Copied from User_talk:Chadlupkes#Comment

Contents 1 The challenge 2 Chadlupkes takes the challenge 3 HAK gives an obvious answer 3.1 property and freedom 4 Let us approach this issue from a different angle. 5 2% for and 98% but 6 Not on the subject 7 1984 8 How to allocate harm? 9 Freedom lost 10 Distrust the "freedom" to wield unlimited "private" power 11 Iasson's two sentences 12 Forced to give or free to trade 13 Economics and politics 14 Religion of politics 15 The magic word - socialism 16 Enough of the old labels 17 Defining the problem first 18 Faith and Violence 19 Keep religion out of politics

The challengeEdit

It is less important what your take on this or another political issue is. It is more important for others to know why you take this or other stand. Could you write in two sentences the reasons behind your political choices? Keeping it into two sentences is important, because - as old people used to say - if someone cannot present his point in two sentences, that person is lying or does not know what he is taking about. From my personal experience, I remember that when applying this rule to myself, I changed my views many times when forced to explain in two sentences reasons behind them. --HAK 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chadlupkes takes the challengeEdit

Two sentances, eh?

1. I believe that people are basically good, and need opportunity to reach their potential.

2. I believe that as a global society, we must work towards more cooperation and community, rather than more competition and individualism.

Does that work? Chadlupkes 00:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Let me tell the message I received

1. You believe that an individual is not responsible for his or her success in life.

2. Your positive goals are foggy as you define them by vague, wishful thinking terms like “cooperation” and “community”.

The idea behind my original posting was to find out your reasoning behind political choices you made. I believe that “two sentences” approach is the best method to expose inconsistencies in given political standing.--HAK 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Success does not depend exclusively on individual responsibility, but also on opportunity (I would also add circumstance).

2. I'm not sure I understand your point here, HAK. Any reasonable long term goal for something as complex as human society must be vague. My impression is that this point is more an attack than an rational argument. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Answering to the attack comment. I am trying here a method of discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method that did not work too well for its inventor either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates.

Socrates said: "life without examination is not worth living".

Not all of us at this forum can be right all the time on all the issues. Maybe I am missing something; however, for me the whole sense of this exercise is in proving others wrong, and being ready to accept my errors as well. In other words, unless I feel that I can prove someone wrong, I do not see any reason to open my mouth. The same, I expect to be attacked as well. BTW, what is wrong with this approach?--HAK 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's tear this apart.

No, I don't believe that "an individual is not responsible for his or her success in life". I believe that we are all responsible for ourselves. However, I don't control which jobs are open when I'm looking for work, I'm responsible for choosing the best of the available jobs and working hard to get that job and to do good work when I do. I'm not responsible for growing the fruits and vegetables that I eat, but I am responsible for choosing the best of what is made available in order to increase my health and well being. And I consider it to be a good choice to purchase locally grown organic foods, because those are better for me and they help my local community prosper. My responsibility to myself must include a sense of responsibility for my family, my community, my country and my world, and an understanding of what effect my choices have on all of those levels is necessary to make the best choices for all.

Cooperation and Community are not foggy, vague or wishful thinking. They are a fundamental reality of our culture, and are necessary for the healthy function of society. We don't go out with swords ready to kill anyone who dares to think that they can get the Christmas Present that our screaming 5 year old is wanting, we plan and live our lives so that our needs are met in such a way that nobody gets hurt and everyone gets what they need. My needs beyond food, water and shelter are a need for a society that doesn't foster violence and doesn't cause me or my children harm. And I'm willing to cooperate with other people in my society so that Red lights mean I stop for other cars and green lights mean that cars coming in the other direction stop for me. Without that fundamental level of understanding, society would disintegrate.

Your answers tell me a lot about your own motivations and values. You seem to believe that individualism is more important than community, because you dismiss community as wishful thinking. What are your two sentances? Chadlupkes 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

HAK gives an obvious answerEdit

Chadlupkes’ asking for my two sentences arrives after the presentation of his political credo. Therefore, I assume that he expects two sentences defining my political believes. The problem is that I have none.

When looking at political concepts, or when seeking solutions to social problems, I reach back to the fundamental values:

1. A person has inalienable right to pursue happiness freely.

2. This freedom should not be limited, unless it impairs freedoms of others, their security, or private property.

In reaching back to these values, I am not much original, as those are the fundamentals of the political system here.

Terms like “cooperation” or “society” imply some rules defining interactions between individuals. In other words, when using these terms, Chadlupkes assumes certain, undisclosed to us set of limitations of freedoms of the individual. If he disclosed those limitations of freedom, he would be using my approach, and would not need to refer to more general terms. In my approach, I look for justifications of the necessity of taking away some freedoms of an individual. In Chadlupkes approach, there is an assumption that both of us have agreed on acceptable limitations of freedoms of individuals that constitute a society.

Terms like “cooperation” or “society” are handy shortcuts in political discussions, under condition that there is a consensus about acceptable limits of individuals’ freedoms. However, those general terms tend to gain some baggage, and eventually in most instances, they become useless as a reference point in political discussions, as they mean different things to different people.

In the time of crisis, when society has difficulty in agreeing on certain policies, using general terms is frustrating and leads to stalemates or lame compromises. Health care or immigration policy, are good examples. The only way to overcome an impasse is by returning to fundamental values.

In this sense, agreeing on the very basic values can be a starting point here. As political ideas will be put in front of us, we can measure them up to the fundamental values.

Furthermore, different participants in this discussion may have different fundamental values, and build systems of political concepts around them. --HAK 01:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Credo: Latin for "I Believe".

Freedom is a many-faceted, positive term encompassing the ability to act consciously, in a well-balanced manner and with self control in a given constructive direction. The biggest restraints come from the self: ignorance, which leads to fear, then restraint; and (also rooted in ignorance) the lack of self control. source

Political freedom is the right, or the capacity, of self-determination as an expression of the individual will. source

Getting back to fundamental values is deeply important to any type of discussion, not just political. Cooperation is an important virtue as well, as is Critical Thinking, at least according to the Wikipedia article.

There is nothing preventing your values statements combining and cooperating with my own, except a lack of vision on a way to merge them into a society that works. The limits to freedom that I would agree to depends on the situation. And I have to say that because I am not trained in law. I'm a citizen trying to express my opinion, and according to our fundamental American values here in the United States that puts me in equal standing to anyone else.

We probably don't agree on the details of what those limits to freedom should be. So let's talk about some examples.

You look for justifications to limit a person's freedom, and I look for ways to prevent harm. I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Chadlupkes 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us assume that we take a fundamental value “to prevent harm” and build a political system on it. Who and how would determine harm?

In fact, there were political systems built on this concept. In particular, Nazis in Germany believed that the German society suffered due to Jewish conspiracy. To prevent this harm they killed 6 million Jews.

Show me an example when respect for individuals’ freedoms led to atrocities.--HAK 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever corporations claim "individual" status and the freedoms of the 14th amendment, their requirement to earn profits trumps the needs for workers to earn a living wage and provide for their families. Having 47 million people in this country without access to Health Care is an atrocity. Having several million people in the US undergoing "food insecurity" is an atrocity.

Nazi Germany is a horrific example, and incredibly insulting, honestly. If anyone is harmed by a decision, it was not the best decision. Decisions are made that we are not proud of, whether they be the economic decisions that led to the US Civil War, the judicial decisions that led to corporations being able to claim the precendent of personhood status, or legislative decisions that undermine our basic civil rights. Individual rights for one do not and should never trump the rights of others, and agreeing on what those rights are is the basis of law. If someone earns a Billion dollars in a year at the expense of people who can't keep food on their tables, am I talking about a rediculous fringe example, or am I talking about an example based in the reality of what our Health Care CEO's earn and the situation in Africa? Whose "rights" are being protected, and whose are being ignored? Do people have the "right" to food, water and shelter? Do people have a "right" to keep a Billion dollars in an off-shore tax shelter? Do rights depend on where people live and whether they salute this flag or that flag?

I'm talking about obligation to our fellow man. I'm talking about opportunity denied through the claim of "individual rights" that do more harm than good. I'm fighting against Imperialism, whether that means military, financial or anything else. Nations do not have rights. Governments do not have rights. Corporations and collections of capital do not have rights. If individuals have rights by your statement, then let's decide what constitutes the basis of happiness, and start providing the basics to everyone who needs them. If government is the best way of doing that, fine. If NGO's are the best way, fine. Whatever is the best way, the only factor in the review of decisions is their results. And I'm not pleased when I see the results of the current policy decisions based on the "individual rights trumps everything" mentality.

Want more? Bring it. I'm defending my values. Chadlupkes 22:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many problems in our country; you listed a few. You forgot to bring any arguments indicating how these problems are caused by respecting freedoms of individuals. In my opinion, it is easier to prove opposite thesis that most of these problems originate from too many restrictions put on personal liberties.--HAK 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Which restrictions? And on which liberties? You're asking me for specifics. Quid Pro Quo. Chadlupkes 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I brought one example where consequently executed “to prevent harm” rule led to atrocities. By the way, the same rule put witches on stakes and American soldiers in Iraq. By disproving your rule in one instance, I disproved it at all.

Bring just one instance that you can explain how a consequent execution of equal freedoms for every individual, with as few limitations as possible, led to atrocities or any other form of a social cataclysm. If you can do it, you can prove me wrong, as well as those several fellows often called the Founding Fathers.--HAK 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really confused. The Nazi's put people to death. That's causing harm. The Puritans put women to death in the 1690's. (My family was part of that stupid land war.) That's causing harm. You can't "prevent harm" by causing harm, and at the same time call yourself a civilized culture. "To prevent harm to the United States, let's kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and 3,000 American Soldiers." That's insanity and criminal. That's Empire, where harm to some is considered justified by the saving of others. That's Malthusian, where we ignore 90% of our true resources and just fight over and with the 10% of our brainpower that we decide to actually use. None of us can assume that we are more qualified to live than anyone else. That's a false notion, and it puts us against them to the death. Aren't we tired of that yet?

I'm not saying that your statements are false and mine are true. I'm asking the question what policy decisions can we make where all four sentances are considered valid parts of our core beliefs and values. How can we work together to create law and build infrastructure such that individual rights are protected at the same time we work together towards a positive future?

What I want to get beyond is the idea that either your statements will be used to build that future, or mine will be, but we can't use both at the same time. Why is it always either/or? Why can't we use the word and? Chadlupkes 00:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

property and freedom Edit

You said:"This freedom should not be limited, unless it impairs freedoms of others, their security, or private property."

What do you mean by "property" ? I understand property as "goods we produce, possess or steal that we are able to protect them against others".

Property is higly accossiated with the ability we have to protect it against all thoses who set eyes on it. Only if you are able to threat you are able to own. And you own not when you are able to discover or able to produce, but only if you are able to protect.

Threating, especially for goods you didnot produce them, doesnt this impairs the freedom of others?

For example, nobody can produce "land", so noone is nominated to claim that he has the right to possess it. You are a land owner, simply because either your ancestors discovered the land and were able to protect it against intruders, or, more likely, because your ancestors stole the land from others who they discovered it first but were unable to protect it. You own your land simply because there is a threating and violence mechanism (the state) which protects it and defines your owneship papers. Your land's ownership is always defined as a reference to a violent and threating mechanism.

So by protecting your land or by giving tributes to a violent and threating mechanism in order to protect the land for you, doesnt this impairs both your freedom (as long as you are giving tributes) and the freedom of others (as long as they are prohibited to use any available unused land owned by you) ?

Iasson 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us approach this issue from a different angle.Edit

We all are harmed all the time, some less some more. In your “to prevent harm” approach, you have to realize that we cannot prevent all the harm, to all the people, all the time. A decision need to be made from how much harm and whom should be prevented. In other words, someone needs to make a decision how much harm is allowed and to whom. Who and how should decide how much harm is good for me? --HAK 21:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can answer that. I decide. As an adult, I have the authority to decide for myself where I live, thus what kind of harm I'm willing to accept due to the weather; I have the ability to decide what I eat in order to be as healthy as I can be. Nobody is arguing against that fundamental reality.

And, at the same time, I don't have the ability to control who owns the house next to mine. I can only afford one. So I want to create a relationship with my neighbor in order to get a sense of how much I can trust him, and so he/she can gain a sense of trust with me. At the same time, I don't grow my own food, so I have to trust the farmer that grows the food, the delivery company that transports it to the store I shop at, and the retailer that I spend my money at. I have to trust them that they will do their jobs to the best of their ability and that they are providing healthy food for me to buy and eat. And if nobody ever got sick from E.Coli, or nobody was ever hurt by a neighbor, we wouldn't have much to worry about. But people do.

In addition, having choices available to me doesn't mean that I automatically know what the best decision is. To have that, I need to have an education that provides me with the tools necessary to make that decision. Critical thinking is a skill that is learned, not something that we are born with. If we are given those tools, then we can make the individual decisions that we make every day in order to minimize the harm that we do to ourselves and to the community and world around us. Without those tools, our decisions will be poor decisions, and capable of doing a lot of harm.

The goal should be to prevent harm. But that's an impossible goal, because everything is based on individual decisions, and sometimes those decisions cause harm no matter which way we go. But it takes a community to provide the foundation for us to make good decisions to minimize the harm that we do to others and to ourselves. That's why a community is so important. Chadlupkes 22:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

2% for and 98% butEdit

The first paragraph of your statement, answers my questions. No more explanation is necessary. However, you kept writing putting some “but” into your answer. Therefore, the question is, is the first paragraph your answer, or is your real answer in the “but” part of your statement?

I would love to see examples of a practical implementation of your directive: “But it takes a community to provide the foundation for us to make good decisions to minimize the harm that we do to others and to ourselves.”--HAK 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you're a farmer, a doctor, a military strategist, a fisherman, a steel worker and a father, and you can provide everything that your family needs to survive and thrive?

I'm not a doctor. I depended on the skills that doctors have to survive Cancer in 2003. I made the decision to delegate the authority on what treatments I would have done based on recommendations from two different doctors, both professionals. But I didn't design the drugs that were pumped into my body, do the tests necessary to prove those drugs work, or provide the nursing services. I didn't do my own surgery to plug in a cathetor so I could avoid the damage that the drugs would have done to my arteries.

In a theoretical universe, individuals can provide all their own needs, and can make all good decisions. We live in reality. Individuals can survive, but it takes a community to thrive. Nothing that I have ever seen has been able to disprove that. Chadlupkes 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not on the subjectEdit

You sway away. You try to prove that living in community is better than in solitude. No one ever questioned this. The question is about fundamental values that define rules of social life.

You permanently dodge the question how community would execute “to prevent harm” rule. Can we agree at least that this rule can be phrased in other words as that “society needs to make a decision how much harm is allowed and to whom”? --HAK 01:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We establish laws moving social norms into law. Those laws are drafted to prevent people from harming themselves or others.

I'll agree to that phrasing. Strict definitions aside, I consider society and community to be equivalent terms for the same thing. Chadlupkes 07:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement that moving social norms into law prevents harm. Examples of this that come to mind for me are enforcing segregation and, more contemporarily, outlawing same-sex marriage, neither of which prevents harm nearly as necessarily or copiously as they cause it. A law should protect individuals' rights, but enforcing a social norm only denies the right of an individual to act outside that norm. That's harm in my book. --whosawhatsis? 08:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Point. That was bad phrasing. What I was trying to say is that legislatures study a problem, explore possible solutions, and move things that should be done into rules that must be followed. Chadlupkes 14:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1984Edit

You say that “legislatures study a problem, explore possible solutions, and move things that should be done into rules that must be followed”. I other words, as we agreed that we cannot avoid all the harm all the time, the dose of my harm is to be decided by a collective body. It contradicts your previous answer, which I correctly identified as representing only 2% of your true believes.

Long before Polish (First) Republic, before Enlightenment, and before U.S. Constitution, ancient Romans used to say: “Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia”. Do not you see that your fundamental value is taken alive from “1984”? --HAK 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a fundamental flaw in your premise here. In a Constitutionally limited Democratically elected Republic, the people are the government. The people select those individuals who represent their values and with the skills and experience to make good decisions based on those values and experience. We don't elect leaders, and we sure as heck don't elect deciders. We elect representatives, even to the Executive branch. If they don't represent our views and make decisions that we approve of, we throw them out and put in new people.

Just what do you think I'm hiding in that 98% that you think I'm holding back? Chadlupkes 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How to allocate harm?Edit

You mix two things, the way the society operates, and the fundamental values that guide people when making decisions affecting others.

In my view, the freedom of individual is unalienable right. Every time when a social rule is made, it means some limitation of liberties at least of some individuals. Therefore, in my approach, every new rule needs to be justified by a need to protect liberties, safety, or a property of other individuals, as all individuals should have the same rights. Furthermore, every time when a social problem comes for consideration, I first look if any existing rule could cause the problem. In other words, before creating new rules and establishing bureaucracies to execute them - when solving a problem, I first look for possibilities to solve the problem by eliminating some of the existing rules, and by giving more freedom to individuals.

Please explain it to me how it works in your system, when in case of a problem, a collective body deliberates on how to allocate unavoidable harm. BTW, “Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia” translates into “Senators are good men, however Senate is a malicious animal”. --HAK 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Salus populi suprema lex esto.
  • Translation: "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law." (motto of the U.S. state of Missouri).

My system would probably refer to the Constitutional American Democratic Republic that has been operating for nearly 217 years. In that system, discussions are held where people with experience with a subject are called forward to talk about what they know about a situation, what they think the problems are and what they think should be done. Then we discuss all the different options, and choose the one that minimizes the overall harm over the long term and protects the highest number of people. Those people who are in the minority and will be harmed have a right to speak up and have their side heard.

Safety and Liberty are both important considerations. If a product on the market is known to cause death, should people have the liberty to use it anyway? Who would gain by allowing such a product to remain as one of the choices that people have in the marketplace? Is taking such a product off the market limiting the liberty of the people who would choose to harm themselves? Of course. Is such an action worth it for the safety of the people involved? That's a decision that has to be made by those individuals in most cases.

However, it's part of the function of government to protect the citizens, sometimes from themselves. It's especially the responsibility of government to keep people informed about risks that companies marketing dangerous products would rather we not know about. Would the companies making millions of dollars from Asbestos have stopped manufacturing it as early as they did if not for the law against that substance that was passed? Or do workers have the right to keep their paychecks coming regardless of how much of their lives they are going to lose by working with that stuff? How about smokers? How about violent video games? Do kids have the liberty to play those games, or watch violent movies just because programmers and film makers want to make money? Of course. But how long will it take for a generation to stop feeling the pain of loss when someone is killed. I just hope it's not too late. Chadlupkes 21:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You write: “In that system, discussions are held where people with experience with a subject are called forward to talk about what they know about a situation, what they think the problems are and what they think should be done.” Who decides who is competent? Is our current Congress competent? Were competent people who voted for Prohibition? One more time, despite that you do not like this example, in extreme case, the lesser harm rule led to killing Jews in Nazi Germany. Please make a note, that this did not happen in a backward state. Germany then was on the leading edge of science, technology, art, and progressive political thinking. It was a society of one of the highest if not the highest level of education. Your way of thinking has a built in potential to repeat similar situation here. Your system is perfect under the assumption that people are perfect. My system is as close to perfection as it can be, under the assumption that people are imperfect. --HAK 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The people decide. And if they are wrong, we pay the cost. What is the alternative? Germany went the way it did for a lot of reasons, and it was 80 years ago. There are lessons that we can learn from their history, and they are lessons that should be learned. Which means we need to teach those lessons to our students.

There is no perfection. I don't assume that people are perfect, I assume that people with choices will make positive choices. But there are always some stupid people out there who make choices that hurt others. Is that their right? Is it also their right to make choices that hurt themselves? Is that liberty?

We're talking past each other, and we're not getting anywhere. This is why the US is polarized right now. We can't understand each other, no matter how hard we try. And that's what we're going to keep working on until we figure out how to talk. Chadlupkes 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Freedom lostEdit

The country is divided, as with all the wealth accumulated, people tend to forget how this country became so rich. The discussion we have here is fundamental; on this issue, only one of us can be right. Putting this dispute aside for a while might be good, though. In the meantime, please read http://www.henrykkowalczyk.com/freedom_lost.htm. If you think that it might make sense, I can put this text on Wikia as well. --HAK 03:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason this country is rich is because the middle class took control of things. You can claim it was freedom or liberty, and that works as a frame. So does thinking of the need to build solid foundations. From social safety nets to reduce the size of the bread lines to highways so we could transport goods an services, investment in infrastructure is the key element that causes growth. However, many conservatives looked at the bloody revolution in the late 1700's, and the rebellion years of the 1960's and 70's, and decided that stability and true freedom like you seem to want to describe were incompatible. Thus the "War on Drugs", which came from conservatives pushing traditional values and taking legal control over what people could put into their bodies.

You have yet to tell me anything that says that community is a negative concept. Man cannot thrive while living alone, and without individuals, community would not exist. We both have arguments to bring to the table. It's not a point in the middle that we are trying to reach, we're trying to figure out how to minimize harm while ensuring individual liberty. We have to work together, or all the riches that this country has will be ground into so much dust. Chadlupkes 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Distrust the "freedom" to wield unlimited "private" powerEdit

1. Ethical and political systems are created not by gods or laws of nature, but by human beings, who are dominated by ignorance, self-interest, and denial of their own mortality.

2. While it is a historical fact that most stable societies have been based on asymmetries of power between ruling elites and their servants, the Enlightenment has introduced the possibility of happier and more creative societies that seek to keep competing interests in balance by limiting asymmetries of power, whether between citizen and government or citizen and citizen. Deadplanet 07:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Iasson's two sentences Edit

1. Community is three fishermen, among them only one beeing able to catch fishes, deciding what they are going to have for lunch.
2. Democracy is NOT two wolves and a lamb deciding what they are going to have for lunch, as long as, by definition, the lamb's right to vote (and as a consequence lamb's life) is protected.

Iasson 09:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Forced to give or free to tradeEdit

On his/her User Page, Lasson states “in a fishermen Community where Democracy is applied, the fisherman who catches the fishes should be forced to give a small percentage of the fishes to the rest fishermen, in order to keep them alive”.

I opposition to my adversaries here, I actually lived in the society where this rule, as well as the rule “to prevent harm”, so promoted here by Chadlupkes, were consequently implemented.

Let us focus on the fishermen community, where some can catch more fish. It is an assumption that those who are not catching as much fish as the most successful fisherman, could starve to death if not getting some fish from the most fortunate one. Lasson is wrong saying that the fisherman that catches the fishes should be forced to give some of these fishes to others. He misses the point that this fisherman likely has more fishes that he needs for himself and his family. Therefore, he is interested in selling some. Others are interested in buying. It would be natural to them to go into a mutually acceptable exchange. If the fishes were essential for the survival of this community, after a while, the most successful fisherman, would likely accumulate some capital. This process may end up with less fortunate fisherman working for him and under his supervision catching enough fish to feed the whole community. Freed from the necessity of catching fishes every day, and having some extra capital, the most successful fisherman might start experimenting with raising chickens; so next generation – besides fishes – can eat eggs and chicken meat as well.

What are you talking about? We are talking about a primitive fishermen community. We dont have money, neither a money maker authority. Money is the fish. So how the impotent fishermen can buy. ? But I somehow agree with your words: Thats why I also said: "Fishermen's Democracy or even fishermen's Community itself will not last long, if the impotent fisherman do not understand that s/he oughts to take the initiate to cook, clean the dishes or barter the left over.".

In our conversation we forgot a very essensial thing, force and violence. In the fishermen community, not the one who catches the fish, but the one who is able to possess fish (either by catching it or more likely by stealing it from the others) and also able to protect his property using violence, will become the money maker authority and will force all the rest to work, buy and sell not by using fish as their medium of exchange but by using as their unique medium of exchange the (otherwise useless) piece of metal named money He coins. Isnt that clear to you? The one who uses force and violence, is the successfull one. Iasson 09:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If, as Lasson suggests, the most successful fisherman is forced to give up a part of his catch, he would be not interested in catching more fish than needed for his family survival, plus whatever he would be forced to give to others. Society based on this concept is destined to live always on the borderline of a biological survival. No progress is available either. By the way, the most successful fisherman, would be likely emigrating to America. The lack of internal motivation for progress was the main reason for the collapse of the socialistic system in the former Soviet Bloc countries.

I said in a fishermen community where democracy is applied. When democracy is applied, we have taxes, so the fisherman having many fishes is apparently forced to give a small percentage of his catch. isnt he? Iasson 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having taxes doesn't depend on being in a Democracy. Having money as a medium of exchange is currently the norm is all of the types of economies. It's a form of capital where people agree to set a value to objects and the time and effort it takes to create those objects, or the service of creating those objects. People paid taxes long before people voted. Chadlupkes 02:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

In Poland, after the collapse of the socialistic system, the free market oriented politicians took the political power. They changed the rules, so the most successful “fishermen” could accumulate capital, and give the momentum to the economy.

I have the feeling that the vast majority of these "successful" "fishermen" were based again on violence, as long as they were drug or weapon dealers, pimps, smugglers, money wacher or defrauders e.t.c. The smart of them of course after gaining capital they changed to more legal activities. Iasson 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

However, after two generations living under system that followed Lasson’s rule, there were plenty of “fisherman” who did not know how to catch the fish, they did not care to learn, but they believed that they deserve the part of the catch. It resulted with populist political movements, socialistic in their nature that impair the country’s growth.

In particular, unemployment in Poland is still in high teens, however employers cannot find desirable workers. I heard about job openings posted in newspapers in Ireland, as recently about two hundred thousand of Polish skillful workers moved there. Those are the desirable “fisherman”. No one wants to hire those demoralized by the system, promoted here by Lasson. --HAK 22:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never said forced, have I? I object to that word as well.

Are you agaisnt taxation? Iasson 09:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting into a mutally acceptable trading situation like you describe is a positive development. Having an economic system where the most skilled become the teachers and capitalist successes is quite different from a political system where the people study a problem and collectively determine the best solution to that problem. Here on Campaigns, should the most skilled programmer of Templates be able to rule the rest of us? Or should the mutual agreement about rules and norms provide a solid foundation under everyone's edits? Adam Smith's basic premise was that specialization helps society by letting people focus on what they are good at, be that fishing or programming. He did not say that the rules of the game should be set so that a very small number of people would be able to accumulate controlling interest over 50% of the capital investment available to the whole economy.

Economics is not Politics.

Economics IS politics. Thats why in all the cases throughout history, every authority, either a king or an oligarhy or a democracy, after eliminating their enemies, they coin their own money. Iasson 10:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If we want to argue about economic superiority, let's move the discussion to the Economics Wikia. That's not what we are discussing here on Campaigns. It's been a struggle for quite a while to separate the two, and it seems to be part and parcel of the discussion for a lot of people. The accumulation of wealth in a capitalist system is not inherently evil.

In theory it isnt inherently evil. But in practice? I remind you the word of Jesus, who said that a rich person can be accepted in paradise the same way a camel can pass through a needle. I havent seen lately camels passing through needles, have you? :-)Iasson 10:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The abuse of the power that comes with overwhelming wealth is what we need to fight against. I don't care how much capital someone earns from their successful efforts in the marketplace. But I do object when a CEO, who knows very little if anything about what Doctors and Engineers do, earns millions or billions of dollars while so many people in the world are left walking hours for water. Chadlupkes 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Economics and politicsEdit

The relationship between economics and politics is like between sex and marriage. One can imagine sex without marriage, however it would be bogus to discuss marriage pretending that sex is not an essential part of it. Whatever we do has some economic meanings and consequences, but it does not need to be political. However, talking about politics, keeping economics aside, makes no sense. As someone said it already, it is all about money.

In democratic systems, the worst abuse of power does not come from wealthy individuals but from collective bodies rightfully elected by the majority. The war in Iraq is the best example. The Prohibition could be another one. By the way, this observation is not mine. Alexis de Tocqueville did it about 170 years ago.

You ve better change your word to republic systems, as long as the definition of democracy varies. Democracy is defined by some people (including myself) as elections in decisions, not as elections of people who are about to decide. Did you do a referendum about the war in Iraq? Please dont blame democratic systems, blaim republic. Iasson 10:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to how much some CEOs make, I prefer to focus on how much I can make and do not look into other people’s valets. Your argument implies that the solution to our social problems is in taking away billions made by the richest and redistribute them among the poorest. It was implemented already in 1917 in Russia, and followed later in few other places. It is still practiced in Cuba and in North Korea. You may go there and try to live for a month as natives do. --HAK 21:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. You are not reading what I write, you're just keeping with your own illusions on what you think I'm saying. I said I didn't care how much money someone had or how much someone makes. I do care about what that capital is being used for, whether personal gain or building a strong infrastructure for everyone to use. The Economic Communism movement is dead in the US, and has been since the election of 1932.

Economics is the study of the aggregate sum of trade transactions. Politics is the study of the aggregate sum of human interactions. There is a big difference, and one is not subserviant to the other. The problem comes when we try and use the academic tools created to describe one of them on the other one without explaining what we are doing.

Actually, your Latin quote seems to point back quite a bit further for that abuse of power by collective bodies truism.

Read the speeches of FDR, especially his nomination acceptance speech of 1936. FDR was being pulled in both communist and fascist directions during the 1930's, and he ignored them both and focused on building the middle class and leaving nobody behind. Because of that effort, we were able to win WWII faster than anyone expected, and we built the strongest middle class that the world had ever known. Now people want to take us back to the 1920's? I don't think so. Chadlupkes 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In one sentence, you write that you do not object when some people earn capital, but in the next one, you object when some people actually do it; you mentioned CEOs. Those are contradicting statements. Which one of these two sentences represents your real views?--HAK 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me the inconsistency. I don't see it, and it seems to be a hang-up that is preventing us from moving forward. Chadlupkes 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I made those two your sentences into headline number 13. Please reverse this change after reading. --HAK 01:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, in other words you believe that if some people are paid millions or billions of dollars and they store that capital away from the rest of the world while people in Africa and India have to walk several hours for fresh water, you think the world is a good place.

I don't object to people earning money. In your example above where the fisherman earns extra capital and goes on to help his community, that's more like what we need to see in the world today. I don't want to equalize the money between Bill Gates and the homeless people who sell newspapers on the corner. I want to see Bill Gates fund foundations that focus on Global Poverty. Which, by the way, he is doing and we're very proud of him over here. But the people who earn their money on the backs of the hard work of other people, without earning any of it themselves, those are the people I'm perfectly willing to challenge. Chadlupkes 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You write that “some people are paid millions or billions of dollars and they store that capital away from the rest of the world”. Could you elaborate where they store that money?

You want to challenge “people who earn their money on the backs of the hard work of other people, without earning any of it themselves”. In the beginning of your sentence you say that those people earn their money, at the end you say that they do not. Do they earn their money or do they not? If they do, why do you challenge them? If they do not, prove that they steal the money. --HAK 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where they store their capital. I know that many people reorganize their companies in countries that don't charge taxes. They're using our physical and financial infrastructure, and not paying for it.

I'm not a lobbyist or journalist with access to lots of information about where people store their money. I know from government statistics that there is 11 Trillion dollars in bank accounts just within this country, and that's only the Federally Insured banks. We have so much 'excess capital', I'm amazed that we have millions of people without health care, living on the street, or otherwise under-served. I see this as a lack of infrastructure to be able to provide opportunity for everyone, and I see people with an opposite political viewpoint saying that they don't want to pay for that infrastructure. Conservatives don't want to pay taxes to pay for a war, they don't want to pay taxes to prevent the nation from defaulting on loans, and they want to pay even lower taxes on dividends and capital gains than what people pay on the income from labor. I consider that stealing.

How much oil did Lee Raymond pull out of the ground? How much money is Robert Keegan "earning" while his employees are on strike asking for a living wage and health care? How much profit did Walmart bring in while denying health care benefits to their workers? Is it fair for so many companies to outsource jobs outside the country, while expecting people within the country to continue to be able to afford their products? Is it fair to expect people who spend 100% of their income every month to pay more taxes than someone who spends 1% or less of their income? Was William McGuire worth $57,000 per hour over the last 14 years?

I don't believe that profit is theft. But at some level, greed becomes a sin. Chadlupkes 14:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion of politicsEdit

The question about the place where the capital is stored was a tricky one. Capital is not stored, it is put to work; it is invested.

I agree with you. but the important question is: Is capital protected? Who protects it? Does the one who protects it questions how the capital has been accumulated? Iasson 10:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

A few paragraphs above you wrote, “I don't care how much capital someone earns from their successful efforts in the marketplace.” In your last paragraph, you question high earnings of some individuals.

In your opinion, greed at certain level "becomes a sin". This way you bring religion into politics. By writing about it in the contexts of the basic political values, you create an impression that the purpose of your political involvement is in imposing on others your religious believes. You do not need to deny it; I know you would. --HAK 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And which 'religion' would that be, do you think? Good luck. Ethics are higher on the food chain than anything from any particular religion.

Do you mean to tell me that putting money in the banks of Bermuda or Switzerland is helping the global economy? And there is a big difference between investing in local community development banks, and putting more and more money into wall street to buy more stocks from high fee brokers that simply get them more and more dividend income.

Let me put it this way. If capital is 'invested' with the purpose of building capital, why don't we just create a machine that can print money all day long so we can feel rich and famous. If capital is invested in communities, making money available for personal or business loans at a fair interest rate, we may not be getting as high a return financially, but our community will be much better for it.

Like I believe I said, I don't care how much people earn, I care what they do with what they earn. Those that make millions and billions are using so much more of the commons, they need to return more to the commons in some fashion. Eisenhower and Nixon both agreed with this. Chadlupkes 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"If capital is 'invested' with the purpose of building capital, why don't we just create a machine that can print money all day long so we can feel rich and famous[?]" Because the private companies that own and control the federal reserve system had the idea first. --whosawhatsis? 04:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The magic word - socialismEdit

Can we agree that you are a socialist? --HAK 02:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Defined how? Like Wikipedia's definition? Not this century. Maybe I would have been in the first half of the 20th century, but we've learned quite a bit since the 1912 election, haven't we.

Enough of the old labelsEdit

Let me put it this way. If all we do is divide the world with the dreaded "Socialists" on one side, and the horrific "Fascists" on the other, we're going to be in continuous war on some level until the human race is extinct. I believe in a regulated capitalist system, where there is a strong and solid social foundation under everyone's feet, where doors of opportunity are available to everyone with a wish and a dream, and where people treat each other with respect regardless of any type of diversity. Impossible dream? Sure. It's an academic fiction. But if we don't identify it as a desirable dream, and can't see that we should have something to strive for, we will be (and have been) going around in circles. That has been the pattern for 7,000 years, and I'm frankly sick of it. Ever since Gilgamesh had the crazy idea of chopping down all the trees and consolidating his power... Anyway. It's time to shed old labels, figure out where we want to be, determine where we are, and then decide how to get from point A to point B. That's what Campaigns Wikia is all about. It's not here to continue the divisions, it's here to bridge the gaps. Chadlupkes 04:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining the problem firstEdit

In order to accomplish anything, we first need to define what the problem we want to address is.

In the first part of this discussion, we were not able to accomplish this.

Consequently, the discussion gravitated toward understanding the rules that govern social phenomena.

We could not agree on this one either.

How we can agree on “how to get from point A to point B”, when we cannot agree where the point A is. Moreover, we even did not start discussing point B either.

Any constructive suggestion? --HAK 06:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we pick a single problem and start to tear it apart. Health Care? Chadlupkes 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is risky. However, let us try. I suggest immigration. It likely will be on the Congress agenda again in January. For my opening statement go to http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Illegal_immigration_in_the_US --HAK 05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Faith and ViolenceEdit

Faith that voting for decisions is better than voting for persons, along with the denial to cooperate with anyone who uses threat or violence in order to become the economic authority. Can this solidify our values?

Some people (influenced by Marx, Adam Smith e.t.c) believe that society is based on economy. I dont think so. There is no economy without society. I believe that economy is the one which is based on society, and that society itself is primarily based either on violence, or on faith, or on a combination of those two.

I think the faith that voting for decisions is better than voting for persons, along with the disobedience and the lack of cooperation and faith in everyone who uses threat or violence in order to become the money maker authority, is the solution to our problems. What do you think? Iasson 10:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Iasson, you believe that society is built on violence and faith. Ours is a free society; therefore, you are at liberty to believe in whatever you please. Nevertheless, if you look for any public recognition you need to state the reasons behind your believes. Could you do it in two sentences?

Our society is not a free society. Our society used to be a society based on the violence against the real owners of the land, Indians. Unfortunately Indians had no means to protect their land, so we took it from them. Our society used to be a society based on faith for the money maker autority. Everyone trusted our founding fathers and the authority controlled by them which printed dollars. Our society is not based in faith anymore. We are forced to accept dollars as our unique medium of exchange, and we are forced to do it because taxation is always requested in dollars. Our society is just a free speech society. We are free to believe in whatever we please, yes, but we are not free to practice our belief. What if I believe in no taxes? What if I believe that taxation should not be requested in dollars? Am I free to practice my belief? What if I believe in referendums? Am I free to practice it?Iasson 16:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My two sentences:

1. American society was based on violence against Indians, who were the real onwers of the land but whose property was not respected simply because they had no means to protect it, and it is still based on violence against some selected (and resources full) parts of the world. (a similar sentence may be formed for any modern society of course, not only America)
2. Any modern society is based on faith (or trust if you like) for the money maker authority, no one is allowed to question why this authority is legalised to require taxes to be paid in the money the authority coins, and everyone is forced to pay the taxes, whithout being asked wheither he agrees or not with the authority existence. Iasson 16:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. You inserted several comments into discussion conducted in the past. I found it impractical to read, and even more impractical to respond to. --HAK 15:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt mind. At least answer me here. Iasson 16:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Iasson, I am sorry, but you speak with the authority of someone who had a revelation and does not feel a need to explain reasons behind his views. I want the reasons. --HAK 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, I see violence and faith everywhere.

There is no reason for faith. Can you explain to me whats happening into the mind of so many citizens, why they allow themselves to be ruled by money, why they believe on it, why they spend all their time and effort for all their life in order to poccess this small useless piece of paper or metal controled and printed by a small minority who plays the role of the money maker authority? They seem to me like ancient egyptians, and the faith in money is similar to the faith egyptians had for their pharao, in order to be volunteerily enslaved, work for him and built useless pyramids. Or, is it the threat and violence of the money maker authority that determines citizens's behavior?

There is no reason for faith, neither violence has always a reason....Iasson 07:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Iasson, I think you'll find, if you ask the First Peoples, that they did not consider themselves "owners" of the land. Their culture did not have a concept for the "right" of people to own land, or almost any property. Theirs was a gift economy, where the more someone was able to give, the higher their status. Their population was high before the plagues because they lived in harmony with the land and the other members of the animal tribes, and they only borrowed from the land what they needed to use. The European invasion brought the concept of ownership, and it destroyed their population and their culture. Fundamentally, considerations of property and ownership has always come from cultures undergoing unsustainable growth, even if that growth is over the period of hundreds of years. Ur, Egypt, Rome, Imperial Japan, the British Empire. The introduction of capital and market forces enable populations to grow and economies to flurish, but it also creates the crazy idea that the 'market will provide', which encourages laziness instead of industry.

We must reclaim faith without resorting to violence. Our faith must be belief in our own ability to work in cooperation with other individuals, other groups and other cultures to create a world that works for all. Chadlupkes 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer faith. Violence and threat makes me sick. I agree with your last sentence. Iasson 07:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep religion out of politicsEdit

Iasson, when you state, “I see violence and faith” you confirm my observation that you are a man of revelation, not of knowledge. The same conclusion comes from your statement that “many citizens (…) allow themselves to be ruled by money”. What kind of empirical data do you have to support this statement?

There is violence among people; it always has been, and always will be - sometimes less, sometimes more. We can analyze this aspect of human behavior and look for political solutions, which - to the best of our knowledge - would minimize violence among us.

There always has been faith. You do not define what you mean by this term. Is it faith in God, or is it faith that humans are good by nature? Is it faith in reward in heaven, or is it faith that we can work together to make our lives better here on Earth?

Most people are obsessed with something; their job, their children, their hobby, their creative work, and so on. They look for recognition of their efforts. If we take a musician who stands on the street corner and plays for the public, what is the best recognition of his effort? It would be the amount of money he collects in his basket. Simply, money became the simplest and easiest way to reward individuals for their contribution to the society. Where Iasson sees people obsessed with money, I see people obsessed with their contribution to the society. Yes, they want recognition of their contribution in a form of a monetary reward. What is wrong with it? Somewhere in between, there might be some people that want a reward without a contribution. Surprisingly, the less compassionate, and crueler is the system of rewards, the fewer people will be obsessed with money just for the sake of money, as in this cruel system, money could be obtained only by providing goods or services that other people want.

Is that money-based system a perfect one? No, nothing is perfect on the Mother Earth. Some of these money based systems are better then others. For example, the system established by the Founding Fathers in America, was far from perfect. However, this system turned poor, uncivilized Colony into the greatest country on Earth. Why? Because this system, with all its faults, was much better than any other political system anywhere on the Glob.

There are universal values of the political system on which the U.S. was founded. Every generation needs to look back into these basics and find out how they apply to our current situation. This requires knowledge and ability of critical thinking.

In this sense, Iasson way of arguing cannot be sustained in this forum. His moral (violence) and faith based teaching is more proper for religious forum, like http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Religion, for example. --HAK 19:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

When I am talking about faith, I am talking about the concept of faith in general. Either faith in God, or faith in Values, or faith in Persons or Authorities, faith remains the same, and, together with violence, initiates, motivates and drives everything, including of course society, religion, logic, science, economy or politics. We may keep religion out of politics, but it is impossible we keep faith out of politics. The purpose of this site, as I understand it, is to achieve the opposite, it is to turn politics into a faith, because faith in politics is almost absent nowdays. "Human is a political animal" Aristotle said. Aristotle's belief is a lost faith, and you, me and the rest contributors of this site, we are all trying to re-implant it. Iasson 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Politics should be based on facts and logic. You may know some facts that I do not know and vice versa. In my interpretation of facts, I may have some lapses of logic, which you might be able to spot, and vice versa. By discussion, we can broaden our knowledge, and perfect our understanding of reality.

Faith, by its nature is not based on empirical evidence or logical argumentation. There is no common ground for any discussion. In extreme cases, faith based political system can lead to a belief that if I can kill you before you can kill me, it means that God is on my side; therefore, my faith is superior to yours. --HAK 17:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If we define faith as based on dogma, then you're right. There is and can be no common ground for discussion. However, if we define faith as coming from a collection of ethic and moral values, then we can find that common ground. We all have a list of virtues that we can put priorities on. They're all positive words. Your top one seems to be liberty. Mine is probably cooperation. I don't consider mine to be superior to yours, it's just my personal preference for the top priority.

I'm not sure that all politics must be based on logic. We're not on Vulcan and we're not robots. Chadlupkes 22:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I stated it here already before, free individuals will cooperate. Therefore, if we put liberty as a priority, we would receive cooperation in return. If we put cooperation over liberty, it implies at least some social interactions against a free will of some individuals. We receive neither liberty nor cooperation.

Politics shall be based on logic. As humans are not perfect, we will never be able to achieve it fully. However, it does not mean that we should not keep trying. --HAK 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The drafting and implementation of the law must be based on logic. To try and put logic into human interactions is to diminish the very human quality that separates us from machines and unthinking animals. It's not one or the other, it's using each concept in their place to achieve a balance and a foundation strong enough to build a future on.

Without cooperation, liberty is a moot point. We must work together to define liberty before we can secure it. I don't see mutually agreeable decisions as giving up liberty. If I do something that everyone else disagrees with, or that goes counter to a contract that I agreed to or that my parents agreed to, then I'm doing damage to the structures of society that I depend on to reach my potential both as an individual and as a member of that society. We need to start digging into specifics. Chadlupkes 02:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost in every other your posting, I am catching contradictions in your statements. It confirms your thesis that human actions are often not based on logic. The same, it proves my point of view.

You write: “The drafting and implementation of the law must be based on logic. To try and put logic into human interactions is to diminish the very human quality that separates us from machines and unthinking animals.”

When it comes to politics - what human interactions are essential that are not defined by the law? Hence, the society needs to be built on logic, the simpler rules, the better. If you will take logic out of human interactions, what you will replace it with? Last but not least, where did you get an idea that logic is an attribute of machines and unthinking animals? I am afraid, that you mistaken algorithms that run machines with logic. How did you attribute logic to unthinking animals is a mystery to me.

In your paragraph about cooperation and liberty, you run in circles, without a clear point. It is time for you to acknowledge that your point of view has flaws and you need to do some homework before being able to present arguments that could shake the firmness of my reasoning. Do not try to convince me that you might be right. Just prove me wrong.--HAK 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Hence, the society needs to be built on logic" . From my point of view this is another faith. Do you believe that logic can explain everything? And what is logic? Can you define logic? Although logic is based on evidences, you trust evidences because you trust those who are the witnesses of the evidences, so here faith comes again. And is logic capable of builting a happy society? For the last sentence, my answer is no. If we rely on logic, we are lost. Logicaly, we will be dead in 80 years. What are we trying to achieve then? Why dont we give up everything? Iasson 08:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"Although logic is based on evidences, you trust evidences because you trust those who are the witnesses of the evidences, so here faith comes again." As a recent convert to atheism, I have heard this flawed argument a lot. A reasonable expectation based on a mountain of evidence is not faith. If I hold a pen in my hand and let go of it, I have a reasonable expectation that it will fall to the floor because I have seen billions of times that items invariably fall to the floor under similar conditions. Logically, I believe that the same will happen again, but this is most certainly not faith. If I let go of the pen and it did not fall, I would immediately re-evaluate the belief, whereas faith is a belief that is held firmly in the absence of evidence or in the face of disconfirming evidence. In the same way, everything that I have experienced to be true is in some way logical, and based on that mountain of evidence, I have a reasonable expectation that that which cannot be logically rationalized -- such as your statement in the previous paragraph -- is not true. --whosawhatsis? 16:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, we have to realize that by asking questions like “Can you define logic”, Iasson shamelessly acknowledges that he did not learn the answer to this question where he should, in school. He did not bother to open an encyclopedia either.

I criticize Iasson here so severely, as he is an exemplification of a typical American today. He lacks understanding of basic political concepts. He has no knowledge of the fundamentals of the political system in the U.S. He was born to the prosperity of this nation, and he sees this prosperity as a given. He has a luxury of splitting a hair over some imperfections of our system. In this soul searching on the top of the ivory tower, he lost the self-preserving instinct, which is necessary to maintain the wealth we have reached so far. His political agenda is a completely logically incoherent mishmash of utopist ideas and religion.

American public that Campaign Wikia attempts to address, it is a crowd of people like Iasson. The most essential question for the forum here is how to pinch Iasson? How to blow a soap bubble of his disorientation? How to bring his thinking back into the reality? And, most of all, how to do it, without offending him? What I have failed here. --HAK 17:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)