And so would many of our fellow citizens. But, they’d be wrong:
Here is another link with these facts
Cite? The federal budget is available online and I imagine state ones are too. What would you cut exactly and how much would tax rates drop as a result?
Bzzt. Incorrect. Try again.
But if you had actually read his work instead of parroting what you hear from others, you’d already know this.
May i suggest that you start with the two-volume work by Chomsky and Edward Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights (Boston: South End Press, 1979). Then maybe look at the stuff Chomsky wrote for The Nation during the mid to late 1970s. That should give you a good starting point. If you’re still stuck, you might want to look at this article by Christopher Hitchens, in which he summarizes the debate and gives some other references that you could follow up on. When you find a denial that Pol Pot committed any atrocities, come back and report it, including page number/s.
It is true that in this 1977 article Chomsky and Ed Hermann referred to “alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities,” but the reason for this was that the article itself is a review of other works on Cambodia and was devoted to showing the problems of interpretation and evidence-gathering that appeared in those books. For example, in the case of Ponchaud’s book, Chomsky and Hermann dispute his information-gathering techniques and some of his evidence, but call the book “serious and worth reading.” Concluding the article, the authors say: “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments.” Their main point was to demonstrate inconsistencies among the stories, and injudiciousness in weighing different types of evidence.
Chomsky did not, and does not deny that Pol Pot carried out those awful crimes; in fact, he is a big fan of one of the most important indictments of Pol Pot–John Pilger’s film “The Killing Fields.” And if you check the Appendix of Chomsky’s 1989 book Necessary Illusions, you’ll find numerous references to Khmer Rouge “atrocities.”
Basically, while Chomsky did call into question some of the numbers being thrown around in the late 1970s about how many people had actually died under the Khmer Rouge (above the normal death rate), and while he outlines the way in which heavy US bombing of Camodia helped to create a situation in which a demagogue like Pol Pot could rise to power, he was not, and is not, an apologist for Pol Pot.
Lobsang, grow a spine and make some decisions based on your own thoughts. Why try to adopt someone else’s point of view. Do you intend to become their mouthpiece?
Political beliefs and opinions are less than a penny a dozen so why spend the time and money listening to others? You should have a perfectly good brain to explore this issue without the chatter of other sophomoric ideas being bandied about. If you examine yourself and your feelings on issues reducing all the babble through the crucible on reasoned thought you will be able to decide for yourself what to believe.
Why does it require someone else’s approval what you think and feel? Try starting with rock of some basic conventions and beliefs and then chip away the excess until you have created your statue of beliefs. Using putty to form your beliefs will produce a belief system about as resolute as the morning dew. Once the light of day and heat hits it evaporates and you are left with nothing to stand on!
This is a discussion board. Lobsang has posted a topic for discussion, basically inviting people to pitch their politics so they can be judged and weighed against other peoples political beliefs.
In short it’s a hypothetical situation, and your post is ridiculous.
Which country? What does the name of the country have to do with the question?
As far as i can see, a large part of the whole liberal vs conservative viewpoint can be simplified as follows:
Liberals believe that the less fortunate in society should be helped as a matter of principle, and you should if necessary “take by force” from one person to help another. An unfettered free market will not lead to a desirable outcome as all the economic power belongs to the rich. They will use this economic power to benefit themselves and the poor suffer. Hence government intervention is required.
Conservatives believe that in the primacy of property rights. Your own income is yours - you have earned it, and it is wrong to “take it by force” to spend on others. An unfettered free market will lead to a desirable outcome for both rich and poor following ideas first proposed by Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations”. Hence government intervention is not required, and should be restricted to essential services only - enforcing the rule of law, defence etc.
In the end i think it comes down to two things. Ideologically, as said by SentientMeat - which is more unjust, allowing someone to suffer in a rich country though lack of food, medical care etc, or forcing someone else to pay? Practically, do you believe that unfettered free markets will lead to a desirable outcome, or not?
It might be a good idea to look at whether you think the US or Europe is a “better society”. The US broadly has followed the conservative viewpoint, while Europe has followed the liberal once. Consequently the US is quite a bit richer, and its economy is the powerhouse of the world. The average US citizen is better off than the average European one. However the US has bigger levels of income equality, large segments of their population lack access to affordable healthcare, has higher levels of child poverty etc. Basically the poor are a lot worse off, while middle and high income earners are better off.
In the school where I taught, some of the students qualified for both breakfast and lunch. There were some abuses, but there were others who depended on that food. (This was a government program.)
Also, homeless shelters have food lines with many children. I have read, but do not have a cite, that as many as one-third in the line are children. (I think these are usually run by charities.)
Were the children starving? Not as long as we fed them.
slight hijack
I think you’ve conflated a few concepts here. Parental skills do not correlate with financial skills. There are plenty of people who are good parents, who are not skilled in managing their finances well. Conversely, there are socially inept people who breed and have lots of money.
Secondly, some children benefit from school lunch programs even though their parents do not receive welfare. For instance, I am a single mom (who has never been on welfare) earning enough money to comfortably house, clothe, and feed my kid. My income is still low enough that she would qualify for a reduced lunch at school. Although it would definitely benefit our household financially to take advantage of this program ($0.40 per reduced school lunch v. $2 per homemade lunch or full price school lunch), I will not because I don’t want any stigma attached to her and because I feel like since I can feed us it would be best to leave those resources for people who need them more.
I think this is true but the argument I make is even stronger than this. Namely, I don’t really think it is unambiguously one person’s money that is taken and given to another. The fact is that we live in a highly interactive society. Determining what each person’s share is out of that society is impossible. While the market system may apportion money in some way that is supposed to roughly approximate one’s contribution, for a variety of reasons, it is incredibly naive to believe this is anything more than a rough approximation. Furthermore, it is an approximation valid only under the particular political-economic system we have chose to set up. We could envision changing a provision of patent law, a provision of corporate law, a provision of just about any laws and arrive at a different distribution of money to various people. Last I checked, the particular laws we decided upon were not brought down from the heavens. (In particular, they seem to favor the accumulation of lots of wealth into a few hands.)
This is why I think elevating property rights to the level that conservatives do is problematic. The idea of private property rights in a highly interactive society is really a pragmatic one. I.e., I think it can be justified as being useful for various practical reasons, including providing incentives for people to contribute to society. But, to elevate it to some absolute right above everything else and to believe that all the property I get my paws on through our economic system is mine, mine, mine is pretty silly and childish. You got that within a given system and you took advantage of benefits of that system (roads, schools, police protection, …) If the property was all yours…and similarly for everyone else…no taxes could be collected (without “taking” from people) and these benefits would not exist.
A couple of caveats on this besides what you mention:
(1) I believe at the moment, the U.S. does have the highest GDP per capita but this wasn’t always the case…even, say 10 or 20 years ago…and may not be the case sometime in the future.
(2) An important thing to realize about “averages” is that they can be weighted by having some very wealthy people. Thus, it is also useful to ask how the “median” is doing. There was an article by Krugman recently that noted that there is evidence that some of these countries like Sweden, despite having a lower “average” wealth per person does have a higher median one. There are also arguments that GDP or “standard of living” is not a completely reliable measure of “quality of life”.