Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 30 Nov 2006 18:00 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:882c6$456f2c7b$4fe73f0$30792(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:a653d$456f0f75$49ecf2e$29962(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>>>>>>>regards >>>>>> >>>>>>to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>separation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay >>>>>>doesn't affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic >>>>>>system. >>>>> >>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>> >>>> >>>>Sure it is. >>> >>>Nope. >>> >>> >>>>While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, the best >>>>advance. >>> >>>That's no advance, that's status qou. >>> >>> >>>>However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is under >>>>capitalism. >>> >>>If a soldier has a heart attack they're discharged from >>>military service. Under socialism they'd be cared for and >>>returned to duty, lighter duty as necessary. >> >> >> The US military retains the services of soldiers who are wounded or >> injured (obviously depending on the severity of the injury). > > Only if they can recover sufficiently that they would be > acceptable as a new recruit. Although I have met a serving US Army officer who required a cane to walk, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an affectation. (I have no way of recontacting him to verify) However, this still smacks of the socialism example you gave. The soldier is still cared for, allowed to do lighter duties until he recovers and if he can't recover he is given a medical discharge which may or may not include a payout and pension options. (I seem to recall that US servicemen and women can get military disability benefits but, again, if some one knows differently I will bow to expertise). >> Most western militaries have a variety of light duties states in which >> ill, injured, recovering (etc) soldiers can carry out tasks. > > Temporary duty, yes. Ill, inhured, and recovering, yes. Not "etc." Ok. I suspect that is more pedantry than anything else. Going back to your earlier example, if a soldier has a heart attack and will never recover, yes they are discharged but the military support system still cares for them. Is that different?
From: Spehro Pefhany on 30 Nov 2006 19:28 On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:31 +0000, the renowned Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> There's a case to be made for the CIA historically having >> involved themselves in illegal activies in other countries. > >Encouraging them you mean ? > >Graham Google on: CIA "drug running" Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: unsettled on 30 Nov 2006 21:02 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:882c6$456f2c7b$4fe73f0$30792(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... snip to crux: > Ok. I suspect that is more pedantry than anything else. Going back to your > earlier example, if a soldier has a heart attack and will never recover, yes > they are discharged but the military support system still cares for them. Is > that different? I think you're confused by considering what pocket provides the benefit. Employers such as US military and others where the employee is apt to be shot at (police functionaries of all sorts) have a disability insurance scheme which is, for obvious reasons, much more robust than the disability generally available to people like factory and office workers whose job function does not purposely place them in danger. The military in the US directly provides healthcare to soldiers as well as their dependents. Our soldiers aren't very well paid, so fringe benefits such as healthcare and housing allowance, dependent supplements and such are an important part of their employment compensation package. Insurance and other benefits form part and parcel of the open market ideology where employers compete to get the best employees they can given the high risk. The US military is just another employer among many. For disabled citizen workers not otherwise insured we have a branch of the social security scheme. Whether that's called insurance or socialism by any individual is pretty much up to personal preference because the premiums aren't voluntary, they're a flat percentage of income with an annual cap. As usual to dig into the terms and conditions is a little complex, but here's the starting point for what we call Social Security Disability here in the US: http://www.ssa.gov/disability/ Note that generally the individual must have paid enough into the system before they're considered insured, and the disability must be substantial. Part and parcel of any number of private employer fringe benefit plans also include disability insurance in one form or another. Privately purchased disability insurance is also widely available in this country. http://www.about-disability-insurance.com/ I don't think this issue is nearly as simple as you seem to believe. If we picked up any jaywalker who was the victim of a hit and run up off the street and automatically paid them disability then I'd consider that socialist. So long as there's a sevices or cash rendered exchange involved, the disability insurance (shared risk pool) has been paid IMO. In my state disability is significant in the auto insurance peremiums charges because disability resulting from automobile accident has, by law, no $ cap and no time limitation. My insurance carrier must, for example, not only provide the wheelchair needed in case of injury, but also wheelchair ramps at the person's home and handicapped facilities in his bathroom. I consider this realistic, In other states an injured person may be forced to sue for a large amount in order to anticipate future expenses. In a socialist "compassionate act" the quid pro quo doesn't exist, one side simply gives. Where there is *any* sort of an exchange involved, it isn't socialism no matter what pocket the money comes from.
From: Eeyore on 1 Dec 2006 04:22 Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:01:31 +0000, the renowned Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >unsettled wrote: > > > >> There's a case to be made for the CIA historically having > >> involved themselves in illegal activies in other countries. > > > >Encouraging them you mean ? > > > >Graham > > Google on: CIA "drug running" I'd certainly heard of it. Graham
From: T Wake on 1 Dec 2006 08:03
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8628a$456f8d5b$4fe72f1$1303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip for brevity> > > In a socialist "compassionate act" the quid pro quo doesn't > exist, one side simply gives. Where there is *any* sort of > an exchange involved, it isn't socialism no matter what > pocket the money comes from. I have snipped for brevity and nothing else. The points you made were relevant and, largely, I agree with them. My personal motives for including the US military as an organisation which could be deemed as "socialist" was simply to highlight the difficulties in identifying a few traits of a system and declaring it Socialist - mainly in the manner /BAH has decreed the UK Government a "Socialist" government and the NHS as a socialist entity. I was not trying to make the issue seem simplistic at all and I am sorry if that is how it came across. Again personally, the above paragraph from your post highlights one of the reasons why it is incorrect to view the UK government as a "Socialist" government and the NHS as a socialist organisation. There is an exchange of sorts involved in both. Some people get more out of the system then they pay in, but that is always the case with any form of insurance. |