as the anarchists). In fact my thought is that it is wrapped in basic human nature. People tend to envy those who appear to have more than they do, this can even relate to sports; often kids are envious of those with more athletic ability and seek to marginalize them as less intelligent or with some sort of moral deficiency. Basic human nature leaves most believing that those with more of any material (or physical) attributes have an unfair advantage - that it is necessary to reduce what they have to a level that is equal to the position of the individual making the judgment. Since there is no way to achieve complete parity for the human race those with less are going to envy those with more and use the inequality to justify taking from one group to give to another. I do not think that anyone will be able to say how much wealth is too much other than to say if the person has more than I it is too much.

 

[Cobblestones]

Selfishness is not a value, it is human nature.

Correction. It's part of human nature. Another part which you seem to ignore totally is altruism. Human nature is not as simple as you seem to think. Don't neglect other aspects because they don't fit in your world view.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

In so called ''Socialist" Belgium, you can become rich and you can be fairly poor...but you will never find anything like what we have here in the sense of just a unfettered dog eat dog philosophy.

If the socialist philosophy has benefited local society to where they can support themselves and the world around them, why isn't the UN asking countries that are primarily socialist for funding to the same, or a larger, extent as they do the United States?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Correction. It's part of human nature. Another part which you seem to ignore totally is altruism. Human nature is not as simple as you seem to think. Don't neglect other aspects because they don't fit in your world view.

I am familiar with altruism, I wonder how much of it results in the individual feeling good about what they are giving up - which is a reward as well (although, there are very few acts that can get close to true altruism) and when you look at the entire life of the human I do not believe you will find any who exhibit altruism throughout their lifetime.

 

[titan_90]

Selfishness is not a value, it is human nature. Capitalism, for the most part, recognizes the basic nature of greed and limits it by stating if your goal is a life of wealth and ease you are going to have to work for it (or win the genetic lottery) - that socialism will not work because it does not consider the fact that 100% of people are basically selfish (the goals differ but the basic nature is the same) and that a majority of individuals are more than happy to do the minimum effort for the maximum gain.

Unregulated Capitalism does not limit greed, it is the product and vehicle of greed and selfishness. So if you recognise that selfishness is part of human nature and is inherently bad, why don't you try to rise above it instead of using it as justification for your own selflessness? I am sorry for you if you think the majority of mankind are more happy to do the minimum humanly possible, it is the minority not the majority.

No one on here is saying the the US should become a socialist nation. We are simply saying that we need to adopt some socialist policies to fill in the gaps where the free market system has failed to provide, just as the Europeans have. And the biggest example of that failure is in healthcare.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

No one on here is saying the the US should become a socialist nation. We are simply saying that we need to adopt some socialist policies to fill in the gaps where the free market has failed to provide, just as the Europeans have. And the biggest example of that failure is in healthcare.

We have socialist policies: social security, medicare, public education, and a lot more.

As an aside, I am willing to bet that my private insurance will be going up with the passage of the health care bill. I am guessing right now about 30%, perhaps more.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Unregulated Capitalism does not limit greed, it is the product and vehicle of greed and selfishness.

It certainly does, unless the government steps in and covers all poor business decisions.

Too much greed will drive away the consumer, unless there is a monopoly - even then, greed will result in loss of business for everything except the absolute necessities.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It certainly does, unless the government steps in and covers all poor business decisions.

Does this apply to all the bailouts in your opinion?

Good point Cobbles. No one is completely an egoist, or an altruist. There is a broad range of beliefs, actions and behavior in everyone. I think what Cal may be saying is that forced altruism will lead to failure on those who can produce, to produce with volume or quality.

Bush and his wrecking crew came in and pulled out every regulation, every damn stop they could to ensure total capitalism via the markets...

Your "capitalism on crystal meth" comment is a good one, but I'm going to argue that what Bush and those around him (and the neocons) argued wasn't true capitalism. The deregulation emanating from their policies was something supported by many on the left. Their legacy isn't capitalism or advocating of it. They tried to manipulate policy, the tax code and markets in ways they thought would work to specifics and favorites - usually large campaign doners, while punishing those who got in their way by making sure they were left out. This isn't capitalism, but some sort of plutocracy, or kleptocracy. But not just by the wealthy which is what plutocracy would imply, but by the wealthy who are connected who then act as thieves, and not just against the poor or working class, but by others who aren't in the circle of connections, regardless of their level of wealth.

The biggest problem in the US isn't health care, and it's not any ill-perceived left/right idiom, it's massive corruption and collusion between the government, and those who can afford to connect to them. Until there is total campaign finance reform and organized lobbying is made a crime, this will continue, regardless of which party is in control.

 

[titan_90]

As an aside, I am willing to bet that my private insurance will be going up with the passage of the health care bill. I am guessing right now about 30%, perhaps more.

I wouldn't doubt it. I think the senate bill is pure BS and all it does is enrich the private insurance corps even more. You said the key words "Private Insurance" until we tell this group of people that do nothing to improve health care but just leach off of us to F@%& Off we will continue to pay more and more money and continue to get less and less for it.

 

[titan_90]

The biggest problem in the US isn't health care, and it's not any ill-perceived left/right idiom, it's massive corruption and collusion between the government, and those who can afford to connect to them. Until there is total campaign finance reform and organized lobbying is made a crime, this will continue, regardless of which party is in control.

I totally agree with you on this. Unfortunately, I don't see any of these needed reforms taking place any time soon.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I wouldn't doubt it. I think the senate bill pure BS and all it does is enrich the private insurance corps even more. You said the key words "Private Insurance" until we tell this group of people that do nothing to improve health care but just leach off of us to F@%& Off we will continue to pay more and more money and continue to get less and less for it.

With Medicare and Medicaid we already have government funded (and supervised) insurance, they have never been a benchmark of fiscal responsibility.

 

[titan_90]

With Medicare and Medicaid we already have government funded (and supervised) insurance, they have never been a benchmark of fiscal responsibility.

I agree with you on this(see we can agree on some things)

The whole health care system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the bottom up.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I agree with you on this(see we can agree on some things)

Well, I do enjoy cycling

The whole health care system needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the bottom up.

I really do not trust the guys running Medicare and Medicaid to run the show (or any other group of similar abilities and mentality). The problem is that you cannot legislate into effect the management of the program and, I believe, we would only going to get a bigger, less effective form of what we have now - besides, Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt and I am not sure how we can pay for more than what we cannot pay for now.