| Competition 2 | Competition 3 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us |
| Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Competition 2 | Competition 3 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | | Home | | |
| 2008 US Presidential Determination - Reasons (Formally Accepted) Pertaining to Walter Brown |
Is George Bush (from the Republican Party), John Kerry (from the Democratic Party), Walter Brown (from the Socialist Party U.S.A.), Ralph Nader (from the Reform Party), Michael Badnarik (from the Libertarian Party), or David Cobb (from the Green Party of the U.S.) the more reasonable U.S. presidential candidate in terms of the collective well-being of the entire world?
Principle definitions:
More reasonable refers to the reasons supporting one presidential candidate being more sound and consistent than the reasons supporting all other presidential candidates. (For further discussion on more reasonableness see the methodology of more reasonableness.)
General role of U.S. President refers to the highest individual decision-maker in the U.S. Federal government including the Federal government’s final decision-maker in national security emergencies.
Basis for evaluation refers to the collective well-being of the entire world.
Collective well-being refers to the best interests of all (living) life-forms on Earth as a whole.
Entire world refers to all (living) human beings and all other (living) life-forms on Earth.
FOR:
“Brown is the only candidate in favour of eliminating a major source of the U.S. [and world's] problems: the system of monopoly capitalism which is based on forced inefficiency, competition, and greed (the assumption that greed, competition, and inefficiency is natural and innate is a flawed assumption). Nader, for example, wants stronger environmental protections, instead of targeting eliminating the threat in the first place.”
July 7 2004
Supplementary information as requested by the Evaluators of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Determination:
Who determines what is a need (not for profit), and what is not? (Question asked by the Evaluators)
“The elimination of large concentrations of capital through laws requiring fair taxation and payment to workers reduces the economy to the point where workers control their workplaces, which will have a more limited range of access to markets and goods. A community-level market places the workers into more direct awareness of what their communities need and gives them the control to adapt to what is needed and what is not.”
How is a need (not for profit) determined? (Question asked by the Evaluators)
“A need is determined on the basis of whether or not it is something without which a person either cannot survive or without which a person cannot participate fully in society; education, for example, is something without which a person can live, but the lack of education can severely limit an individual's access to all that the world has to offer.
Survive primarily refers to the physical act of remaining a living organism; secondarily it refers to staying in good health.
Participate fully in society refers to citizens having equal access to all work, recreation, education, political activity, and other sociological and civic functions; where ‘equal access’ does not mean guaranteed success for any particular activity (e.g., any particular job) -- it means equal opportunity to try to do well.”
How will the U.S. economy successfully make the transition from production for profit to production for need itself? (Question asked by the Evaluators)
“The U.S. economy, currently, has the problem of having inefficient use of production for the sake of numbers [i.e. numerical values of money] that move around in records of [financial] accounts; gradually reducing this system consists entirely of gradually making the system more efficient [i.e. production for need based on survival and ability to participate fully in society]. The key is gradual change; sudden and dramatic transition can cause confusion, doubt, perhaps chaos.”
The key question, in our view, stemming from this reason is whether or not U.S. production for need itself (as defined above) is more reasonably in the collective best interests of the entire world than production for profit? (It should be noted that there is likely overlap in the goods produced/services provided between production for need itself and production for profit.)
Also, is a more efficient economy (based on production for need itself as defined above) more reasonably in the collective best interests of the entire world than a less efficient economy (based on production for profit itself)?
Reasons for/against Bush Reasons for/against Badnarik Reasons for/against Kerry
Methodology and Conditions Submission form