Slashdot Mirror
Clinton, Lieberman Propose CDC Investigate Games
Gamespot reports that Senators Clinton and Lieberman have asked the Centers for Disease control to investigate how games impact us poor deluded citizens. From the article: "Even though the legislation--called the Children and Media Research Advancement Act--does not include restrictions, it appears to be intended as a way to justify them. That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games. The original version of the bill earmarked $90 million for the study, but Lieberman press secretary Rob Sawicki said that the committee had approved the measure without any dollar figure and that such a figure would be added later during the appropriations process." Gamasutra has some background on the bill, which was originally proposed in 2003.
Please, Senator Lieberman. You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat. I was even a fan of your ill-fated White House bid.
Please, disconnect yourself from that shrill harpy of an ex-First Lady, and come back to sanity.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Lieberman's bill, called CAMRA, would provide funding to investigate the cognitive, physical, and sociobehavioral impact of electronic media on child and adolescent development--everything from physical coordination, diet, and sleeping habits to attention span, peer relationships, and aggression levels. Television, motion pictures, DVDs, interactive video games, the Internet, and cell phones would all be fair game.
At least they are treating games on the same level as movies etc for a change instead of pretending there is some magical difference.
The spirit of the whole concept of Freedom of Speech is speech with no government interference. This includes psychological war-games that the government likes to play with us creating propaganda (if even "merely" justifications) about ideas which it doesn't like and which the people do. I wholeheartedly believe that video game violence does not equate enough with real-life violence to create a correlation strong enough to trigger violent "thought-crimes." From what I've seen in high school and college, 3D games really let the player have a lot of fun and get out frustrations.
But as always with "studies" performed by the government, it's just to support someone's agenda and create publicity. A waste of our tax dollars for some bad politician's attempt to gain an edge.
If the CDC is going to be investigating non-tangible diseases, it should first start with that of scapegoating, that is, finding surrogate explanations when the real one is unpalatable.
This is just another election year tactic. Note how they have changed and said that it passed without any funding allocated to it. (The $90 million is a red herring.) This is the time honored and refined tactic of those seeking re-election to get a good sounding bill which seems in the public interest into the spotlight. If it manages to pass, they will simply forget to appropriate funds for the project.
So they get the warm fuzzies of saying "Hey, we're doing something smart!" while saving themselves from any bad things. They can always blame the lack of appropriations on someone else, or blame the lack of further action on the lack of appropriations.
That's because a string of court decisions have been striking down antigaming laws because of a lack of hard evidence that minors are harmed by violence in video games.
It shouldn't matter if there's "harm". Games are free speech.
What a bunch of BS, BTW. "Harm." People have free will and control their own actions.
If games have the power to override free will by accident, then we have a bigger problem. Someone will eventually harness this power to create an army of servants and take over the world.
Come to think of it, that would make a fun game.
Isn't the ratings system supposed to prevent kids from getting violent games? I know that it doesn't work, but still there are laws out there. Make buying these games by minors just as tough as buying alcohol or cigarettes.
Why is it always people that know little or nothing about video games are always the ones railing so hard against them? It's also interesting that neither Clinton nor Lieberman are saying anything about the TV & Movie industry constantly having violence in their shows/movies which may also harm children.
God forbid a naked breast showing up somewhere. That would be instantly banned and deemed harmful...strange world we live in.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Basically this will involve getting various "think-tanks" to research the claims until they get the result they are looking for... Look shiny!!!
* monitor health, * detect and investigate health problems, * conduct research to enhance prevention, * develop and advocate sound public health policies, * implement prevention strategies, * promote healthy behaviors, * foster safe and healthful environments, * provide leadership and training.
They are going to do a conduct research to detect and investigate if this is a health problem. If there is a health problem they will do everthing else listed. This falls well within their mission statement.
This is going to be slightly off-topic. Fair warning, mods.
You're one of the only active Democrats in power which I don't desperately want to punch in the throat
1. That's because he's actually a Republican, and he's going to be replaced this year by the fed-up netroots. Lieberman was one reason Gore failed to get enough votes to overcome the fraud in 2000. And what power? The Republicans control congress, the judiciary, and the executive branch. What power do Democrats have at all?
2. Fear is what motivates wingnuts. You also like Lieberman because, like yourself, he's a coward. He's afraid of the terrorists, and so, like the Republicans who control the Congress at the moment, he's willing to give away our civil rights to the terrorists in exchange for some perception -- any perception, however false -- of safety. This is really important to understand, everyone. The wingnuts are AFRAID. The Shrub administration runs on fear.
A successful Democratic candidate in 2008 will be one who stands up and says "we are the heirs of Patrick Henry; we will never stand down in the face of a threat to our domestic tranquility. To the terrorists, I say: we will find you and root you out; we will never submit to your tyranny-by-proxy and to your threats. We will not surrender our civil rights."
3. Why do Republicans always resort to violence as the first response to anything? If Karl Rove was a Democrat, some demented wingnut such as yourself would have long since assassinated him. Bush's approval rating is now far below Clinton's approval rating at any time during the Clinton presidency, and yet you don't see anyone firing bullets at the white house.
If there's anyone you should want to "punch in the throat," it should be Osama bin Laden. Where's your enthusiasm for that, where's your passion for finding and killing the real enemies of the state? Why is it all aimlessly pointed at harmless centrist targets like Hillary? Why not Laura Bush, who actually did kill someone (accidentally, mind you, according to the police record)?
4. I don't understand why Hillary sends all you wingnuts into incoherent rage. Discounting the tinfoil hat fairytales Limbaugh spews, she's a great match for the right wing: she has your sense of professional ethics and morality. Loves to pander to the rich and powerful. Loves to be right-wing. Will give away civil rights at the drop of a hat. Loves Iraq as a US colony. About the only thing you shouldn't like about her is her stand on healthcare, but she's flexible like her husband, so I don't think you have anything to worry about. She's hardly the moral beacon that this country will really need after eight years of the corrosive Shrub and his Halliburton-fellating cronies.
Interstate Commerce Clause used in the absolute opposite way to what the framers intended. I'd love to know how much of the money spent in these investigations goes to pork and preferential cronyism.
Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Because we fear a bias within the study, or questions phrased in such a way to give the results that the sponsors of the bill want to hear.
"Researcher" One: Now that you've played five hours of GTA, do you think stealing cars from other people can be fun in the game?
Timmy: I guess so.
Headline: Research Finds That GTA Makes Kids Want To Steal!
Oh course, I don't think it would be that far, but studies such as this will be trumpeted from every news stand if they find something damning, and buried if they don't. If it is a well-crafted game, then it will be pleasurable to play. And if it's violent-themed, then what the researchers will see is an increase in the pleasure response when the eight year old test subject skids through three police officers and two federal agents with his stolen police car.
Will the child then go rob a bank? I doubt it.
But none of this matters anyway, since the games they will be testing on the children aren't meant to be played by the test subjects!!!. Violent games aren't meant for kids. You want a study with a violent games that kids play? Have them play Hello Kitty: Roller Attack. Hello Kitty dishes out some major punishment with a hammer.
Although after five hours of Hello Kitty, *I* would want to kill someone.
There are no gods but ourselves.
If you believe video games are harmless under any circumstances to child development then of course you have nothing to fear from that question being studied by scientists.
Sounds like a lot of people are afraid their anecdotal, heartfelt common sense notions about video game harmlessness are going to smash into a brick wall of scientific fact.
The question of whether video games causes harm is seperate from what if anything the government should do about it.
Sorta like how Fredric Wertham's research "proved" comic books were evil to the Senate in the 50's? Or maybe something like the McCarthy hearings? Don't be silly, the government has obviously learned from its mistakes and would never go on such a witch hunt of a fishing expedition agai.... Or, umm, wait, who am I kidding.
But, yea, I wouldn't argue that violent games aren't bad for kids. However I will argue that research into any number of other things could be proven just as bad. Like, say, the institutionalized violence known as American high school football. But if one questioned the wholesomeness of that, and suggested it be researched, they'd be labeled a terr'ist or something.
Right now they're busy coming to grips with this coming from a Clinton and not a Bush.
Why would this surprise you? Both are involved in government. The primary activity that government performs is passing and enforcing laws. Laws, by definition, limit freedom. Democratic Laws limit freedom just as much as Republican Laws. They just limit different freedoms.
The only problem is that laws have a nasty tendency of never going away. While half of the population desires one set of laws, the other half desires another set; both eventually get their way, and the rights of everyone are eroded. Politicians come and politicians go, and year by year, more and more laws are passed.
If we continue with this partisan view of the world, we will live in a future that consists of a boot stepping on our faces---forever.
The Bible is full of horrible violence.
I think history books should also be banned. Almost all of recorded history describes how unscrupulous individuals murdered their kinsmen to obtain power. These same individuals abused their power exercising their "royal perrogative" whenever they saw fit, and history is full of warmongerers who thought nothing of killing people to obtain more material wealth.
I think this sets a bad example to children so all history should be re-written as "everyone used to go home after work and watch tv, every day, and when they got bored they went to the mall and maxxed out their credit card, since the beginning of time."
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
History is full of violence, religious affiliated or not. Just cruise down to your local library and check out a book on any national or cultural history and you'll find some bloodshed or war somewhere on the pages. As far I have observed we haven't reached a Utopia yet and the Bible, like any other history book, reflects just that, history (and tracks a particular nation and race in general. The nation of Israel to be specific). With your logic we should investigate and possibly ban (or minimally put a warning on) almost all books with historical facts and even a lot of historical fiction since it is possible that our children will be taught or come across a book of that nature at one time or another (the chances are very great, mind you).
But back to what you stated.
You might argue with the #1 through #4 depending on your own personal belief in a God or religious persuation, but the last six seem like a pretty good place to gauge a set of morals by. I have no problem with my child living or being taught by these standards:
#5 Honour thy father and thy mother
#6 Thou shalt not kill
#7 Thou shalt not commit adultery (cheat on my wife)
#8 Thou shalt not steal
#9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (lie)
#10 Thou shalt not covet..(be so jealous of, that you would consider stealing or killing).
And didn't Jesus Himself teach turn the other cheek and love thy enemies or something like that?
The fact of the matter is, all forms of expression DO in fact influence people. That is the whole fucking point of expressing something in the first damn place! That has never been at issue with regards to freedom of expression. Banning expression because it's influential is a bad, bad precedent to set.
Adults are responsible for their own actions, and parents are responsible for thier own children. The government of the United States was designed to protect our rights, not limit them.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You fools. If funding is indeed provided, this is a Good Thing. I suppose the entire slashdot crowd has forgotten that funding for scientific research has been SEVERLY decreased over the last several years. (this happens frequently with a conservative-controlled government - they aren't interested in spending money on things they can't see.) $90 million dollars (or whatever the final number is) is money to support young phDs, just out of school, nerdy like all of us, trying get started in the scientific world. This bill isn't just about video games, its about getting money to social psychiatrists to perform basic research.
To those of you who raise the possibility of this being a biased study ~ keep in mind that the first step of the scientific process is to START WITH AN ASSUMPTION! In this case, we can pretty much imagine that the assumption will be along the lines of "obscenely violent video games desensitive children to violent ideas and in some cases suggest that violence is an acceptable response to certain conditions." Then, the study will either prove or disprove this. You might fear that it will be constructed in such a way that the results are consistent with what the politicians want to see, but the scientific community is not quick to accept "proof" from slanted experimental processes.
Don't worry. It will work out.
Ask anyone who's played Unreal Tournament 2003/2004 too often and for way too many hours at a time, how does their mouse-wielding hand, forearm and elbow feel?
t's not much of a leap from there to conclude that people, or at least children, are nothing more than sophisticated programmable devices -- machines that have no free will to choose their own influences in life. It's an argument that rests on determinism, which bothers freethinking geeks the same way evolution frightens protestant Christians.
Ah, the Free Will thing... yes it can come down to that I suppose. Most 'geeks' are probably libertarians (both in the philosophical and political sense, but here I focus on philosophical libertarianism) meaning that they presuppose a non-deterministic universe. It's interesting to note that Free Will is a problem both in a deterministic and non-deterministic view. Most people are familiar with the problem of Free Will in a deterministic view, but completely unfamiliar with the problems of Free will within a non-deterministic framework. In a non-deterministic universe things happen without any discernable cause. As soon as you assign cause you start to imply determinism: "He majored in CS because he was good at math and science and had an interest in computers... he had an interest in computers because his father was a computer scientist... his father was a computer scientist because..." -> the explanation starts to sound deterministic. However, if things just happen randomly, that's also a problem for Free Will.
Most philosophers who specialize in the isssue seem to be converging on a compatiblistic view (compatibilists contend that Free Will and determinism are compatible). At any rate, we do know that exposure to certain stimuli causes certain changes in the brain (often referred to as 'learning') - if we want to give up on that idea then let's just forget about the educational enterprise completely. If you contend that there are no effects then why do you bother to go to school? (or why do your parents send you) Why would you bother to try to 'learn' anything if there will be no effect on your brain (and by extension, your behavior)?
I think the main reason that people resist this type of research is because studies like this are typically either exaggerated or spun in a way that supports the conclusions of the people pushing the study, in this case Lieberman and Clinton. The bias of a very small number of people can be quickly turned into "scientific fact" by politicians and the media. It's better not to do the research at all unless we can guarantee that the research is performed and distributed in an unbiased fashion.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
I'm not sure why there is such resistance here on /. (other than the fact that most /.'ers are possibly adolecent gamers) to the idea that activities you engage in for a large percentage of your time can have an impact on brain development and function.
It's not that idea to which there is resistance - it's the idea that it should be legislated and regulated even if the idea is true. "Freedom" means allowing people to do basically anything so long as those things don't harm others or impinge on the freedoms of others. Gaming does neither, nor does allowing one's children to play games. It's not the job of some "nanny state" government to regulate anything and everything that might be considered "harmful" to someone (even "the children") or might conceivably lead someone somewhere to contemplate possibly committing a crime. Playing games doesn't cause violence - at best you could argue that it might provoke people to think about possibly committing an act of violence -- and suddenly you're on very tenuous ground, because it's exactly like the argument that viewing porn causes people to commit rape. People should be punished for the actual crimes they commit. Real violence is already illegal, we don't need new legislation for that, and thinking about violence shouldn't be illegal.
It's interesting to note that the explosive rise of increasingly violent (and realistic) games over the last couple of decades has also seen a steady decrease in violent juvenile crime rates. Now there are of course many variables at play there, but it's interesting in that it's the opposite of what one would expect given your assertions --- if violent games led to any not-insignificant amount of real violence, then with the incredibly massive popularity of violent games we should have seen a massive upswing in violent crime among juveniles recently. We haven't, in fact we've seen the opposite. (That of course doesn't necessarily mean that there hasn't been such an increase, it may simply be masked by other trends, but it does seem to suggest that if there is such an increase that it is very likely insignificantly small.)
"Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents."
Your absolutely right, and your absolutely wrong. Yes it takes parents to raise a child, assuming you have parents which hundreds of thousands of orphans from the AIDS crisis and other crises around the world do not.
The point that was being made by the author was that the role of the community in its own development, and the development of its members, is important and significant. How that community is structured, is it inclusive? is it a positive environment? is it safe? does it have the resources necessary to promote growth? (economic environmental and social)
There are so many factors that are beyond the control of parents. You want to look at drug abuse, violence, exclusion, poverty, whatever, all of them are incredibly linked to the community. The individual, and certainly not the parents, do not control the context in which they live their lives. If our communities degenerate, or continue to degenerate as many authors have suggested, it won't matter what kind of parent you are - you can only teach your child so much and shield them from so much. Beyond that the responsibility lies with your child, and the environment they interact within, namely 'the community' on whatever plan you choose to identify it (municipality -> nation -> nation-state -> continent, etc)
"I am worried that one of the first questions in emergency care is "How are you going to pay?"
I've not come to praise our healthcare system, because I believe it's screwed beyond belief, but this doesn't happen. We were in a bad car accident last June, and they air evaced my wife, she got treated at an emergency room in trendy, yuppie, expensive Scottsdale, Arizona, subsequently released, and was never once asked about how she would pay.
The three illegal immigrants driving drunk in the car with the stolen plate also got airlifted to the same place and presumably got treated there, too. I don't know what happened to them, and you'll have to forgive me if I currently find it hard to care about their situation. I guarantee you they didn't have health coverage of any kind, but I know that my wife's airlift alone was just shy of 11,000 bucks.
Now, I'm sure that if I didn't contact them with my (fortunately very good) healthcare coverage information they eventually would've come knocking, but no matter how it's done, we will pay for healthcare, be it taxes, insurance premiums, bills or combinations of all three. But they don't ask even close to upfront in a (real) emergency. I imagine if you go to the emergency room with a headache or "my foot hurts" then it's possibly different, but in that case I say GOOD! A little bit of pain is not an emergency, and anyone who does that is putting a load on system that's designed to treat emergent, life-threatening problems for a triviality.
ha ha. now the computer gamers will know how the marijuana smokers feel.
what you need to understand is that there doesn't need to be a *factual* harm to justify prohibition, there only needs to be a *perceived* harm. sorry, that's democracy.
You make some good points, I'll admit, but parents are the first line upbringing. Orphans are an entirely different matter, so that's a pretty moot point... of course it takes an orphanage to raise an orphan when no suitable adoptive parents are available... but the preference is on finding parents.
As for the other things - the preference always goes to letting the parent decide. For example, who decides if the community is "structured" well enough? Define "positive" environment? A bunch of hippies preaching love and tolerance? The public school system preparing our children for a life of socialism and perhaps ultimately communism? Before you go off the deep end about that, it's subtle things... like having to share your school supplies with everyone... when I confronted our child's first grade teacher about it, I said "I'd prefer my child to have his own things that he can take care of and learn responsibility, so if it's a matter of other kids not being able to afford supplies, I'd be happy to help." She basically said, in a nutshell, I was missing the point.
And "inclusive"? What the heck does that mean? Forced integration is not a positive, natural and willing integration is. Would you mandate that all schools are exactly W% white, X% black, Y% hispanic, and Z% asian and other? Frankly, I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent, but language like that makes me want to gag.
Here's my honest opinion of Hillary: I like Bill a lot better. Hillary is an elitest who believes she knows more than the masses, and if she had her way it would be a dictatorship with her at the helm telling us in minute detail how to raise our kids (and how to eat, and what to drive, and what we can watch on TV, and just about everything else, too). People like to call her a socialist, but she is, in fact, a full blown communist - even though she would never admit it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Of course, Hillary believes it takes a community to raise a child. I, on the other hand, believe it takes parents.
Are you saying that it doesn't also take teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, responsible neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers, extended family, friends, etc, and so on?
*That's* what Hillary meant. Do you really think she's wrong?
I don't need teachers, police officers, firefighters, librarians, neighbors, or anyone else to tell me wether or not my kids play too many video games.
And, in fact, throughout history children have been raised quite successfully without teachers, police officers, firefighters, neighbors, a healthy local economy, grocers, farmers (except what they grew themselves), extended family or friends...
I didn't say it didn't help, or that some things the community provides aren't beneficial, I said it doesn't take a community to raise a child, it takes parents.
And more than what you mention, what Hillary MEANT was a child should be raised by the community's standards and not the parents. Wait, scratch that... what Hillary REALLY meant was that a child shouldn't be raised by the parent's standards, they should be raised by HER standards.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Please do not paint us social democrats with a broad brush. Hillary is not a socialist, she is just a career politican, an authocrat and ... quite nuts. Socialists do not love big or powerful government (on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do, just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!), nor do they "hate personal responsibility". They do not give a damn how the societal services are delivered as they are only concerned with the existence of such services and with the nature of the community in which they live. That is why in many countries with "socialist" systems, you will find private companies competing on delivery of such services, although they are funded by taxation. Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience. That does not mean that they support hordes of lazy free-loaders sitting around waiting for some hard working individual to deliver their champaigne and lobster, but it does mean that they expect some basic rules of economic decency to be around and that the economic engine of the society is made to perform its work for all members of that society and not just a select few.
Contrast this with this new breed of "conservatives", "neo-classical capitalists", "anarcho capitalists" and "libertarians" (radical revolutionaries is a more fitting term for all of them) who would be happy with gargantuan inequality of wealth where few individuals literally own nations, globe spanning monopolies, corporate armies, wars for resources, being ruled by outright feudal lords and many other similar things, all in the narrow-minded name of "personal responsibility", with the view of somehow justifying their own, small-time, pitiful, petty greed (and getting eaten alive in the process by the true sharks of this game).
"the vast majority of people are complete idiots"
I've found that most people are of average intelligence. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks you're so much smarter and more special than everyone else. If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be able to look around you and analyze your surroundings objectively. When you really consider the points of view of others, you realize that every one is basically the same intelligence. Usually those who reach the conclusion that the vast majority of people are idiots have only considered one kind of intelligence, like scientific knowledge or mathematical ability. I'd hate to live in world populated solely by scientists and engineers, we wouldn't survive very long.
Considering that the vast majority of people are complete idiots
I agree. But you want to know something? I support their right to be idiots! It's called freedom.
I want the government out of my own personal fucking affairs...including *my* right to be an idiot at times.
Life is not for the lazy.
I must take issue with some of your positions.
"Hillary is not a socialist." I think if you look back at the early '90s, you'll find that the health care reforms she was spearheading on behalf of her husband in essence was a de facto nationalization of the health care system in the U.S. By using high degrees of government regulation or ownership to rectify perceived unfairness in the distribution of health care by definition is a socialist policy position. Your other characterizations I agree with. Look, even my side of the political spectrum has its own whack jobs: think Pat Robertson. Nonetheless, is some key ways Pat Robertson and I do agree and I can't disavow that to make me look more correct. I have to take it for what it is and take faith that even whack jobs may get some things right; anything else is artificial and hypocrisy.
"Socialists do not love big or powerful government" First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes it from the opposing conservative ideology: namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement. Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot. So when you say, "Socialists are concerned with balancing all the ill effects of capitalism (as it has many of them, regardless of its positive ones) with some sort of communal social conscience," I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.
You go on to add from the point of the last paragraph, "(on the contrary, it seems that neo-cons do [love big government], just look at the size and deficits of that thing now!) This is just political sophistry aimed at painting the Bush administration with the dirty phrase 'neo-con' much the same way conservatives turned 'liberal' into an undesirable label (thereby causing the American Left to search for more palatable monikers such as 'progressive'). Couple things we should get straight... my understanding of neo-conservatism (speaking now as one that hold many of these ideologies) is primarily focused on the foreign policy of the country not so much the domestic agenda. Admittly I may be wrong on the formal definition (I don't get too caught up with trendy labels), but if we broaden your statement to be 'conservative' ideology your argument couldn't be more flawed. I would suggest that the Bush Administration is not conservative at all nor representative of conservative thought. I think the recent Cato Institute conference generally got it right; Bush and his administration are Christian Socialists. Congress, too, has largely been made up of RINOs (republicans in name only) since the fall of Gingrich. The ideas of small government conservativism died at about the same time as their greatest champion, Ronald Reagan, did.
But be a Socialist after Marx or be one after Christ, the two have a few things in common. The notion that they have been appointed (one by God the other by ???) to determine what is right and wrong for the rest of us is proof of their kinship. Economic inequalities between me and my fellow man? So what. Many more poor than rich? So long as the rule of law is paramount and that law establishes nothing more than a level playing field in terms of opportunity, let the poor be poor and the rich be rich. Within the nation so long as there are the minimal constraints to prevent monopoly amongst competitors be they companies or ethnic/religious groups there should be no one to make such decisions as, "you are too rich," or, "you are too powerful". Only if you can make the argument that by force (exercised throug
I think you have some seriously distorted view of what socialism is. Apparently to you, any attempt at a universal medical coverage would be a socialist, or I fear, even a "communist" venture. May I point out that this idea is something that is present in all top industralized countries with the exception of the US. US stands alone in its backwards stupor, throwing thousands of its citizens to death, disease or life-long debt in the name of greed. It is quite pathetic and shameful. And nothing to do with Socialism, unless you consider all of the top industralized countries to be hives of near-Bolshevik Collectivisation, and ony the poor, alone in the world, US of A being the lone Capitalist one. Wait, don't answer that...
First, socialist policies require extensive legislative power in order to enforce the key proposition that distinguishes
Untrue, all forms of central governance require legislative power, only anarchism does not.
it from the opposing conservative ideology:
Not so. Unless by "conservative" you mean "anarchist".
namely that wealth and power should be distributed in some sort of 'fair' arrangement.
Distribution of wealth is not the primary concern. The effects of insane disparities are. Power should always be distrubuted, and only a feudal lord would think otherwise. Have you heard about that thing called "democracy"?
Without extensive legislative power, and the government bureaucracy to enforce it, people would not be forced to comply with the taxation, the social policy, the powersharing or anything else and largely socialist policy would be little more than banter on Slashdot.
Again, this is true of any form of governance, save anarchy.
I would contend you can do none of those things without big government. Whether you love it or not is up to you, but you need it to have your desire.
You assume that all of the social programs must be managed directly and centrally. In fact all that is needed is some sane legislation and enforcement of thereof, no different that those applied to protection of private property or common criminal activity. In many industralized countries, including Canada -- where I live, the delivery of medical services is performed by private entities. Only the insurance plans are funded by taxation. In Canada, over 95% of family doctors are in private practice. Most hospitals are private (although they tend to be no-profit corporations). And now for the funny part: the administrative overhead is much lower here then in the US. Go figure that one out (I will link you to statistical data if you dont believe me). Does this make for a "big" government? Do you consider a single insurance company being owned by the government being "big"? How is this different then having a central national bank as virtually all countries do?
There are very few of such companies that the government needs to own or otherwise operate. Its mandate is limited to providing base, skeletal services for the society and the remaining 99.9% is up to the private industry. I cannot understand where is all that hostility against even that tiny sliver of national economy being nationalized is coming from. Never you mind that we have companies like Toyota moving their plants here, quote: "because of health care costs". Happier workers, happier industry, less overhead, humane treatment of all citizens, overall lower cost per capita (less then 50% of that of the US which has 40 million people uninsured). We do have our own problems, but they are minor and severely overblown (usually by "think-tanks" funded by US insurance inustry). People do wait for surgery, but so do they in the US, except the wait time is based here on the medical concept of "