Sometimes the arguments people make cut both ways. What is especially amusing is when they seem completely oblivious to the irony of it.
Sometimes “facts” that are simply taken for granted by the vast majority are questioned by a few. Other times, the few don’t even seem to realize that they are in the minority and have never questioned their beliefs either. It seems that many of us live in isolated bubbles of information. Sometimes I think that millions of my fellow American citizens live in Bizzaro-World. Below is my story as it pertains to beliefs about Canadian health care.
Everybody is talking about the new soda rules in New York. It seems you are no longer allowed to serve sodas of more than sixteen ounces, though you may serve more than one soda at a time. The reported aim of this rule is to decrease soda consumption, which theoretically will decrease the incidence of certain health problems. Unfortunately, I believe this rule will actually cause an increase in consumption.
I just came across a very interesting article in Yes Magazine that describes a way to meet everyone’s needs, achieve financial independence of individuals and communities, and halt (or even reverse) the growing concentration of effective wealth in the hands of the very few – and it does all this without erecting a supersized government or engaging in economic terrorism. This is an economic paradigm that virtually everybody of all ideologies should be able to get behind – and I almost missed it. Why, you ask? Well, it was packaged very poorly.
I have some points for us all to ponder to aid us in understanding why some people were against the health insurance mandate from the beginning and why relabeling it a “tax” doesn’t change the underlying issues people have with it.
Capitalists and Socialists debate over them, but which side are they really on? The labels we use don't make a lot of sense.
The author of this article has some of the same suspicions I’ve had for a long time; the two major parties collude on certain issues and not always in ways fair to the rest of us. Crony capitalism and the welfare state tend to go hand in hand and both major parties are guilty. Hopefully, understanding this will be the first step to overcoming partisanship. We need to stop defending our preffered parties when they screw up and remain true to our principles.
Furthermore, it shows yet another reason why labels are more trouble than they’re worth. Most people are against both crony capitalism and excessive welfare states (it seems) and so most people don’t fit the left-right paradigm. I had wanted to call both crony capitalism and welfare forms of socialism, but this would only confuse people; the word socialism means different things to different people. I had wanted to say that remaining true to our principles and rejecting both major parties was what the tea parties were all about, but the "tea party" label has become tarnished. People would assume I was endorsing violence, anarchy, big business, racism, or a mere front for the GOP to take down Obama. None of this is true.
I recently met a young man who calls himself a socialist, but he's really a libertarian. I'll explain.
Sometimes communication frustrates me.
Why are some people so against the new health care law? Are they all phonies put up by the insurance companies? Are they all crazy? Are they all racists full of anti-Obama sentiment? I wanted to find out, so I observed them and made a list of the arguments they actually use against this new health care law.
This post is written so that my readers may better understand my opinions about global warming.
Obama is a socialist! Or is he? What is socialism? It seems to be one of those words that is loosely defined enough to apply to nearly any government policy. Below are some of my observations I have made over the course of my lifetime and how they relate to our current struggles to understand each other.
Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.