Red
Well-Known Member
We need a Ministry of Happiness...
https://moco-choco.com/2017/02/15/b...-in-the-world-that-has-ministry-of-happiness/
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary
We need a Ministry of Happiness...
https://moco-choco.com/2017/02/15/b...-in-the-world-that-has-ministry-of-happiness/
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Equity = Fair and impartial treatment. It's an impossible standard to meet. Every one of us makes decisions that are not impartial or fair every day. Progressives are no exception. The good news is that the free enterprise system creates opportunity for everyone. It is available to be taken advantage of by anyone.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Progressives are a barrel of laughs. Might as well be dreaming of Jesus coming again.
Just as religious and dogmatic as any Bible-Thumper or Prophet-idolator.
I listened to Mark Levin run out a bit on the Jewish leftists, self-haters he calls them..... who don't really believe in Judaism and bend over and over again trying so hard not to be religious …."like those believers".....
who then fall all over one another trying so damn hard to follow Hegel or Marx or whatever damn socialist who ever wrote a book...... to prove how faithful they are to the original text.
Every one has an ideological version of the Sky Daddy.
Every one sincerely believes they have the one and only right way..... and claims the right to impose it on everyone else with the full force of guvmint whether anyone wants it or not....
SNL church ladies, the lot.
Red
Well-Known Member
Oh, for heaven's sake. I was only being lighthearted with you, based on your comment about measuring average happiness of various groups. I was not suggesting the government impose happiness. Where did I suggest any such concept? Nor did the link I left suggest any such concept. How would that work anyway? How does a government impose happiness?? Measure perhaps. Create policies that encourage its existence perhaps. But impose?
Your comment about determining the average happiness of various groups simply reminded me of Bhutan, and "we need a Ministry of Happiness" was just a lighthearted way of introducing Bhutan, which actually has such a ministry. I was just offering an example where the leader of a country seems focused on the happiness of his people. The King of Bhutan is interested in measuring what they call Gross National Happiness. I find that delightful, not a government imposition. Whatever makes you happy makes the king happy. Saw a 60 Minute feature on him once. Seemed like a hellava nice guy. So, your comment just reminded me of Bhutan, that's all...
And I see babe can't smile either. My post triggered one of his lectures on progressives. Lol....
Hey, maybe it's my fault. All those Trump diatribes, you probably don't expect any light heartedness from me. Anyway, the government of Bhutan does not impose happiness...
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=sire
http://www.oecd.org/site/ssfc2011/48920513.pdf
http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/An Extensive Analysis of GNH Index.pdf
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
Oh, for God's sake. Lighten up for once, lol. Why use Bhutan as an excuse for another lecture on progressives? Give me a break...
Last edited:
Do you consider Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, and Belgium to be socialist countries in regards to government and politics?
Is it true that these countries have private ownership as opposed to government or community owned property, business, etc.? Are these countries truly socialist countries?
The prime minister of Denmark has stated this in regards to being regarded as a socialist state.
There are many things that these countries embrace that are not in line with democratic socialism. Some view these countries as using social democracy as apposed to some version of socialism. There are heavy taxes and there are things that the government takes on, but that is not the same as socialism. These countries embrace a global economy and trade and make it easy to do business with other countries.
The bottom line is they have parts that look socialist and parts that look capitalist and categorizing them as one or the other is hard to do when many of them are their own version of a hybrid.
Comparing Venezuela to Germany and saying "see, it can work even if Venezuela doesnt" doesn't sell me at all. I wouldn't consider Germany to be a socialist state, and even if I did they have had so many troubles I wouldn't call it a success when recently they have had issues.
These are just rambling thoughts I've had, that probably don't all gel like I would want, but I felt like getting something out as some of the posts here don't sit well with me and are very flimsy imo.
You just contradicted yourself within a paragraph. If treatment is not fair and impartial, than opportunities are not fairly and impartially available.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I think you misread something but I'm not sure what. I said that the standard of being fair and impartial is unattainable. I don't care if you're talking about treatment or opportunities. The belief that the world could ever be run in a fair and impartial way is utter nonsense. The desire to attain such a "utopia" will keep progressives busy wringing their hands forever.
I would attribute whatever competence or workability or positive results of German or other European.... and to some lesser extent.... and Spanish colonial culture....aspects of applied socialism or socialist ideals practically applied..... to the moral conscience inculcated in these cultures by Christianity.
Thus socialism's only positives come from people willing to operate on residual faith in Christian principles. Mormons, for example, once tried to live on socialist (voluntarily) ideals of working as a cohesive group,.
When operated on a forcible.... governmental force.... basis, the idealism wears thin pretty quick, and behavior deteriorates into systemically fatal corruption.....
Thus socialism's only positives come from people willing to operate on residual faith in Christian principles. Mormons, for example, once tried to live on socialist (voluntarily) ideals of working as a cohesive group,.
When operated on a forcible.... governmental force.... basis, the idealism wears thin pretty quick, and behavior deteriorates into systemically fatal corruption.....
To play off of what you said, to be fair means something different to each person because of their needs. As a parent being fair to all children in my family means I treat them all differently to see to their needs. It does not mean treating them all the same, that is what actually leads to as much "unfairness" as anything. It's the same with government. I see being impartial as taking care of each group/party/person's needs equally, but not in the same way. You take care of the needs, but that may mean something completely different.
If I'm being fair in regards to dinner sometimes means I feed bacon to one kid, sausage to another, cheese pizza to another, and supreme pizza to another. That's fair, but it doesn't mean I gave them all the same thing and labeled it as "fair".