Athanasius

Originally posted by: Odainsaker How inevitable is radical Islam's victory in Egypt's democracy?quote> Too inevitable for comfort, which is the real quandry. While we all might despise authoritarian regimes and have no particular love for President Hosni Mubarak, that doesn't mean a sudden popular overthrow will bring free democracy, human rights, and sweet roses of peace and love from Egyptian hippies. The biggest opposition group is not the liberal Greens, but the Muslim Brotherhood, who will see a golden opportunity for their long dream to establish of an even more reactionary Islamist regime in the Arab world's most populous and most dynamic state. quote> what if there was a democracy in place and everybody voted for Sharia law anyway, would that be acceptable? for some reason "democracy" and "liberalism" are constantly confused with each other. a country with a very conservative population might want a theocracy? i don't claim to know what Egypt wants but i'm saying that people always assume that democracies must be secular atheist - anything else isn't "good enough" after all, Hamas won an election

when that happens all the unemployed scientists and everyone else will take to the streets to destroy all robots, destroy all robots, destroy all robots, destroy all robots. seriously though, living forever has its drawbacks - what do you do forever? survival (working) used to fill up most of your day leaving precious hours for leisure, famly etc. in this system it seems everything will be done by robots which means nobody would have any purpose and have to fill 24/7 with something else. unemployment proves my point. living forever also means that the population (unless everyone is sterlized) will just grow exponentially since nobody dies and in a universe where there's nothing to do. It won't make anyone happy which is what people should actually aim for. i don't think it's wise for anything of those things to be realised. people living forever has been a topic for fiction for millenia and robots taking over the world has been in science fiction since the 1930s.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: Athanasius considering that motorways are subsidized by the state the cost of transpotation is artificially low. privatise motorways as they're not vital because there's always a public road but it's smaller. this will level the playing field for other forms of transportation buses rarely use motorways in my experience (yes i have experience and i've never seen a public bus on a motorway that is in service. i depend on buses)and railways have to pay for the maintainance of the track.quote> It is absolutely true that transportation is artificially cheap due to subsidization. But I don't see where you're coming from with your argument on privatization. How is the playing field not currently level and how would privitization change that?quote> Motorways aren't a necessity (they are necessary for some things but not necessary to existence) railways as i mentioned pay for the trains, track maintainance and salaries of the workers and the leccy bill. motorway users pay no more than someone using "normal" roads. the point i'm making is that motorways are fundamentally different to regular roads - they are a luxury - but you don't actually pay anything for this luxury. you don't get a discount if you never use a motorway. Railways are uneconomic because of the lack of flexibility they have for freight. but if lorries either have to pay more to use a motorway or take longer using a smaller public road then freight transportation will be more balanced.quote> Freight rail is actually very economic when you have to move a large quantity of goods a long distance. The problem is that most freight traffic in Europe doesn't fit that description and so everything is shipped or trucked. Not so elsewhere, in the US 42% of domestic freight travels by rail. In China it's 58%!quote>

pointless violence? well, Philly, look at Glasgow 'cause that's where you're headed. pointless gangs beating the crap out of normal people and each other to pass the time. we term this "recreational violence" of course it'll be different since the USA is easy to buy guns in whereas the UK is rather difficult

considering that the industries were steel and shipbuilding. mostly sulphates and soot. the industry is of course long gone and most of the pollution went into the river Clyde however Glasgow used to have a rickets problem due to the soot in the air blocking the UV rays from reaching people's skin. rickets is on the rise but only among those who have more skin pigmentation.

well, the Suez canal can't actually let the biggest container ships through neither can the panama so not as big a drop as you'd expect (still important places though)

even when you compare them to similar cities there is a significantly higher mortality than other post-industrial cities the point that makes this thread worthy is that merely living in Glasgow seems to give you coronary heart disease even if you take care of yourself. genes in the last 20 years haven't changed much. Glasgow had the "regular" rates of disease as other big, poor cities there isn't any difference in pollution since it's all road pollution in Glasgow.

http://www.gcph.co.uk/work_programmes/understanding_glasgows_health/exploring_the_glasgow_effect_glasgow_liverpool_and_man http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12267237 Glasgow has the lowest male life expectancy in Great Britain with places like the Calton having male life expectancy at 54 but even after compensating for bad diet, poverty and industrial decline Glasgow has a significantly higher mortality rate than comparable cities in the UK such as Manchester and Liverpool. Former communist states which had a lower life expectancy than Glasgow having rising life expectancies. any theories as to why Glasgow has this anaccounted for 15% difference in mortality rate?

Originally posted by: mightygoose while it can be agreed that clustering of large corporations in the middle of cities is no longer necessary with the advances of communication and e commerce, a city will always have need of a centre, and large corporations will always like the status of having buildings in that centre. people still like to have face to face meetings, so those buildings have to be large, a small footprint to occupancy ratio is advantageous so to prevent exorbetant land costs. what it leaves you with is a skyscraper cluster. midrise doesn't do much for congestion, however i do think that american cities could benefit from the london congestion charge model.quote> congestion charging in london has merely forced poorer people to stop driving into the centre by charging them £10 entry this is very expensive and makes SW1 even more exclusive. Don't allow a hybrid clause in it since it means people drive Chelsea tractors with a token electric motor to avoid the fee. price per square foot of office space is still extortionate in skyscrapers, sometimes more than mid rise office buildings.

Originally posted by: LivingInThePast We should get rid of gas taxes, because it only raises prices and affects the poor the most.quote> don't bother because all it means is oil companies will raise the price of crude to compensate the tax fall since they can. and everyone else will hate you even more since oil is priced in US dollar$ . considering that motorways are subsidized by the state the cost of transpotation is artificially low. privatise motorways as they're not vital because there's always a public road but it's smaller. this will level the playing field for other forms of transportation buses rarely use motorways in my experience (yes i have experience and i've never seen a public bus on a motorway that is in service. i depend on buses)and railways have to pay for the maintainance of the track. Railways are uneconomic because of the lack of flexibility they have for freight. but if lorries either have to pay more to use a motorway or take longer using a smaller public road then freight transportation will be more balanced. buses in the USA won't work outside the pre-1945 areas of the city since densities are too low in modern suburban developments. many US cities have had the heart torn out of downtown through the building of a motorway or the demolition of prominant buildings. the minimum density for public transport is really the density of streetcar suburbs - the terraced townhouse in other words narrow and somewhat tall instead of the American preference for wide housing and a big space either side of the house. one other thing about public transport, people wonder why buses have fallen from private companies making money to always requiring public subsidy. it is because wages have increased disproportionally due to the increasing cost of living in the city. ridership patterns have also changed. industry and office buildings used to be dispersed in smaller clusters throughout the city. one factory got built on the edge of town and then built housing for it's workers around it and so the city grew. due to the mania for everyone seperating things out in large zones this doeosn't happen and destination concentrations have been increased and this increases the overall distance travelled -which decreases productivity dramatically. 3,000 office workers in a big tall building require roughly 1000 single decker buses to get everyone in by bus. which is why congestion in Midtown Manhattan and other skyscraper clusters is impossible to get rid of. 1 train for example can carry 1,800 passengers but assuming you have lots of office blocks together a train every minute can't satisfy demand. to calculate the required number of trains/buses in high density areas leaves you with ridiculous frequencies (i.e. 1 every 15 seconds for the whole network) of trains/buses. this is the reason i never advocate skyscrapers in a real city, they are a novelty (they are cool) but create unsolvable congestion which irritates so many people since there is no economical solution to it. Unless you implement 1960s dreams of roads and rails in the sky. Land values don't decrease at all by building skyscrapers(they are allowed to increase to astronomical heights) and that applies in "economic science" - rasing the price ceiling will of course allow prices to rise further. even after you adjust the land value versus floor space it's still very expensive. all things considered, mid rise and low rise are the most economic densities from a public transport point of view. since i depend on public transport that is the number 2 issue (the first is the cost of living which involves public transport but includes many more things). The Lisbon Treaty must go to a referendum (that's a reference to Cato the Elder)

same reason several million europeans went to America in the 1700s

one thing aobut cutting bureaucracy.. every government has bureaucracy and every opposition says they'll "cut waste" waste in general is more or less determined by the competence of the employees of the bureaucracy i never beleive any government which says it'll cut bureaucracy. when governments say they'll cut the number of public sector employees i sort of beleive it but i don't think it'll last long. bureaucracy comes from a desire for accountability and "harmonisation" of precedure. when one wants more bureaucrats they divide responsibility and this creates more paperwork which needs to be read, drafted and signed by more people and this takes time and "manpower" (to use the phrase. this also applies to women obviously) if you go into schools you might expect to find one headmaster/mistress and the various class teachers. but find the headmaster/headmistress, senior managers, year heads (who aren't just regular teachers) policy administrators, education co-ordinators and many other useless non-jobs. the same applies for hospitals, police and in many sections of city hall or councils. so to eradicate bureaucraacy you concentrate powers and responsibilities into fewer individuals (don't cram them into one person since one person with all the power is dangerous) and of course just don't demand so much

the thing about flat taxes is that some people can easily live without 20% of their income but many more would probably be homeless, freezing or starving if you removed 20% of their income. that's why progressive taxation was invented wealthy people who make £220,000 / anum can pay 40% of their income and still have twice as much money as someone who earns £18,000/annum before tax. the important thing about progressive taxation is that as long as rich people are still austentatiously wealthier than poor people they can't complain they make much MUCH more so logic dictates that they ought to pay much much more tax.

Whilst on the topic of the House of Lords, it's better than the house of commons 1, parties have "chief whips" which is to make all the politicians toe the party line meaning that everyone does as the prime minister says (like a dictatorship) or the party leader. this is used to force legislation through. 2, the house of lords is a valuable political graveyard which is immeasurably useful in dumping crap politicians there. they do less damage than being in the house of commons voting or being out in public writing terrible books. Lords don't have to attend and vote on things. so it keeps them quiet. 3, some of the Lords have experience in things like Education or healthcare (doctors becoming Lords for example) and they put in some sanity as some stage of voting. This is instead of politicians "oh-wouldn't-this-be-a-really-great-idea"s and of course having an embarressing U-turn after it so predictably fails. just because someone is democratically elected doesn't make them brilliant. i'd rather have a competent, unelected ruler than a popular, idealistic idiot in charge. the important thing is that you can get rid of them easily. democracy in it's current form is rule by the most popular and i'm sorry but just because your popular doesn't mean you deserve that position. crowds are fickle and easily manipulated and ultimatley selfish. logic would deduct that only an easily manipulated, fickle and selfish person would get elected in that system

In answer to the question "name a country where socialism has worked" i'd say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" the contrasts Glasgow & Detroit - cities that prospered in the 50s and 60s but underwent huge decline NHS vs Health Insurance Higher Education - having state tuition vs scholarships Market Controls - free trade vs protectionism Public Transportation - Nationalisation vs leaving it private Housing - constricted or unconstricted in the case of Glasgow (or Liverpool) vs Detroit both are heavily divided cities - in Detroit it's blacks vs whites, in Glasgow (and Liverpool) it's Irish vs Brits Detroit exists in a system where the federal government will provide you with either 8 or 6 years of welfare in your lifetime any additional welfare is paid by the municipality in Britain you will receive welfare until 65 (provided there are no job offers) this prevents homelessness and the crime this causes (mostly) Glasgow and Liverpool haven't emptied into London and Birmingham. NHS vs Health Insurance NHS - you turn up (with an appointment) at a GP or A&E and you will be treated for free at point of use. there are charges for prescriptions and glasses (these do not apply if you are over 65 or under 16) Health Insurance - the leading cause of bankruptcy in the USA (this was before the recession) was medical bills and where people are desperate for money you get crime. if you have no health insurance you could just drop dead or be carted off to the county/city hospital where you could probably die in the queue State Higher tuition vs Scholarship programmes well scholarships are just too few and far between. this allowed the talented working classes in Britain to ascend the social ladder and escape the industrial decline going on. the counter arguement is that now a degree is a certificate of adequacy than anything else Market controls well Britain had market controls until 1979 this prevented certain financial products being sold, people "working your currency" was restricted, also there were import tariffs which were implemented to protect domestic employment. depending on your position you either like this (because of the employment that is protected) or hate this (because stuff costs a bit more) the economy is actually more volatile without market controls (the market doesn't fix itsself it breaks itsself) Public Transportation this only applies to Britain ante-Thatcher buses were run by the city or region they operated in with a few private companies usually operating between cities. de-regulation under thatcher provoked "bus wars" and the winner provided exactly the same level of service that existed before (sometimes less) British Rail wasn't brilliantly run due to a number of reasons. however crap it was it was comparitivley a lot cheaper than now and they're still crap. US public transportation speaks for itsself since a lot of public transport is publicly owned Housing this is an akward one speaking in defence of socialism since it's council blocks built 1955-1979 are and always will be appalingly bad. the housing built between the wars and pre-First World War is actually very decent even to this day. the other thing that must be said is "green belts" the UK established green belts to prevent the cities gobbling up the valuable land around them and as a result London hasn't grown that much since the war. house prices are extortionate across the board. the USA hasn't restricted housing in any real manner and you see places that are just as depressing to live in as the post-war housing schemes of Britain. the part that makes it worse is that people pay for them of course a certain creditor to Britain demanded it's money back at awfully inconvenient times with interest on it. this was behind several devaluations of the pound. the free market did the rest