I propose a challenge to my fellow beloved WMT comrades. After the endless and endless debates that have flooded this side of the forum, I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread for the sole purpose of finding something that you guys and me too can all agree on concerning politics. Not that I don’t enjoy and think that good debate is healthy, but I also think it is good that we remember our common grounds as well. I know we can do it.

The ultimate goal is to raise everybody's standard of living. That's why most crime is illegal. Murder and rape and drunk driving are bad because of the effects they have on the individual and the society that individual lives in. We don't need laws to protect the feelings of small but vocal groups - we outlaw things that are injurious to society and its ability to function smoothly.

Government's job is to do what no one else feasibly can. The Republican who built the USA wide freeway system is a good example. As was the New Deal. If somebody else can do it, great, but there are things that private enterprise can't accomplish, and (less often) there are things that could be done through private endevour but would be too burdensome to society. The freeway system might be a good examle again - the goal of private enterprise is to make a profit, while the freeways are infrastructure for society. The amount of tolls that would be required to recoup an investment and its opportunity costs would double the price of the food carried to my local supermarket and hurt all institutions and companies that require transportation. All of this should be considered on a case by case basis, with no dogma attached.

If the world got along we would all be happy but life is not that way lol

lol. I disagree with much of what John posted, so I'll refrain from responding. Instead, I'll throw one(1) thing out that I think we can all agree on. I think it was Whym who first mentioned it on this site (or maybe Forrest).

Social Mobility in the U.S. is vital. It is the very core of what most people think of when they think of something good about the U.S.. It must be preserved at all costs.

I did agree with John

but ...

I think we can all agree that it is good to live in a society where we are free to disagree.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I propose a challenge to my fellow beloved WMT comrades. After the endless and endless debates that have flooded this side of the forum, I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread for the sole purpose of finding something that you guys and me too can all agree on concerning politics.

What are you? Some kind of Equality-loving Commie?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

The ultimate goal is to raise everybody's standard of living. That's why most crime is illegal. Murder and rape and drunk driving are bad because of the effects they have on the individual and the society that individual lives in. We don't need laws to protect the feelings of small but vocal groups - we outlaw things that are injurious to society and its ability to function smoothly.

I agree with everything you said here, but I will tweak it just a little. I believe that when you raise everyone’s standard of living you raise society’s as well like Newbie said, and I believe that is why countries exist, because you love the country that you are apart of and you believe in the core that keeps it going.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Social Mobility in the U.S. is vital. It is the very core of what most people think of when they think of something good about the U.S.. It must be preserved at all costs.

Could you give me an example of this?

Originally Posted by jamestl2

What are you? Some kind of Equality-loving Commie?

Now let’s all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”.

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

Could you give me an example of this?

Sure! Ex-Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco a few years back had a problem with homeless people all over the financial District. They were social, but unpleasant, so Willie made them mobile. He rounded em all up and put them on a buses headed for Oakland. Only in America's most liberal city.

.

Seriously though, my understanding of Social Mobility is the ability to change your lot in life. America, land of opportunity. Strike it rich in America, anyone can do it here. Bill Clinton is a great example of this. From the trailer park, to the White house in one life time.

I'd definitely agree that social mobility is a critical responsibility of any government - whether that means actually making the market more "free" or by bringing in more regulation to prevent people from being exploited etc.

I think we can probably all also agree that indoctrinating children with beliefs and forcing them to believe things is bad. I (and I'm sure most others here) believe that people should be given the freedom to make up their own mind about life and what they believe. This is of course achieved via education in some form or other.

Dan

Originally Posted by whym

I'd definitely agree that social mobility is a critical responsibility of any government - whether that means actually making the market more "free" or by bringing in more regulation to prevent people from being exploited etc.

Your statement reflects part of the problem in everyone agreeing and getting along. If we agree social mobility is a worthy goal, and that free and regulated markets are polar opposites, it begs the question which, if either, better promotes social mobility.

Originally Posted by whym

I think we can probably all also agree that indoctrinating children with beliefs and forcing them to believe things is bad.

haha Disagree. My kids will grow up believing their level of education is directly related to the level of success they achieve in life(and many other belief systems I work daily at instilling). You can't really force anyone to believe anything though. I could spend 18 years of that kind of indoctrination, and they could drop out of school, surf, and wait tables, believing success comes from fulfilled relationships and not financial status or achievements. They could join a church mission program and head to Africa to feed and indoctrinate the poor with religion.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Sure! Ex-Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco a few years back had a problem with homeless people all over the financial District. They were social, but unpleasant, so Willie made them mobile. He rounded em all up and put them on a buses headed for Oakland. Only in America's most liberal city.

America seems to have a lot of most liberal cities. I wish I could say the homeless situation in Frisco was more complicated than this ... it's been more drawn out, anyway. It went back and forth between let them sleep in the park and send helicopters after them. The ones around Powell, Union Square, and all that were considered a city blight when I lived there; tourists in the shopping district don't want to deal with aggressive panhandlers. When I left, there were estimated to be about 15,000 homeless in a city of 750,000 or so ... thanks in large part to Regan-era policy.

Originally Posted by whym

I think we can probably all also agree that indoctrinating children with beliefs and forcing them to believe things is bad. I (and I'm sure most others here) believe that people should be given the freedom to make up their own mind about life and what they believe. This is of course achieved via education in some form or other.

Or via parenting? Most people in the world are or are not religious because of their early upbringing, for example.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

America seems to have a lot of most liberal cities. I wish I could say the homeless situation in Frisco was more complicated than this ... it's been more drawn out, anyway. It went back and forth between let them sleep in the park and send helicopters after them. The ones around Powell, Union Square, and all that were considered a city blight when I lived there; tourists in the shopping district don't want to deal with aggressive panhandlers. When I left, there were estimated to be about 15,000 homeless in a city of 750,000 or so ... thanks in large part to Regan-era policy.

So easy to blame our greatest president for the problems of a Left coast city. What policy are you referring to? As far as I know, the biggest single surge in the homeless came from lack of funding for the Sanitariums, so they emptied the asylums into the streets. Interestingly enough, I've watched a few news specials on the "Young" homeless population in S.F.. The show featured large groups of 18-25 year olds that lived in abandoned apartments and panhandled for a living. By any account, you could tell the panhandlers thought it was "Cool", and chose that lifestyle as opposed to working for a living. Having also lived in S.F., I've met more than one Taxi driver that considered going back to panhandling, citing better take home pay as their reason.

I used to be the guy who always or most of the time would just wish for world peace... if everyone just got along, then, there would be no more balance (not between good and evil necessarily) if everyone got along, then there would be comments or suggestion boxes for facilities, police department will be of no use, court of justices will have nothing to do and lawyers will have no jobs, but maybe, that will make living a little better...

Originally Posted by jabo

I used to be the guy who always or most of the time would just wish for world peace... if everyone just got along, then, there would be no more balance (not between good and evil necessarily) if everyone got along, then there would be comments or suggestion boxes for facilities, police department will be of no use, court of justices will have nothing to do and lawyers will have no jobs, but maybe, that will make living a little better...

I really don’t want every one to get along (aka always agree). I think good debate is what furthers human growth and intelligence. Anyone who knows me on this forum knows I am always up for a good debate; however, “I do believe induced by potent circumstances that thou art my enemy” Is not healthy debate.