Your article pretty much proves Draginol's point. You put everyone in a situation where they have no choice, where they are forced to deal with the problems. I'm curious why would you come up with this kind of scenario in an article that is linked to another article about the US. Last I checked rules A, B and C do not apply to the US so your argument does not relate to the article that started this one.

None the less I will play along. But first:

1- Get the healthy and able bodies to work for us (maids, gardeners, street sweepers, secretaries, drivers ...etc) even if we don’t need the work and we deduct the cost of maintaining their properties from their wages.

But how do you get the lazy ones to work since lazy means not wanting to as oppose to not being able to? And what about the sick people? Who will care for them while the health work? And what if they refuse to do the jobs you describe? Keep in mind, restrictions A, B and C say nothing about having the power to force anyone to work.

2- Treat the sick and get them to work too when they get well.

There are sick people in every society so I'm not sure how this fits but what if the ones who are sick are the doctors? What if the ones who lost their jobs were the doctors? Does this community not have hospitals to treat sick people anyways or are you talking about a community that does not have hospitals that will treat you regardless if you have insurance or not? Gotta wonder how much can anyone love a community like this.

3- Collect all these kids put them in a class in the NA building and hire a teacher for them.

So the community did not have schools from the get go? Who would want to live in a community with no schools? I'm a little confused as to how does restriction B apply in these conditions.

4- Start an adult-education and job-training program for the adults so they can get work.

How did they get their jobs the first time? Outside education? Again, how come this great community that everyone loves and can't find a better place does not have any kind of educational system? How was this community suppose to thrive in the first place without it since there is no help from outside?

5- We all share the cost of the above according to our income.

But how can we all share it if some of them are no longer working? And what if all of this cost more than we can afford?

6- The NA President is responsible for implementing the above program and must report to us on the progress or the problems with recommendations.

Does the job come with a gun and a single bullet for "in case of emergency, point gun to head and pull the trigger"?

I think I'm trying to prove a point here. You were trying to argue with Draginol that his concept of a nation as an NA just doesn't quite go together but then you construct a scenario which, to me, makes no sense. I just can't imagine why anyone would move into a community that does not allow outside help, does not have educational institutions from the get go, does not provide healthcare unless you can afford it, has income for mortgage, food and utilities that I have yet to figure where it comes from since these people are not working and there is no outside help yet somehow this location has enough appeal to get people to move in and never let them go cause it somehow makes them love the place.

I think Cuba sounds a whole lot better than this place. At least there you have education, healthcare, and help from outside (while not a lot but still) and you can leave when you want (at your own risk of course).

Had all the things I pointed out been a non-issue, i would go with your suggestions. No problem.

Last I checked rules A, B and C do not apply to the US

Are you saying in the US:
A- We exile bad people to outside the country?
B- If someone doesnt like the Gov. policy, they would wish to leave the country? (if that was true 65% of the people would have been out by now)
C- We seek (and willing to accept) foreign aid to solve our domestic problems?

I also said the Development is self-sufficient. It has everything they need, schools, hospitals, busn ... everything. These kids are beyond the regular school capabilities. they need special class. (you dont want to ruin the reg classes with these kids, do you?)

And assuming that ALL your objections are correct (which they are not , but let's say they are), Ok then. Throw my plan out. What is your plan?

Avoiding the issue is not an answer.

I said plainly ...... to hell with my plan if you dont like it.

Let us see what your plan is?

burying your head in the sand and keep denouncing all plans ....... is not a sign of ability to face reality no matter how painful that is. The situation i described reflects what any Nation faces. The article exposes the fallacy of pretending that a nation is just a collection of neighborhoods.

If it was. Solve the above problem ..... your own way.

Let's have it ...... get your heads out of the sand ......and face the reality of a NATION.

Where are all the righties now?

No plans? No solutions? ..... Just complaining and denouncing others and pretending that you understand the situation better?

Solve the problem .... dont just criticize .... Let's see your plans. I will accept ANY workable plan.

What is your problem guys? why is the silence?

I am waiting !!!!!

you construct a scenario which, to me, makes no sense. I just can't imagine why anyone would move into a community that does not allow outside help, does not have educational institutions from the get go, does not provide healthcare unless you can afford it, has income for mortgage, food and utilities that I have yet to figure where it comes from since these people are not working and there is no outside help yet somehow this location has enough appeal to get people to move in and never let them go cause it somehow makes them love the place.

now you see the difference between a Neighborhood and a Nation.

all the limitations I put in the scenario Naturally exist in any Nation. if a NA is just a small Gov., then Ok solve the problem with all thses limitations.

If you remove these limitations ....... then a NA is not a small Gov. and a neighborhood is not a Nation.

No, it just means your incoherent analogy falls apart easily.

 

our government is actually set up to use all forms of government from the past except communism.


you start with the city state. IE the main city in each county. normally the county seat. but the main city/town controls the county and more or less any other cities in the county.

No, it just means your incoherent analogy falls apart easily .

You proposed that analogy .... i just imposed the limitations which naturally exist in a nation to make it realistic.

It falls apart easily due to the fallacy of the original analogy. as i said earlier : If you remove these limitations ....... then a NA is not a small Gov. and a neighborhood is not a Nation.

you start with the city state. IE the main city in each county.

City State or main city it doesnt matter ..... regardless of the terminology .... still the question exists. How do you solve the problem?

Nations replaced City States and Unions replaced small nations for exacly the simple reason that they couldn't solve their common problems alone ..... they needed a more collective and unified effort. In that collective effort, the powerful take more responsibilities than the less powerful in order to solve problems created by the weak which, if left unsolved, will undermine and hurt the interests of both groups.

That is what makes a strong Nation.

Look at the Nations of the world, all the ones who dont solve the problems created by their weak segments are weak nations regardless of how many rich and powerful people live there. and eventually those rich and powerful soon lose their status

I am sure you know the principle of chain-links: its strength is measured by its weakest link. They all fall together or stand together regardless of their individual strength.

The strong help strengthen the weak not because of love of charity or generosity (even though these two traits exist and help to lighten the load on all) but mainly because it is a necessity to maintain their own strength and power and privilages. That is their reward for helping the weak. They earn that not only by work and skills but also by making sure that there is no links in the society that are weak to the point of snapping and cause the failure of the whole structure i.e. The Nation.

That is what most of the very rich individuals and corporations dont realize. Unfortunately to their own, and our, peril.

The connection is there and very real but it is far removed from and not noticeable by those who dont look through a wide angle lens. They dont realize that the sick child whom they helped to cure may be the one who will come up with an idea that will make their own child rich and powerful. and if left untreated may be the cause for their own child's failure.

Weakness and failure are infectious ..... we ignore them to our own peril.

No. What you did was say "I don't agree that X is a reasonable analogy" and therefore constructed a classic strawman argument that was incoherent.

As I said, the founders of our country explicitly intended the federal government to have essentially the kind of limited powers that a neighborhood association has.  They didn't contemplate things like federal income taxes or taking money from the citizenry to be handed out to others.

You may not like that or think that is what our government today should do, but that's purely an opinion. It doesn't change the historical fact of the issue.

Soviet Russia did everything possible to make sure everyone was taken care of. That didn't work out very well.

Taxes are an inhernet disincentive to whatever they are being applied to.  Income taxes are a disincentive for labor.  Obviously any form of government will need income to perform whatever vital roles the people deem necessary.  But it doesn't change the reality that the more you tax something, the more incentive the people have not to engage in the taxed activity (hence why they try to tax things like cigarettes and why some want to put high taxes on junk food). 

The point I was trying to make with my analogy, which clearly I failed to communicate to you, is that when a government starts to take excessively from one person to give to another person with the first citizen gaining nothing tangible in return, you ultimately harm the entire society (or neighborhood) as that person would "move out". In a nation state, it is more difficult to move out but at some point, those people will simply find ways to hide what they produce.

In Soviet Russia, the farms were collectives. This essentially means that they were taxed 100% beyond what the government decided that the farmers needed.  The result was mass starvation because the farmers simply refused to produce more than they absolutely needed since they knew the rest would be confiscated by the state.

The same thing could happen here.  Right now, I'd say our tax levels are still on the upper side of the safe zone.  But when you have people screaming that we need to start providing universal health care and more goodies to those who "need it" you create the real possibility that the most productive may be treated punitively in order to pay for the "compassion" of corrupt politicians.

this is the way i think that our nation should be operating.


cities should be concerned with their citizens and what goes on in the city. also concerned with working with other cities in the county.

this should include law enforcement, city streets, and other local needs.


counties should be concerned with city interacting, farmers, and county roads. they need to also back up the cities with law enforcement. ie the sheriff department.


states should be concerned with county interacting, state roads(which include the us highway system), and backing up the counties with law enforcement.


the federal government should be concerned with state interacting, international affairs. defense of the nation, education(because of it's importants. but we are already having this discussion other threads.), the interstate highway system, and backing up the states with law enforcement if needed.



now in our country.

the people are supposed to be represented in congress by the Representatives. the states are supposed to be represented in congress by Senates. and we all know how good a job they are doing with these jobs. the nation is represented by the president.

I dont mind discussions about different ways of doing things or to what extent should they be done. But to start debating that statement amounts to mere insanity. here is what the Constitution say:

Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; ...... "

we can discuss what represents a "common welfare of the United States", but the Constitution answers your statement. There is no better response than that.

That proves TWO points ....

1- the right's Scare tactics.
2- Ignore the problems to the peril of all.

The USSR leadership never cared about the people, the country or the world for that matter .... and it is dead by the way if you hadn't noticed. They only cared about a theoritical idealogy AND about themselves. That is exactly why they failed.
wrong theory and ignoring problems doomed them.

Thanks for proving my points.

then explain chinas turn toward free market.

You dont have to convince me of that at all. Excessive taxes are like no taxes both lead to non-functional government. Striking the correct balance between taxes and spending is the optimum objective.

whom to tax and how much Vs what to do and how far you do it is essentially what the experts and politicians are supposed to do. I dont think both groups are doing very good job.