maybe you should check your facts. the globe has been cooling for the past 7 years... do you think thats because of carbon emissions?

Eh, don't be afraid to speak ingnorance- you'll either be mocked by fools or corrected by the wise.

Seems terribly interesting, sounds like it could have trouble getting anything done, but at the same time fosters the strengthening socially that could do so. I wouldn't mind seeing it happen, I wonder if its been applied anywhere/anywhen.

I'd say every right has a responsibility- if you have the right to vote you have the responsibility to be informed. I wouldn't mind taking that one step further and then saying if you have the right to live in a democracy, you have the responsibility to vote... anyways...you're right about the majority not always getting it right, but aside from that there is great value in the majority owning their actions- social cohesion imo, and more energy/ideas.

Our Cultures are becoming inter-twined, and its better that a misunderstanding results in an angry discussion and maybe the end of a political career than WW3. I fear that our rulers will continue to use other rulers/nations as a means to manipulate their people without concrete governance, often to war.

Why would it be one dimensional? The democracies of the world are the most vibrant of countries, largely because dissent can be tolerated. It is the under rule of bad despots that things become monchromatic- simply less ideas can be safely expressed.

Heres a good articulation that the Greens leader in Australia, Bob Brown, wanted to put to the 2020 summit we just had here- http://greens.org.au/campaigns/article.php?id=12

"2009 Australia moves in the United Nations for the establishment of a bicameral global parliament; lower house based on ‘one person, one vote, one value’; upper house based on nation state representation. Aim for 2020 implementation. Offer Australian site for Global Parliament."

...course I don't think he got to go...

Sure lets check our facts. If you want to back that up feel free to start a new thread, I'll follow you.

He's following the same bizarre stream of thought here:
Global Warming

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

OK Ron............my mistake. Have it your way. Cling to your dreams by pretending that personal liberties and freedom of choice have ever been, or can ever be homogenius with universal care and benefits provided by central planners. While you're at it, keep believing that world-wide planning and control has been tried before. And never.........never answer a question that exposes your views as inconsistent.

My views and those of the group I belong to are quite consistent. But you do our "liberal" cause an injustice by displaying your unsupported claims that are "twanging with" inconsistency, while cowering behind an elitist facade of eloquence.

Since the ends justify the means, we still welcome your continued support by your choices on election day.

KOD, universal things like healthcare exist in the world now, and are protected by the democracies that brought them into being- so quite obviously they can co-exist. I'm not sure what you mean by the global planning thing, theres been some but its shaky as I've said, and not what either of us would mean by the term.

If the question you refer to is an inconsistency between freedom and universal healthcare etc, let me be clear- there is no inconsistency. It can exist now because its a good idea, which people can recognise. If I had to choose between democracy/freedom and universal healthcare, yes I'd choose democracy, as it has other benefits and frankly I wouldn't trust a dictatorship to maintain it between rulers- but I stress again this clash does not exist.

Also, I finally saw 'Sicko' recently- quite aside from if they are working in Denmark, England etc. and I think to a certain extent here, Universal healthcare is being used- in democracies. So whats the problem in my position?

Okay, apologies for thinking you're a parody, take it as an honest expression of disbelief at the substance of what you've said in a few places. Theres little point in dealing with people online unless you give them considerable benefit of the doubt, so you can have it from me.

Unsupported claims? Socialist initiatives exist now alongside democracy- and democracy is inherently stable. Any governance by an elite has not done as well as their democratic counter-parts historically. I still want to know how you'd mark out the Elite to rule over us.

Its more that the means must be judged against the ends- sometimes they may justify them, not always. Never liked that expression. Maybe we need to to figure out how we can arrive at such drastically different conclusions? For me the most pertinent example would be Soviet Russia: heaviest governmental control, no democracy therefore plenty of corruption and such. Doesn't that give you pause?

So it's a clear response if they agree with you? You must be a democrat.

Nobody benefits in a utopian society except for the ones running the show.

Accepted. This discussion is a prime example of why I volunteered to represent our interests on this forum, so I'll afford you the same benefit of the doubt.

The leftist side of the political struggle is not as unified in our doctrine as our conservative, bible-thumping opponents. My mission is to clarify our efforts by providing an unveiling of reality as it pertains to a leftist agenda. The days of communists' "closet" existence is over. We have the job of finishing the conversion of America that was started long ago, by urging wishy-washy "liberals" to take a firm stand here in the "end-game."

But this causes the constant struggle and battle between the two opposing factions that we've had to endure for decades. This has slowed our development into a truely progressive state, and must be overcome in order to get to our goals in due time.

Your explanation here describes no real existing society and ignores the success of the most consistent and tenacious example of socialism today..............Cuba. When they finally have American conservatives/capitalists off their backs, they can apply the same universal controls over incomes, living quarters, and the environment that they currently have with their healthcare system.

The incompatibality I recognize between socialism and freedom is that nothing of importance can be left up to the whims of the masses. Do you think that legal abortion, racial equality, and primary education could exist by popular, democratic means. Of course not. Universal healthcare would be usurped again by freedom-loving right-wingers who point to the higher quality medical attention that the rich have access to. And the environment will never be protected by willful compliance with mere "recommendations" by the environmentally conscious amongst us.

So then, why leave living quarters, vocational directive, and food acquisition and dispersement up to the same whimsical forces that have stone-walled universal healthcare...............those who preach "freedom of choice?"
Well, do you not believe our mantra about corporate America controlling our politicians and being at the root of our corruption? The Soviets had a good thing going for a long time..........they just rarely had the proper leadership to make the decisions for the masses.
Who do you mark out to make the decisions for us concerning our health, property, income, and the environment?

Who do you mark out to make the decisions for us concerning our health, property, income, and the environment?

I agree with your sentiments - but likewise, I agree with R-T that democracy is the "least worst" solution. Is there a better one? As I said earlier - benevolent dictatorships are rare - and tend to be unreliable.

But on the matter of the environment, of which I have a particular interest - it is true that democratic capitalism has been our worst enemy. The "Tragedy of the Commons" - where unpriced externalities such as the planet's atmostphere is seen as a valueless commodity to be exploited has left us in a difficult situation. And as can be seen here from many of our learned colleagues from that large "democracy" across the Pacific - the voices of the ignorant still seem to have some impact on the world's largest polluter. Some sort of effective World Government is very much overdue.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

bugs, you have your heart in the right place, but your head's as mixed up as most "liberals" today. Simple deduction and history prove that freedom of choice, liberty, and democracy are not in the best interests of the masses. They simply cannot be trusted to make the proper decisions for themselves.

There is no perfect system. But we must recognize our current plight globally, and accept the best alternative available to insure that the best interests for the most people are taken into account. This means collectivism, not democracy.

Some still believe that freedom and capitalism deliver the best products and services to the consumer by pitting one greedy producer against another in fierce competition. They argue that successful and healthy citizens will cause others to pursue similar paths to self-reliance and self-improvement in order to survive and thrive in the free society they tout. Now, idealistically, they may be correct. But we all have seen what happens when businesses get control over our laws and regulations. We all know what the results of corporate welfare are. So, the best tact to take is to have government completely control all business and services to the masses.

Removing the responsibility of the citizenry for making decisions concerning their health and well-being, as well as living quarters and vocational choices frees them up to be more productive in an environment worry-free of basic needs.