why hate socialism?

[caspofungin]

watching the campaigns over the last few months, and reading these forums, it's become pretty obvious that most americans hate socialism. it's used as a club against anyone (not just obama) who dares talk about fiscal reform, new health care policies, etc.

if you equate socialism and communism, that would be incorrect, but i would understand it. but if socialism means increasing taxes to pay for health care, schools, etc, without imposing on civil liberties, why the blind hatred?

or am i missing something?

[nikimcbee]

watching the campaigns over the last few months, and reading these forums, it's become pretty obvious that most americans hate socialism. it's used as a club against anyone (not just obama) who dares talk about fiscal reform, new health care policies, etc.

if you equate socialism and communism, that would be incorrect, but i would understand it. but if socialism means increasing taxes to pay for health care, schools, etc, without imposing on civil liberties, why the blind hatred?

or am i missing something?

Yes. I'm opposed to it because it will kill our economy. On the health care acpect of it, I have mixed feelings. I am willing to pay for the quality over the quantity. The people that truely need the health care need the help, but soon everybodies "illness" will be covered. There is too much abuse in the health care system that needs to be dealt with.

the increase in taxes thing never ends. One innocent tax increase leads to another and another, then the majority of your pay-check is gone. It's my $#%$^% money. I worked for it so keeps your hands off it. If you don't like capitalism, go live in Cuba. I lived in Russia for a little while and I got to see what a socialist system can do.

[Zachstar]

Any 1st world gov is a Hybrid anyway.

Otherwise you would have Toll roads EVERYWHERE.

Roads: Socialism period.

As for healthcare. A "Go in for a sniffy nose" policy is crap but our current policy is just as crap because it allows 1000 dollar cases become 100000 cases before it starts giving a rats ass.

Preventable measures and Early detection needs to be 100 percent paid for by the government period. Because it will save taxpayers when we do not have to have Medicare gutted by people with conditions that could have been treated when things were far cheaper. THAT is capitalism/socialism hybrid

[CCIP]

In the end a "capitalist" government will tax you just as much as a "socialist" government, the only difference is in where the money goes.

:yep:

Funny, I lived in Russia for more than a little while, but I'm still a convinced socialist. It's true, socialism can go wrong - but then whether there was any real socialism in a place like Russia is debatable. I don't think there was.

People underestimate the positive impact socialism has had historically. In fact, I would say that were it not for socialist agenda being rationally implemented in the West in the form of labour regulation (work hours, minimum wage policies, unions), healthcare and improved public funding for other public services in the early 20th century, there would have been a revolution akin to the Russian one. The West cut it very close in those years, and many of those fixes were rather painful to the system and resisted almost to the extreme by some elements in society. But the fixes ultimately helped to save society and enhance democracy by creating a working middle class, something that's a necessity to maintain a free, democratic society in balance.

The problem is that now the balance is again threatened. There's going to need to be similar fixes as the system is basically breaking down. There is, of course, the other side to this where the social services themselves are in need of reform because they're getting abused (see the infamous "damn immigrants on welfare!" argument). The problem is that in all of this, a lot of upper-middle-class people and, shall we be honest and say "rednecks", are not seeing the bigger picture here. A lot of libertarian ideologues polluting their heads with the idea that if you have it, you've earned it, and if they don't have it - f them. The problem is that once you lose your middle class, you can say goodbye to democracy. You then might as well legalize slavery because that's what the situation will equate to. All that is good about the West's liberal democratic system and its social freedoms stems from economic balance and a predominance of a solid middle class.

What I've learned by growing up in Russia is not that socialism is bad. What I've learned is that a situation in a highly developed society where there is no middle class, but instead a small elite and a predominantly impoverished majority, is inherently impossible to maintain a fair, democratic system in - and furthermore results in major social collapse. It's a very tragic thing to watch. And if anyone for a second thinks that something like that is impossible in the West - well, time will tell. And I will say that if you don't protect your middle class and with it, a neccesary social balance, you're going to end up with a very tragic situation on your hands. There are fixes that, as in the early 20th century, the socialist agenda can offer. It's up to the society whether to accept them or not. But I'm afraid that if you think things will fix themselves, you're sadly mistaken.

[Skybird]

What I've learned is that a situation in a highly developed society where there is no middle class, but instead a small elite and a predominantly impoverished majority, is inherently impossible to maintain a fair, democratic system in - and furthermore results in major social collapse. It's a very tragic thing to watch. And if anyone for a second thinks that something like that is impossible in the West - well, time will tell. And I will say that if you don't protect your middle class and with it, a neccesary social balance, you're going to end up with a very tragic situation on your hands. There are fixes that, as in the early 20th century, the socialist agenda can offer. It's up to the society whether to accept them or not. But I'm afraid that if you think things will fix themselves, you're sadly mistaken.
:yep: 100% agree. And what you describe - actually already happens while writing this, in a growing number of European nations, and in the country of extremes, America, anyway.

We lost much of our balance in a multitude of regards, and we lose the rest of it right now. Extremes rise, in economy anf finance, in education, health care, social integrity, political power of nations, ideology. This polarisation causes our future conflicts. Much of the developing crisis has the potential to rip Western nations apart again. Nobody wants to hear that. when it has happened, nobody will accept the responsibility for it, and point fingers at his opponent in matters.

[frenzied]

One aspect I feel that causes some of the hatred of socialistic tenancies in governments (e.g. health care, supporting unemployed people so they have a better chance of getting a job, supporting students so they can actually study, etc.) is pure blind greed. A substantial portion (I don't count them, so I'm not going to give a concrete number) of people saying they hate socialism give a reason of "my money, get away, it's mine, you can't have it." Yes this is rather harsh, but I can't think of another way to put it at the moment.
Now I don't want my money taken away from me either, but I am willing to pay extra taxes for things like health care, education, defence, roads, and all those other things that I don't want controlled by corporations. Partly this is from selfishness - if health care is free, I will be more likely to go in for health check-ups (as an example) early and thus be healthy, and not have huge bills when problems get serious. Partly this is from a desire for a country to be strong - homeless people just suck at the economy, but if you give them unemployment benefits some will be able to get back on their feet.

[Onkel Neal]

watching the campaigns over the last few months, and reading these forums, it's become pretty obvious that most americans hate socialism. it's used as a club against anyone (not just obama) who dares talk about fiscal reform, new health care policies, etc.

if you equate socialism and communism, that would be incorrect, but i would understand it. but if socialism means increasing taxes to pay for health care, schools, etc, without imposing on civil liberties, why the blind hatred?

or am i missing something?

Socialism is a dead end, just like communism, only more gradual. When you strip all these ideas down, at the core you have to ask, will this work long term with human beings as they are now? Self-interest and socialism don't mesh, and before anyone bashes self-interest, be aware the hypocrite filter is working in this thread :) Socialism forces people who are responsible to cover costs for people who....well, can't or won't, it's hard to distinguish between them. Forces, as in no choice, you have to do it. And that penalizes the main driver of the economy: initiative.

And increasing my taxes to pay for someone else's health care does impose on my civil liberties. I agree that there needs to be something done about health care, but I feel everyone should pay for their own; right now a lot of people use the emergency room as their clinic to avoid paying. I think everyone should pay a "health care tax" if they are not currently paying for health insurance. Kind of like when you take a loan to buy a car or house, the bank tells you to get insurance. If you don't, they get insurance for you and put it in the loan. In the end, you pay for your own insurance. I am willing to pay for my insurance and health care, and my family's; I am not willing to pay for some other guy's health care, especially when he has put his own health care priorities below his car, his big screen TV, his Harley-Davidson, fishing trips, $180 Nikes, $4 Starbucks coffee, his gaming computer and high speed internet connection (which he uses to get on forums and complain about his lack of health care), etc.


The funny thing about socialists (another word for beginner communist), history has shown since Lennin that as the people begin to want out of socialism, the leaders and enthusiasts will do anything to keep them in. No civil liberties there.

So, if you want socialism, fine, go to Sweden or France, no problem and more power to the socialists. I wish you luck. :yep: Prove us wrong. But I strongly oppose converting America to socialism. And as a free man, I have the right to oppose socialism. And since I'm not a college kid or dreamy radicalist, I feel I have the obligation to oppose socialism, too.

[Skybird]

How should one not resignate when reading generalisations like this.

[Hanomag]

I am a pure Facist and really... I think you should all be shot.... :D

Maybe we should go Roman.. didn't they have the Pax Romani (1000 years?) :yep:

Regardless, when it all collapses .. I am ready. Hell I am ready for the Zombie Apocalypse! So bring it!! :up:

[Digital_Trucker]

Given the US governments track record at efficiency, I don't think I want them in charge of how to spend money for health care or anything else that doesn't absolutely have to be done at a federal level.

[Onkel Neal]

How should one not resignate when reading generalisations like this.

"Resignate" any way you want. Nice try to dismiss in one sentence, 4 points. :)

[Skybird]

I had a long reply instead of that oneliner, and deleted it. It would be completely in vein. You already have made a decision never to see the many negative costs of capitalism that lead to incrasing distortions and conflicts in the world, make few and fewer people even richer, and more and more people falling down the sopcial ladder. Nationally. In the West. Globally. I also had a reference to the TV docu they just have had on TV, about the conditions in not few ERs in major cities that make mockery of what you said.

I think most people will not start looking beyond themselves before they get hit themselves.

[CCIP]

And since I'm not a college kid or dreamy radicalist, I feel I have the obligation to oppose socialism, too.
Neal, that's not really a nice generalization. I'm sure that wasn't pointed at anyone in particular, but still - that's not exactly what socialism comes from. Sure, the intelligentsia brought plenty of ideas, good and bad, and has equally made good points and screwed up when it came to social issues. Still, I personally resent that, having lived among poor working people who fought tooth and nail to get anywhere in life, not for personal gain but for the good of others. It's a matter of perspective - from mine, I could likewise suggest that libertarians are by and large rich, selfish people whose fortune arises from an advantageous social position rather than hard work - but that's not really true either.

I personally strongly disagree with economic incentive as the be-all, end-all in human progress. It works to a point, but when unmoderated it paves a path straight to hell by the way of greed and exploitation. The society, in my view, has a broken view of wealth and gain - I've been rather poor most of my life (heck, I spent my early years in living arrangements with an average of 3.5 people / room), but I've lived within my means and I honestly never really saw the virtues of getting greedy beyond a certain point. And people really need to consider the real cost of things - because if they don't pay the price, someone else generally does. I'm not at all happy with a very common present-day arrangement where the system works largely through exploiting low costs permitted by the exploitation of the poor - at home or abroad. Having grown up around people exploited in this fashion, I take offence at the idea that being poor is necessarily a condition resulting from being lazy. That's simply not true.
There's a systemic failure at work here, and I don't think any reasonable socialist today (besides the usual radicals) would suggest that the whole point now is to break the system - no, but unless fixes are brought in, I'm afraid quite a lot of Americans will wind up in position to be exploited without a way to fight back, owing to a nasty social imbalance which I see gradually creeping up. The right to own guns isn't going to help much there, either.

[AntEater]

No need for any further comment as the usual french/german/russo-canadian conspiracy pretty much has allready said everything I could come up with
:up:

But one thing about healthcare and social spending struck me recently:
When looking at the federal budget of the US, the whole proportions look amazingly similar to that of a "socialist" (in the redneck sense) european country like Germany or France or Sweden.
About a quarter each for healthcare and social spending and defense, with interest and other posts making up the remaining quarter.
It is about the same general division as in the german federal budget.
On the other hand, if you compare what Germany or France provide their citizens with in regards to healthcare and social spending and what a US citizen gets, the picture gets somewhat confused. Don't know about unemployment and social security benefits, but in healthcare I was expecting the US to spend substantially less on the subject than the average european country.
Analogue to "bang for buck" one could say the average US citizen seems to get less "bandages for buck" than the average european.
Where does all that social security and healthcare money go to?
The US seems to spend twice as much money for "socialist" purposes than for defense, yet the US is not renowned to be a welfare state in the european sense.
But on the other hand, the US has some welfare state elements still controversial in Germany, like guaranteed minimum wages.

[Letum]

Who can name the phillosopher who said that the only society one should advocate is on in which
you are happy to take any, even the most wretched, role in?
Because I have forgotten!

[Fish]

In the end a "capitalist" government will tax you just as much as a "socialist" government, the only difference is in where the money goes.

:yep:

Funny, I lived in Russia for more than a little while, but I'm still a convinced socialist. It's true, socialism can go wrong - but then whether there was any real socialism in a place like Russia is debatable. I don't think there was.

People underestimate the positive impact socialism has had historically. In fact, I would say that were it not for socialist agenda being rationally implemented in the West in the form of labour regulation (work hours, minimum wage policies, unions), healthcare and improved public funding for other public services in the early 20th century, there would have been a revolution akin to the Russian one. The West cut it very close in those years, and many of those fixes were rather painful to the system and resisted almost to the extreme by some elements in society. But the fixes ultimately helped to save society and enhance democracy by creating a working middle class, something that's a necessity to maintain a free, democratic society in balance.

The problem is that now the balance is again threatened. There's going to need to be similar fixes as the system is basically breaking down. There is, of course, the other side to this where the social services themselves are in need of reform because they're getting abused (see the infamous "damn immigrants on welfare!" argument). The problem is that in all of this, a lot of upper-middle-class people and, shall we be honest and say "rednecks", are not seeing the bigger picture here. A lot of libertarian ideologues polluting their heads with the idea that if you have it, you've earned it, and if they don't have it - f them. The problem is that once you lose your middle class, you can say goodbye to democracy. You then might as well legalize slavery because that's what the situation will equate to. All that is good about the West's liberal democratic system and its social freedoms stems from economic balance and a predominance of a solid middle class.

What I've learned by growing up in Russia is not that socialism is bad. What I've learned is that a situation in a highly developed society where there is no middle class, but instead a small elite and a predominantly impoverished majority, is inherently impossible to maintain a fair, democratic system in - and furthermore results in major social collapse. It's a very tragic thing to watch. And if anyone for a second thinks that something like that is impossible in the West - well, time will tell. And I will say that if you don't protect your middle class and with it, a neccesary social balance, you're going to end up with a very tragic situation on your hands. There are fixes that, as in the early 20th century, the socialist agenda can offer. It's up to the society whether to accept them or not. But I'm afraid that if you think things will fix themselves, you're sadly mistaken.

Good post! :up:

[fatty]

Who can name the phillosopher who said that the only society one should advocate is on in which
you are happy to take any, even the most wretched, role in?
Because I have forgotten!

Sounds a bit like Rawlsian justice.

[Hanomag]

Whatever will be...will be. No amount of verbose orating or ranting or protesting or lobbying is going to change the big picture.

The world is run by the rich and powerful.... the end. You don't like it? Well your going to have a miserable life whining about it. Because you are definitely NOT going to change it. It's been this way since the begining of civilized culture. It is mans nature.

So no matter who you are or where you come from... either you have or you dont have. If you feel strongly about some political issue, get out there.. take a stand! See if you can rally some people to your cause. Maybe...just maybe, in some miniscule way you can make a dent. But laying out a biblical novel in a submarine video game forum isnt going to change anything.

Take a moment and look at yourself and say what have I done.... and I am not talking about writing a check to charity or recycling. What have you really done?
You think voting constitutes a change? Or helping effect a change?

I have to laugh at all the voting threads. Do you think for a minute that I really care who gets in office or that my vote makes a difference. Whoever they want, gets in office. What do they do for the little guy once in office, nothing. Well actually I did receieve a check in the mail from "W".

And you know what? Whether its democracy, socialism, communism, the little guy is still going to get the shaft. So B.O.H.I.C.A. (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) for you non military types. Grin and bear it, etc., etc.

So if you don't mind, I am going to get back to much, much more important things.. like sinking merchants... :arrgh!:


PS Actually that "Supersize Me" movie changed something.. because of that toolbag, I cant order a supersized fry anymore. I'd like to meet that guy and punch him right in the grill. :damn:

[Thomen]

With all due respect to all who support (a more) socialist environment.. One thing should not be forgotten:

A large majority of the countries that are counted as socialist or have socialist tendencies experienced a catastrophic breakdown of their society within the last 100 years, thus making a transition or transformation (relatively) easy.

Russia had the October Revolution, China the Culture Revolution (and some others), central Europe was devastated by WWI and WW2. Cuba had Castro and so on.

IMO, the only country that came out of this with no significant cultural or social damage was the USA.

Personally I am all for a bit more socialism, but I do not believe that it will be as easy as it is being sold by Obama. I would almost go so far and say it wont work at all.

[AVGWarhawk]

It would seem we are associating Socialism with healthcare only in this election. Let the general public pay to take care of all. Sounds simple enough but....

I think America has looked at healthcare from the wrong end. Why is healthcare so expensive? How is it really determined how much an operation will be? Why does one pill cost $3.00 yet the drug companies can produce this one pill for pennies? I truly believe the healthcare system needs to be looked at in the cost for services/medicine prescribed. Why is there generic drugs that are half the price of name brand drugs that contain the exact same medicine? For example, Afrin nasal spray is about $8.00 for 5 oz. The Rite Aid brand is $3.50 for the exact same % of medicine in a larger oz bottle. For some reason, we have just accepted these outlandish costs for operation and medication and have chosen to just accept these costs. Personally, I believe heathcare needs a serious overhaul in this respect.

[Digital_Trucker]

It would seem we are associating Socialism with healthcare only in this election. Let the general public pay to take care of all. Sounds simple enough but....

I think America has looked at healthcare from the wrong end. Why is healthcare so expensive? How is it really determined how much an operation will be? Why does one pill cost $3.00 yet the drug companies can produce this one pill for pennies? I truly believe the healthcare system needs to be looked at in the cost for services/medicine prescribed. Why is there generic drugs that are half the price of name brand drugs that contain the exact same medicine? For example, Afrin nasal spray is about $8.00 for 5 oz. The Rite Aid brand is $3.50 for the exact same % of medicine in a larger oz bottle. For some reason, we have just accepted these outlandish costs for operation and medication and have chosen to just accept these costs. Personally, I believe heathcare needs a serious overhaul in this respect.
The reasons for the cost difference between generic and brand name drugs are that the drug company that developed the brand name drug spent huge amounts on research and testing to develop the drug to begin with, took the risks of lawsuits because of unknown side effects, etc. Once the brand period expires, other drug companies are free to make the drug and the only costs they have are manufacturing, which in many cases is little or nothing.

I'm not saying this is entirely the difference in costs, but it does make up a large part of the difference when a drug is new. The name brand companies need to do a better job of reducing the prices after a drug is elligible to be released in generic form.

As for why health care is so costly in the US, you only need to look at one profession and that is lawyers. This country is so freakin' enamored with silly lawsuits that malpractice insurance costs are higher than the cost of providing medical service. Legislative bodies (primarily made up of lawyers) are so busy "protecting" people from themselves that they are inadvertantly screwing us all. As much as I hate it, the only way to get lawyers out of the medical system is to make it a government function and not allow malpractice suits against the government health care system. This would not serve the people well either, because then there would be no incentive to weed out the bad health care practitioners. How are we going to fix the system? Someone please come up with a solution that will work.

[Respenus]

I would like to say only one thing to stupid capitalists living in America!

Communism is not Socialism is not Social Democracy (Welfare state)!!!

*******************
The welfare state, the one you fear as being Socialist, was devised after the second world war in ORDER to prevent communist revolutions!

Now I leave you with this historical fact and let Skybird do the talking.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, but when does the profit margin stop after development? There must be a better way to bring down the costs of medicine and not just hang the cost across the board on the assumption of research. You are correct on the lawsuits. I thought litigation passed to stop fictious lawsuits. It is triffling with the ambulance chasers. I believe silly lawsuits need to be addressed more.

[Letum]

There is certainly a little lack of understanding if people are confusing communism
and socialism. Perhaps this is because the history of both is a European history
and not so much an American one.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm guessing that the people for Socialism are all dependent on government, and all of them think that government is going to make them rich, and that government is going to take care of them regardless of what happens in the future.

This is how Socialism is sold. A little clue, not only does this not work, but it will also bankrupt your country in due time. On top of that, those at the top use Socialism as a form of control for the rest of you, regardless how you all hide from this simple fact.

Capitalism is about choice. Always has been, always will be. I don't like people running around and telling me what I can or can't do. To live as an adult, this is my #1 job to figure out what it is that I should do and then do it. This has made my life better than that of those that sit around hoping the government will take care of them and that the government is the end all to all their problems. Sorry! Go take another crack hit because that is not how it works.

Socialism is the type of big government that made people leave their countries and come to the USA in the first place. They wanted a better life. They wanted control of there life. They were allowed to control their destiny as they see fit. And ya know? If a company like Microsoft has a monopoly hold on the market, and you think capitalism created this monster, in the end you still don't have to buy it! In a Socialist country however, the state might make you pay a tax so that everyone has to have a copy for the good of the country!

I could go on all day about why, but in the end, it all comes down to this:

Grow up, get out of your diapers, and be an adult.

Also read Neal's post.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, you should have made yourself a favor and read Respenus' post before posting your nonsense.Gee, let me get this straight. Socialism ultimately stems from Marxism, so unless you can prove to me that it is not, I don't buy it. Nor does anyone else for that matter. Sounds like rotten flesh with some whip cream on top to sell it.

-S

[CCIP]

Subman, you should have made yourself a favor and read Respenus' post before posting your nonsense.Gee, let me get this straight. Socialism ultimately stems from Marxism, so unless you can prove to me that it is not, I don't buy it. Nor does anyone else for that matter. Sounds like rotten flesh with some whip cream on top to sell it.

-S

What's wrong with Marxism? :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, you should have made yourself a favor and read Respenus' post before posting your nonsense.Gee, let me get this straight. Socialism ultimately stems from Marxism, so unless you can prove to me that it is not, I don't buy it. Nor does anyone else for that matter. Sounds like rotten flesh with some whip cream on top to sell it.

-S
What's wrong with Marxism? :hmm:From what you can gather from my above post, I think the better question is what is right with Marxism?

-S

[Onkel Neal]

I had a long reply instead of that oneliner, and deleted it. It would be completely in vein. You already have made a decision never to see the many negative costs of capitalism that lead to incrasing distortions and conflicts in the world, make few and fewer people even richer, and more and more people falling down the sopcial ladder. Nationally. In the West. Globally. I also had a reference to the TV docu they just have had on TV, about the conditions in not few ERs in major cities that make mockery of what you said.

I think most people will not start looking beyond themselves before they get hit themselves.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you do not recognize your own editorial style here :)

What TV docu? Did they say the ERs are devoid of illegal aliens and low income people who don't have insurance? Because that's what it would take to make a mockery of what I said. Unless today is Opposite Day or something.

Yeah, I have my mind made up, same as you. So what? I'm not falling in line with your viewpoint. I live in the US, I understand how capitalism works, and what it takes to get ahead in life. So, I do it. No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone, so if they make bad choices, or choices that limit their standard of living, why should I subsidize them?

As long as a capitalist system provides opportunity, it cannot be beat. :smug:

[SUBMAN1]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you do not recognize your own editorial style here :)

What TV docu? Did they say the ERs are devoid of illegal aliens and low income people who don't have insurance? Because that's what it would take to make a mockery of what I said. Unless today is Opposite Day or something.

Yeah, I have my mind made up, same as you. So what? I'm not falling in line with your viewpoint. I live in the US, I understand how capitalism works, and what it takes to get ahead in life. So, I do it. No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone, so if they make bad choices, or choices that limit their standard of living, why should I subsidize them?

As long as a capitalist system provides opportunity, it cannot be beat. :smug: Emphasize the idea of 'choice' from your post.

I find it humorous why the Europeans don't understand why America has been on top for so long? Maybe they really do get it and this is all an idea to bring us down to their lower level? :hmm:

Jealousy may be at play here.

-S

[CCIP]

Have you ever actually read Marx?

I don't align myself with Marxism in particular, just for the record - there's certainly alternatives to a strictly Marxist perspective in socialism. Socialism is not a doctrine so much as it is a set of values, and Marx certainly didn't invent those, just set up a frame for them.

Added to that should be that Marx's theoretical work remains influential in the studies of political science, and is in fact predominant in the studies of history. There's plenty of debates over Marx's work in itself, of course, and by now it is quite old.

As for your post, well, what can I say. I really can't say anything. You're not addressing anyone's points but your own, so why should we even listen?

[SUBMAN1]

SUBMAN1, I'm only going to repeat this one more time and them... Well, I can't do anything over the internet, so I'll just the smarter man and stop trying to reason with you.

Welfare state is not Marxism. Social democracy is not Communism. Yes, they come from socialism (not capital letter Socialism). One of the first people to think about socialism were Christian socialists. You don't see them denouncing their God in order to be Marxist, do you? They only want the working class to have some sort of humane life, if you capitalism didn't let him have it. Governments went to fund the welfare state in order to prevent revolutions and not because revolution brought them to power.

I would recommend you read the final chapters of Mazower's Dark Continent: Europe's 20th Century. You'll learn a thing of two about true history. I'd recommend the whole book, yet I'm not sure it would fit your ideals on how you see the world.

Please for once, try not to react like a drunken redneck whose favourite shotgun was taken away and now he blames the Communists.

Remember SUBMAN1, the world is coming to get you. No longer shall the ideals of 300M people force-rape the remainder of the world into oblivion and destruction. I'll come for you myself, if I'll have to. Mark my words SUBMAN1, mark this day, for your days are counted.Not even worth replying to since its a personal attack. And you're wrong by the way.

Yawn.

-S

[CCIP]

No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone

Are you sure about this? I'm not sure about this. Increasingly I am finding that the system is in fact not working, and certainly the antecedents to its partial breakdown can readily be observed, even in the US. That's been my whole point in this thread.

[SUBMAN1]

No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure about this. Increasingly I am finding that the system is in fact not working, and certainly the antecedents to its partial breakdown can readily be observed, even in the US. That's been my whole point in this thread.I think what you are looking at is an 'imperfect' system. Capitalism is in no way perfect, but in all the alternatives, it is the best and most opportunistic alternative for the common man to any other system that is out there bar none.

It is also not kind to those that are unwilling to help themselves. You get out what you put into it over here. If you don't like it, leave.

-S

[DeepIron]

Whatever will be...will be. No amount of verbose orating or ranting or protesting or lobbying is going to change the big picture.

The world is run by the rich and powerful.... the end. You don't like it? Well your going to have a miserable life whining about it. Because you are definitely NOT going to change it. It's been this way since the begining of civilized culture. It is mans nature.

So no matter who you are or where you come from... either you have or you dont have. If you feel strongly about some political issue, get out there.. take a stand! See if you can rally some people to your cause. Maybe...just maybe, in some miniscule way you can make a dent. But laying out a biblical novel in a submarine video game forum isnt going to change anything.

Take a moment and look at yourself and say what have I done.... and I am not talking about writing a check to charity or recycling. What have you really done?
You think voting constitutes a change? Or helping effect a change?

I have to laugh at all the voting threads. Do you think for a minute that I really care who gets in office or that my vote makes a difference. Whoever they want, gets in office. What do they do for the little guy once in office, nothing. Well actually I did receieve a check in the mail from "W".

And you know what? Whether its democracy, socialism, communism, the little guy is still going to get the shaft. So B.O.H.I.C.A. (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) for you non military types. Grin and bear it, etc., etc.

So if you don't mind, I am going to get back to much, much more important things.. like sinking merchants... :arrgh!:


PS Actually that "Supersize Me" movie changed something.. because of that toolbag, I cant order a supersized fry anymore. I'd like to meet that guy and punch him right in the grill. :damn:If I were to prescribe to your view of the world, I might as well take my life now and be done with it as there is, in your world view, no reason to believe any kind of change is possible and I will always be on "the receiving end"...

Thankfully, throughout history there have been those people who, despite the odds and their "hopeless" political/social environments DID something instead of retreating into their own little pitiful worlds and saying, "Screw it". Nothing I will ever do will change anything."... YMMV.

[Biggles]

On the subject of communism...I sure hope you don'nt think that the Soviet Union had a pure communistic system 'cause really....it wasn't. (Stalin wasn't a commie, he was a Stalinist...)


On the subject of healthcare....

Well I live in Sweden. We have, at least had, amongst the highest taxes in the world. The reason? Well, this ensures that anyone, anyone, who is in need of medical treatment can have it, without selling all their belongings.

On the other hand, the lines for this treatment are rather long in some cases, and people often have to wait for a period of time, unless it's crucial that treatment is given immediately ofcourse.;)

So is it worth it then? High taxes and everyone gets help if needed?

If you ask me...

Hell yes.

I am a swedish citizen, and damn proud of it.

Sweden is one of the wealthiest countries in the world compared to size/population.
(Just as a side not);)

[Respenus]

[quote=Neal Stevens] No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure about this. Increasingly I am finding that the system is in fact not working, and certainly the antecedents to its partial breakdown can readily be observed, even in the US. That's been my whole point in this thread.I think what you are looking at is an 'imperfect' system. Capitalism is in no way perfect, but in all the alternatives, it is the best and most opportunistic alternative for the common man to any other system that is out there bar none.

It is also not kind to those that are unwilling to help themselves. You get out what you put into it over here. If you don't like it, leave.

-S[/quote

Why do you think that people that are "poor" (I don't like that word, this too degenerative) are only lazy people, who don't want to do anything with their lives? I agree, there are of course some, there have always been, but why are you pushing me away, why are you taking away my human decency and saying "well, it's capitalism darling, accept it"? I wouldn't have a father, if it weren't for the welfare state that paid for his operation you *****.

The welfare state comes to life or death. How many times do I read about people who have to sell their homes in order to pay medical bills? And not only that. What if I lose my job due to capitalism? The state makes sure that I, a good citizen who contributes to the society, doesn't die of hunger/disease if I lose my job. It's going to be rough for a while, but that happens in any system, not just capitalism!

The problem is, that you have certain conceptions that were fed to you and now you don't want to let go. You're intolerant, not me. You have attacked the democrats for months on end now, without ever stopping to wonder what you were doing. You are without end. Most of the General topics now are about you ranting about the democrats and the "filthy Commies in America".

This isn't just you, it's most of the Americans on this forums.

And the book I recommended. Read it. It will do you a world of good. Plus several others, but that's for another topic.

And SUBMAN1 and others! God forbid something happened to you or your loved ones who would then need the welfare state. But karma's a bitch as they say. All we have to do is wait and see.

[DeepIron]

Frankly, I would support a form of "socialism" in the US for the resolution of our heath care system. But, I have a few caveats:

1. First, that the COST of medical treatments and procedures are brought down to something more reasonable than what we see now. Personally, I think the cost of most everything related to health care is WAY out of line. I don't mind paying a higher tax, but I expect that same tax dollar to buy a bit more than it would currently.
2. Secondly, to enjoy a "socialized" health care, one would need to be a citizen of the US. Not a "walk across the border and use the system" alien (from ANY nation).
3. Medical malpractice suits, which have historically driven the cost of health care up, need to have realistic ceilings.

[Onkel Neal]

And since I'm not a college kid or dreamy radicalist, I feel I have the obligation to oppose socialism, too.
Neal, that's not really a nice generalization. I'm sure that wasn't pointed at anyone in particular, but still - that's not exactly what socialism comes from. Sure, the intelligentsia brought plenty of ideas, good and bad, and has equally made good points and screwed up when it came to social issues. Still, I personally resent that, having lived among poor working people who fought tooth and nail to get anywhere in life, not for personal gain but for the good of others. It's a matter of perspective - from mine, I could likewise suggest that libertarians are by and large rich, selfish people whose fortune arises from an advantageous social position rather than hard work - but that's not really true either.

I personally strongly disagree with economic incentive as the be-all, end-all in human progress. It works to a point, but when unmoderated it paves a path straight to hell by the way of greed and exploitation. The society, in my view, has a broken view of wealth and gain - I've been rather poor most of my life (heck, I spent my early years in living arrangements with an average of 3.5 people / room), but I've lived within my means and I honestly never really saw the virtues of getting greedy beyond a certain point. And people really need to consider the real cost of things - because if they don't pay the price, someone else generally does. I'm not at all happy with a very common present-day arrangement where the system works largely through exploiting low costs permitted by the exploitation of the poor - at home or abroad. Having grown up around people exploited in this fashion, I take offence at the idea that being poor is necessarily a condition resulting from being lazy. That's simply not true.
There's a systemic failure at work here, and I don't think any reasonable socialist today (besides the usual radicals) would suggest that the whole point now is to break the system - no, but unless fixes are brought in, I'm afraid quite a lot of Americans will wind up in position to be exploited without a way to fight back, owing to a nasty social imbalance which I see gradually creeping up. The right to own guns isn't going to help much there, either.


I am aware you're participating in this discussion but my comments are not aimed at you, mate. I was a lot like you when I was your age (I know young people hate to hear that, just wait, you'll see:)) In all your intensive studies, do not neglect to study how people's viewpoints change with age. It's not exactly "wisdom" but if you plan to be around another 30 years, you may consider preparing yourself now for a modified outlook on life later.

Anyway, my statement may not be a nice generalization, but it is no different than hearing people called "selfish" and "greedy" if they aren't on board the socialism wagon. I hear that plenty. Since when is it greedy/selfish to keep the fruits of one's labor?

And these thinly veiled references (from several people in this thread) to an upcoming social revolution, what's all that about? :) Am I hearing we better give the masses what they want or they'lll take it by force? Ha!

[Onkel Neal]

Frankly, I would support a form of "socialism" in the US for the resolution of our heath care system. But, I have a few caveats:

1. First, that the COST of medical treatments and procedures are brought down to something more reasonable than what we see now. Personally, I think the cost of most everything related to health care is WAY out of line. I don't mind paying a higher tax, but I expect that same tax dollar to buy a bit more than it would currently.
2. Secondly, to enjoy a "socialized" health care, one would need to be a citizen of the US. Not a "walk across the border and use the system" alien (from ANY nation).
3. Medical malpractice suits, which have historically driven the cost of health care up, need to have realistic ceilings.

I agree with 2 and 3. Point 1, costs would go down if everyone paid their bills. When the uninsured and illegals use services and don't pay, the costs have to be passed on to those who have insurance.

[SUBMAN1]

Why do you think that people that are "poor" (I don't like that word, this too degenerative) are only lazy people, who don't want to do anything with their lives? I agree, there are of course some, there have always been, but why are you pushing me away, why are you taking away my human decency and saying "well, it's capitalism darling, accept it"? I wouldn't have a father, if it weren't for the welfare state that paid for his operation you *****.

The welfare state comes to life or death. How many times do I read about people who have to sell their homes in order to pay medical bills? And not only that. What if I lose my job due to capitalism? The state makes sure that I, a good citizen who contributes to the society, doesn't die of hunger/disease if I lose my job. It's going to be rough for a while, but that happens in any system, not just capitalism!

The problem is, that you have certain conceptions that were fed to you and now you don't want to let go. You're intolerant, not me. You have attacked the democrats for months on end now, without ever stopping to wonder what you were doing. You are without end. Most of the General topics now are about you ranting about the democrats and the "filthy Commies in America".

This isn't just you, it's most of the Americans on this forums.

And the book I recommended. Read it. It will do you a world of good. Plus several others, but that's for another topic.

And SUBMAN1 and others! God forbid something happened to you or your loved ones who would then need the welfare state. But karma's a bitch as they say. All we have to do is wait and see.
All your ranting and raving comes down to one question - Why should the government forcibly take my money and redistribute it to both lazy and the less fortunate, when I am the one that does this myself? Again, it should be my choice to help, not some over-riding god of a government.

Bah!

You sound like a brainwashed monkey in that regard.

-S

[Onkel Neal]

Please for once, try not to react like a drunken redneck whose favourite shotgun was taken away and now he blames the Communists.

Remember SUBMAN1, the world is coming to get you. No longer shall the ideals of 300M people force-rape the remainder of the world into oblivion and destruction. I'll come for you myself, if I'll have to. Mark my words SUBMAN1, mark this day, for your days are counted.

You know, this is not necessary. No personal attacks and threats.

[Digital_Trucker]

Yes, but when does the profit margin stop after development? There must be a better way to bring down the costs of medicine and not just hang the cost across the board on the assumption of research.
Jeez, I leave for a little bit to catch up some killflags and a couple pages sprout up before I can answer the question:D

The profit margin to make up for development should end when the cost of development is recouped. This amount of time depends on the drug and the cost of development. The better way, in my opinion, is to require the companies that manufacture generics after the brand period to pay "royalties" to the company that developed the drug and require all companies to sell the drug for the same price after the brand period, but then you're talking about the government trying to police it, so the cost would go up even more (in taxes to pay the government police).

[Respenus]

How Americans view all the poor

http://wondermark.com/c/2008-02-01-376bucks.gif

[DeepIron]

How Americans view all the poor

http://wondermark.com/c/2008-02-01-376bucks.gifYeah right... How much aid, foreign and domestic, has Slovenia shelled out recently? Let me help you out: Slovenia, an ex-Yugoslavian republic bordering Austria and Italy, was the richest of the eight formerly Communist countries that entered the European Union (EU) in 2004, priding itself with a GDP per capita at US$ 17,700. But as a moderately rich nation, not even Slovenia came close to EU goals of spending 0.39 percent of GDP in development aid - let alone the UN recommendation of 0.70 percent of GDP.:roll::shifty:

[McBeck]

Guys...do not sink to personal attacks out of frustration!

We may not agree, but that is also acceptable.

Moderators are keeping track of this thread. One more personal attack and it is locked!

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah right... How much aid, foreign and domestic has Slovenia shelled out recently? :shifty: Let me help you out: Slovenia, an ex-Yugoslavian republic bordering Austria and Italy, was the richest of the eight formerly Communist countries that entered the European Union (EU) in 2004, priding itself with a GDP per capita at US$ 17,700. But as a moderately rich nation, not even Slovenia came close to EU goals of spending 0.39 percent of GDP in development aid - let alone the UN recommendation of 0.70 percent of GDP.
Ouch! That one hit below his belt. Be a little less factual next time. :D :p

One thing that Socialism does - it turns off those from helping the poor since they assume the government is going to do it. This leads to atrocities for example as seen in Russia where deformed children are simply discarded to live out live tied to a hospital bed. America and Capitalism does not discard our people as throw aways. We still care for our people regardless there problems.

-S

[DeepIron]

Sorry dudes... but the whole "How Americans view all the poor" comment was totally uncalled for IMO... 'nuff said on my part...

[Respenus]

Yeah right... How much aid, foreign and domestic, has Slovenia shelled out recently? Let me help you out: Slovenia, an ex-Yugoslavian republic bordering Austria and Italy, was the richest of the eight formerly Communist countries that entered the European Union (EU) in 2004, priding itself with a GDP per capita at US$ 17,700. But as a moderately rich nation, not even Slovenia came close to EU goals of spending 0.39 percent of GDP in development aid - let alone the UN recommendation of 0.70 percent of GDP.:roll::shifty:
I guess rebuilding from what capitalist transition stole from the people wouldn't be a just answer for you, right?

We might not have given a lot of foreign aid, yet we help when we can and make sure that people who have had things taken away from them have a more decent life.

You don't know **** what we have to live in. Yes, Slovenia "is" the most developed ex-Yugoslav state, yes what's going on inside is far, far too complex for you to ever comprehend.

P.S.: As Neal has warned me about assaults in his calm letter, I'm letting this thing slide for now. So long.

[CCIP]

No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure about this. Increasingly I am finding that the system is in fact not working, and certainly the antecedents to its partial breakdown can readily be observed, even in the US. That's been my whole point in this thread.I think what you are looking at is an 'imperfect' system. Capitalism is in no way perfect, but in all the alternatives, it is the best and most opportunistic alternative for the common man to any other system that is out there bar none.

It is also not kind to those that are unwilling to help themselves. You get out what you put into it over here. If you don't like it, leave.

-S

And if you'd read my earlier posts you'd see that I already noted that I also disagree with this argument. Again, I emphasize: I think the notion that the opportunity is there for everyone is flawed. It's not just imperfect: it's actually getting disturbingly imperfect.

I'm not at all for a "nanny state", actually. I dislike the idea about as much as you. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor won't make the artificial middle-class thus created any less idle, poor, greedy and stupid which is exactly the problem here. The cause of this problem is the fact that it just so happens that idle, poor, greedy and stupid people make ideal producers and ideal consumers at the same time - which is precisely what the advantaged elements in the socioeconomic system have been exploiting. As a result of this, the majority is becoming increasingly idle, poor, greedy and stupid. It's a social disease that is spreading with increasing speed through the Western society, and in the US probably faster than anywhere. The result of it is a real impoverishment of the majority and their gradual decline into being unable to maintain a democratic system. The market has already dictated a lot onto them politically. We're closing in on a point where by trading in idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity - buying high and selling low - the advantaged elements will have bought up the public. Today's lobbyist groups will seem lowly and weak when than point is passed.

The small-s socialist solution here would not be to just take away everyone's freedom and make them equally idle, poor, greedy and stupid. The small-s socialist solution here is to aggressively limit the ability of the advantaged elements to cash in on idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity; to use taxation not to rob the rich and drop money on the poor, but invest with prejudice into ethical development. Invest into creating jobs at home. Invest into education. Invest into healthcare. Invest into culture. Don't let the market do it for you. If you let the market do it for you, only let it do it on certain conditions. Pursue with equal prejudice any business that takes an unethical approach to do things. If they threaten to take their manufacturing to China or Mexico, tell them to f off and ban their products from your country. You know why products made cheaply in poor countries with poor labour regulation are seen as neccesary in the West? You guessed it. Because people who buy them are either idle, or poor, or greedy, or stupid. And the same goes for people who manufacture them. You raise people up from that, and suddenly you can buy American-made, and you can actually have fair trade with conditions with other countries.

I know people who are idle, and I know people who are greedy. Rewarding either of these, either because the former is oh-so-exploited and the latter is oh-so-business-minded is wrong. I also know people who are poor, because the competitive wage environment said so. They work at Wal-Mart and they buy at Wal-Mart, because there's not really any other alternative for them. I know people who are stupid, because the education system is going to hell. I know people who can't go to college - even in Canada - because they're too poor to do that. I also know people who are all of the above, because the world of competition - of a race to the bottom line - has made them thus. Look at the state of culture and what mass media and mass entertainment is doing to people.

So, I repeat: a healthy, modern, democratic society that can sustain Enlightened humanitarian values MUST, by neccesity, be built around a strong middle class. The system's main flaw is that it's inherently grinding this middle class into idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity - because those are the qualities of the ideal producer and consumer alike - and let's take those two roles together and join them under the heading of "ideal slave". This form of slavery is currently actively being encouraged by the way the system is wired. So, I repeat: in order to fix this, what needs to be done is not dropping money onto the heads of idle, poor, greedy and stupid people. We're past a point where this could help. What needs to be done is aggressive investment that will combat all four things at the same time, by working on both ends - firstly by pulling people up through workplace creation, education, access to healthcare and social services; and secondly by setting proactive ethical norms that prevent the economically-advantaged from exploiting both producers and consumers.

None of this requires a revolution. None of this requires measures that are even extreme (at least in my view). None of this requires weakening the economy. None of this is trying to make absolutely everyone happy and under control. I'm not suggesting banning corporations, banning vertical mobility in society, or even banning idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity altogether. That's the realm of idealism. Meanwhile we're still at the point where the system could simply be infused with a bit of common sense through a few somewhat painful but ultimately useful measures - which come down not to social control, but simply to wise investment into saving the middle class and restoration of balance.

[nikimcbee]

Guys...do not sink to personal attacks out of frustration!

We may not agree, but that is also acceptable.

Moderators are keeping track of this thread. One more personal attack and it is locked!

Yeah, you heard da man.

This is a re-run thread anyway. On a parting note, it's priceless to watch the more socialistic counties in ore-gone wipe out jobs. #1 employer in lane county? government.:nope: The county is generating no money and its number one and two tax cash cows have been wiped out. Now, this county litterally has no money. Of the total federal county subsidy budget, a few ore-gone counties use up 60%? of the fenderal budget.:nope: If you want to see capitalism in all of its power and glory, move to washington county. The most liberal counties, multnomah and lane, are crime ridden, drug infested poop-holes.

[Respenus]

*Snap*

:yep:

I couldn't agree more.

[Skybird]

Kick a dog too often, and it sooner or later bites. I wonder what is difficult to understand in that.

And you now what? It is totally legitimate that the dog bites then.

The generalisation that replaces argument is: all socially weak are guilty all by themselves for being weak, and it is completely their own fault. And that is one of the least thought-out, most inhumane and most righteous pieces of nonsens one can imagine.

Is there abuse of social security system by some? Yes. And what about the houseblock-sized parasites occupying the top of the economic and banking system? the bloodsuckers who even right now can't get enough and still fill their pockets and socks and mouths with gold that was meant to repair damage they did to the system? "the market regulates it all alone, so leave it alone". Ah, yes, the magical invisibole hand of the market, the market that encourages these character deficits, that motivates this kind of behavior, that glorifies people behaving like this as the heroes of the new social orders - that market will heal what it has produced and demanded in human flaws and errors and failures. Logical. Safeguarding against that? EVIL...! SOCIALISM!!! USSR...!!! KGB...! BIG BROTHER...!!!

I think this is a very typical American and totally irrational phenomenon, that will never be solved by argument or reason, because without imagining an evil devil - socialism, or even just obligatory social responsibility - the american dream itself of "from rags to riches" could no longer be held together, now matter how distant from reality it may be anyway. Without saying "left", you cannot define what means "right". You want to believe in the perfect power to overcome the randomness in birth lottery and make those millions a result of your own skill , will and act? Then you must imagine the perfect threat to it, it's absolute antagonist, it's "anti-equivalent: social responsibility, socialism, communism - it's all the same (in american thinking, not in european). And you must demonise it to the max.

Brrrr, always thinking and arguing in extremes, in maximum polarisations, in total absolutes. This extreme kind of fanatically practised dualism does not any good neither to ameria, nor to the rest of the world feeling the consequences of the american model's failure more and more obviously, and needing to pay for it. Always all or nothing at all, always maximum "up" or maximum "down", no balance, no inbetween, no differentiation, nothing. Just white and black, no grey, no colour. Bush was wrong when saying "Youre either with us or against us." The more precise phrase would have been "You are either exactly like us, or you are our absolute opponent. You either love us blindly and uncritically, or you must ultimately hate us." that all others are greedy in that case, goes unsaid anyway. Of course.

With such stubborn extremism in thinking, anything is lost. All others are just left with the legitimate right of selfdefense against this thinking and the missionary demands and claims formulated by it. And may the gods have mercy with them if they are not strong enough to resist - their defeat and subjugation will be well-deserved. Right?

Right.

[CCIP]

@Neal - and I wouldn't disagree with you on the "Rebellious Youth" thing . There is one big factor that hits you later on, which I have to admit I'm not even approaching yet - family. Once you got family, of course, your survival and economic status is suddenly not about lofty ideals and personal pride anymore. Talk about an anchor in the real world.

That said, I don't see myself on any extreme position, as hopefully can be seen from the above post - I'm just concerned about where things are going. My view is very much colored by growing up in the middle of a total collapse of a social system - which is why I view any warning signs of it with extreme caution.

And I'll be happy to subscribe to the fact that there's plenty of mindless, poorly-informed socialist wackos of about my age in any college. But not everyone who's on the left is necessarily like that.

[SUBMAN1]

And if you'd read my earlier posts you'd see that I already noted that I also disagree with this argument. Again, I emphasize: I think the notion that the opportunity is there for everyone is flawed. It's not just imperfect: it's actually getting disturbingly imperfect.

I'm not at all for a "nanny state", actually. I dislike the idea about as much as you. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor won't make the artificial middle-class thus created any less idle, poor, greedy and stupid which is exactly the problem here. The cause of this problem is the fact that it just so happens that idle, poor, greedy and stupid people make ideal producers and ideal consumers at the same time - which is precisely what the advantaged elements in the socioeconomic system have been exploiting. As a result of this, the majority is becoming increasingly idle, poor, greedy and stupid. It's a social disease that is spreading with increasing speed through the Western society, and in the US probably faster than anywhere. The result of it is a real impoverishment of the majority and their gradual decline into being unable to maintain a democratic system. The market has already dictated a lot onto them politically. We're closing in on a point where by trading in idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity - buying high and selling low - the advantaged elements will have bought up the public. Today's lobbyist groups will seem lowly and weak when than point is passed.

The small-s socialist solution here would not be to just take away everyone's freedom and make them equally idle, poor, greedy and stupid. The small-s socialist solution here is to aggressively limit the ability of the advantaged elements to cash in on idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity; to use taxation not to rob the rich and drop money on the poor, but invest with prejudice into ethical development. Invest into creating jobs at home. Invest into education. Invest into healthcare. Invest into culture. Don't let the market do it for you. If you let the market do it for you, only let it do it on certain conditions. Pursue with equal prejudice any business that takes an unethical approach to do things. If they threaten to take their manufacturing to China or Mexico, tell them to f off and ban their products from your country. You know why products made cheaply in poor countries with poor labour regulation are seen as neccesary in the West? You guessed it. Because people who buy them are either idle, or poor, or greedy, or stupid. And the same goes for people who manufacture them. You raise people up from that, and suddenly you can buy American-made, and you can actually have fair trade with conditions with other countries.

I know people who are idle, and I know people who are greedy. Rewarding either of these, either because the former is oh-so-exploited and the latter is oh-so-business-minded is wrong. I also know people who are poor, because the competitive wage environment said so. They work at Wal-Mart and they buy at Wal-Mart, because there's not really any other alternative for them. I know people who are stupid, because the education system is going to hell. I know people who can't go to college - even in Canada - because they're too poor to do that. I also know people who are all of the above, because the world of competition - of a race to the bottom line - has made them thus. Look at the state of culture and what mass media and mass entertainment is doing to people.

So, I repeat: a healthy, modern, democratic society that can sustain Enlightened humanitarian values MUST, by neccesity, be built around a strong middle class. The system's main flaw is that it's inherently grinding this middle class into idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity - because those are the qualities of the ideal producer and consumer alike - and let's take those two roles together and join them under the heading of "ideal slave". This form of slavery is currently actively being encouraged by the way the system is wired. So, I repeat: in order to fix this, what needs to be done is not dropping money onto the heads of idle, poor, greedy and stupid people. We're past a point where this could help. What needs to be done is aggressive investment that will combat all four things at the same time, by working on both ends - firstly by pulling people up through workplace creation, education, access to healthcare and social services; and secondly by setting proactive ethical norms that prevent the economically-advantaged from exploiting both producers and consumers.

None of this requires a revolution. None of this requires measures that are even extreme (at least in my view). None of this requires weakening the economy. None of this is trying to make absolutely everyone happy and under control. I'm not suggesting banning corporations, banning vertical mobility in society, or even banning idleness, poverty, greed and stupidity altogether. That's the realm of idealism. Meanwhile we're still at the point where the system could simply be infused with a bit of common sense through a few somewhat painful but ultimately useful measures - which come down not to social control, but simply to wise investment into saving the middle class and restoration of balance.

Again, a flawed look from Europe. I think there is a general disconnect on what Europeans are told of America vs reality.

As for the slavery input, I'd venture to guess it is self induced slavery since it is the credit market that is driving that. Its once again, a choice. no one is forcing you to buy that shiny new TV, but at some point, you've got to pay the piper.

Socialism is a nanny state. Always has been, and always will be. I am not sure how you are trying to defend that notion? You are not responsible for yourself, big daddy government is. If things go wrong for you, its the governments fault. Sorry man, but I've seen both sides of the fence, and there is a reason many immigrate to this country. That reason is way increased oppurtunty.

As they say, the best judge of a countries policy is to look at how many people want in, and how many people want out. You can defend a flawed policy all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

...EVIL...! SOCIALISM!!! USSR...!!! KGB...! BIG BROTHER...!!!

I think this is a very typical American and totally irrational phenomenon...
This is why we see you as irrational. Perfect example.

You believe in the KGB, USSR, SOCIALISM, BIG BROTHER, and EVIL. The very reason people came to this country was to get away from what you just describe.

Case closed.

-S

[CCIP]

/slaps forehead

As I said in an earlier post - someone says A, you say B. Someone says C, you still say B. Someone says D, and the answer is again B.

Do you even read people's posts beyond a few key words, I wonder? I said "nanny state". Then I stated very specifically how I oppose the "nanny state". Then I said very specifically how small-s socialist measures I'm advocating differ from a nanny state.

I swear, I'll whip out my linguistics major one day, take all your posts on politics, run them through a concordancer, and create a "collocational dictionary of SUBMAN1". You're so consistent in using certain word patterns it's scary. I only wonder where you get them from.

[Biggles]

...EVIL...! SOCIALISM!!! USSR...!!! KGB...! BIG BROTHER...!!!

I think this is a very typical American and totally irrational phenomenon...
This is why we see you as irrational. Perfect example.

You believe in the KGB, USSR, SOCIALISM, BIG BROTHER, and EVIL. The very reason people came to this country was to get away from what you just describe.

Case closed.

-S

I would say that the case is closed when both sides can agree and shake hands.

Which I should point out will take a long time, knowing the nature of the people involved....or well I don't know any of you guys, but I can make a pretty clear picture of everyone on these forums, me included, and that is that NOONE will ever win an argument here, and no case will ever be closed, because there's always something more to be said.

[SUBMAN1]

/slaps forehead

As I said in an earlier post - someone says A, you say B. Someone says C, you still say B. Someone says D, and the answer is again B. I'm sorry for not being wishy washey like some people. There are certain things that made my country strong, and I acknowledge them. I have no hopes of grandier that Socialism can fix anyones problems as proven not to do throughout history and stick to that idea. Socialism has always been a failed policy that will end up for mediocre existence, and always will be.

Do you even read people's posts beyond a few key words, I wonder? I said "nanny state". Then I stated very specifically how I oppose the "nanny state". Then I said very specifically how small-s socialist measures I'm advocating differ from a nanny state.There seems to be some form of disconnect or lack of understanding in the way you wrote your original post. I apologize for that. Socialist policies however in any form should never enter the picture. People should give themselves, and this is what is lacking most I think. Probably what happens as Society moves away from the moral backing of religion which encourages such action and becomes more self centered

I swear, I'll whip out my linguistics major one day, take all your posts on politics, run them through a concordancer, and create a "collocational dictionary of SUBMAN1". You're so consistent in using certain word patterns it's scary. I only wonder where you get them from.Ever heard of someone thinking for themselves? A fading prospect in todays world. I am consistant because I don't get my ideas from the latest internet blog. They come from myself. Certain people here however get their ideas on a day to day basis which is why they change their opinion from one day to the next. You will not find that from me.

Someday, thinking for yourself will be outlawed as it conflicts with PC. Enjoy it while you still can.

-S

[Skybird]

...EVIL...! SOCIALISM!!! USSR...!!! KGB...! BIG BROTHER...!!!

I think this is a very typical American and totally irrational phenomenon...
This is why we see you as irrational. Perfect example.

You believe in the KGB, USSR, SOCIALISM, BIG BROTHER, and EVIL. The very reason people came to this country was to get away from what you just describe.

Case closed.

-S

Manipulative and distorting quotation of yours - as usual. Of course over time I learned not to expect you to perform any better than your low standards, thus you cannot disappoint me by sticking right to them - again: as usual. In principle you are not more than a talking poster on the street wall, and each time somebody passes, you say the same slogan, that one slogan, and not any second, come rain or come shine.

[Zachstar]

No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure about this. Increasingly I am finding that the system is in fact not working, and certainly the antecedents to its partial breakdown can readily be observed, even in the US. That's been my whole point in this thread.

I don't know what he is sure about but things must be nice where he lives because I do not have the same Opportunity.


Pubs like to pretend lawsuits are the main reason when in fact lack of free preventive care has allowed healthcare costs to explode when you have to fight the 2nd or 5th stages.

[Zachstar]

...EVIL...! SOCIALISM!!! USSR...!!! KGB...! BIG BROTHER...!!!

I think this is a very typical American and totally irrational phenomenon...
This is why we see you as irrational. Perfect example.

You believe in the KGB, USSR, SOCIALISM, BIG BROTHER, and EVIL. The very reason people came to this country was to get away from what you just describe.

Case closed.

-S Manipulative and distorting quotation of yours - as usual. Of course over time I learned not to expect you to perform any better than your low standards, thus you cannot disappoint me by sticking right to them - again: as usual. In principle you are not more than a talking poster on the street wall, and each time somebody passes, you say the same slogan, that one slogan, and not any second, come rain or come shine.

Amen!

[Stealth Hunter]

Why do people hate Socialism?

Because it's not Capitalism...

[frenzied]

Someone stated earlier in the thread that everybody in the US has the same opportunity. This just isn't really true. Sure, everyone has the same legal opportunity, in that there are no laws regulating your position in life (things like if you are born a serf, you stay a serf), but actual opportunity depends greatly on your parents' position in life.

Think about two people, both having the same drive, motivation, intelligence, etc., but one has very wealthy parents, while the parents of the other struggle to put food on the table. The wealthy child will be going to a better school, will be able to get a better initial job due to family connections, will be able to afford university (college) without needing loans, and will be able to deal with any health issues early, rather then having to wait until they get serious enough for the emergency room.

In a European/Australian style social-democracy, the same imbalance still occurs. The people who work harder, work smarter, and make better connections still end up with far more money, and are able to provide better for their children; but people on the bottom get a bit of a helping hand up, and have a better chance to become more productive members of society.

Social democracy really is about equalising opportunity, to an extent; making it easier for anyone with sufficient drive and intelligence to get a good education and job.

To the person who stated, correctly, that the US has been the dominant power for the last 50 years, the major reason is sheer size. The US has more people, more land, and more natural resources, and had a sufficiently developed industry to take advantage of it. This is also why China is on the rise, it is developing its industry (thanks to corporations using China as a giant factory) to take advantage of its resources.

[Hylander_1314]

Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and Common Sense. Then try to figure out where socialism can fit in without being counter to the foundations of America.

Socialism is like communism in that they are incompatable with personal security or the rights of property. They are in essence a welfare state, and history hath shewn, that every welfare state eventualy becomes a totalitarian state.

It would mean our Constitution, and Bill of Rights would truely mean nothing anymore, and the people would then be thoroughly enslaved.

It is why the there are no references to "Democracy Socialism, or Communism" in the any of the state Constitutions, nor the Federal Constitution.

This is from the civics section of the training manual for the Army of the United States of America circa 1928,

1. THE SOLDIER'S TRAINING MANUAL1 issued by the War Department, November 30, 1928, set forth the exact and truthful definitions of a democracy and of a republic - this manual was ordered destroyed shortly after the "bank holiday" in the thirties by the infamous Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945) thirty-second President of the United States, so that he could institute a democracy utilizing social security as a means to make everyone a slave to the Federal Government. THE SOLDIER'S TRAINING MANUAL used for all men in army uniform, it gave the definition of democracy: (TM2000-25: 118-120 DEMOCRACY) "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting of any, for direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic—negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagoguism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

THE SOLDIER'S TRAINING MANUAL (TM2000-25: 120-121) REPUBLIC:
"Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of Citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress."

Trouble is, the difference is not taught anymore. The powers that be would have the American people believe they are interchangable. They are not.

[Respenus]

Ahem, Hylander. I don't think you just called Europe, particulary GB, you're greatest ally, a totalitarian state, did you?

[Frederf]

I think Skybird said it best when he said that Socialism is seen as "the enemy" or "inherently evil" by our extremely polarized American conscious. We cannot see things objectively any more. There is no such thing as "has capitalism elements" any more, just "100% extreme embodiment of capitalism" or its opposite.

Just look for examples around you, Democrats are seen as the opposites of Republicans, HotOrNot.com, and even take my father that will describe a 14 to 13 football score as "Team A whupped Team B." As Americans we are continually taught to think of extremes.

Socialism is the new Communism is the new Witchcraft. McCain is the new McCarthy.

Honestly we do not live in a "Capitalist" nation, we live in a nation "which is largely Capitalist in function." Understand the difference between extreme endpoint of the spectrum and the philosophical direction and we can begin to have a meaningful discussion of politics and not before.

We live in an America that is a hybrid of many political directions and compromises. I propose that there is a different hybrid of political direction that may be more fair and functional.

For example I believe that my ideal America would implement some kind of more robust, effecient, and healthy safety net for its citizens to provide an acceptable minimum quality of life while still providing capitalist incentives to improve. How impossible is that?

P.S. SUBMAN1 started his first post with the beginnings of sensible discussion but promptly fell into a huge pit of nonsensical ramblings. My respect for the demonstratable reason of his post content is very low.

[CCIP]

For example I believe that my ideal America would implement some kind of more robust, effecient, and healthy safety net for its citizens to provide an acceptable minimum quality of life while still providing capitalist incentives to improve. How impossible is that?


Yup, right on the point. Noone is proposing a revolution here. It's not about taking a democracy and making it a "socialismocracy" or something; it's not about taking down the free market and making it an unfree market. It's simply a matter of adjusting and balancing the system.

[Skybird]

What TV docu? Did they say the ERs are devoid of illegal aliens and low income people who don't have insurance? Because that's what it would take to make a mockery of what I said. Unless today is Opposite Day or something.
I jumped by chance into it on TV, and I think it was not German but Austrian made, or it was German-Austrian TV 3SAT, I am not sure. They filmed in ER in Boston, NY and Washington. They said not all hospitals look like that, but also not few, especially in critical social areas. They had waiting times of 24 to sometimes even 48 hours even if the person had severe pain or was an emergency (remember that black woman some month ago who died after 18 hours hours sitting in an ER waiting room?), and they took shots insight the medical treatment area and rooms, that were overcrowded and had not enough places, in no way. It looked like a hospital in adesaster area. They interviewed staff that said that at times the situation were "dramatic". Again, they said not every hospital looked like this, but quite some - and both the number of places looking like that and the number of people depending on going there (since else they would not have access to medical treatmenet at all, wether it be that they cannot afford it, or had no insurance at all), are increasing. ERs that in peace time look like after an earthquake, are no compliment for a functioning system.

I again remind of the exmaple my English teacher, her whole family living in Florida, quoted, of a patient that was brought by strangers to hospital with heart problems and was not treated for certain papers regarding who covered the cost found nobody to sign them, and while the costs were not cleared, the person died. And different to what you tried to tell me some years ago when I fiorst brought this true story, there was no legal case following. witnessing this was part of the reason why the lady (one of the best teachers I ever had, we loved and respected her), left the US again.

My impression again is that of a country of extremes. Americans, so show the statistics, spend much more on medical treatment thaneuropeans, yet the general quality they get in treatmenet is less than in europe.at the same time if you are rich you get access to some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world. Extremes collide here, and obviously in statistical means in the american system you get less health for the buck than in the european system(s). It reminds of the extremnes colliding in education as well: some of the best private schools and universities in the world - and one of the worst public school systems in the whole West.

Yeah, I have my mind made up, same as you. So what? I'm not falling in line with your viewpoint. I live in the US, I understand how capitalism works, and what it takes to get ahead in life. So, I do it. No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone,

To assume that is an opportunistical choice of yours, but nevertheless is wrong. The chances are not the same for everbopdy, both statistics and understanding of and insight in social contexts or experience in social work tell that, and very clearly. You can philosophise about the fairness of capitalism as loud as you want, nevertheless ypour claim is wrong and you ignore a major disadvantage of the system. Birth is fate, and wealthy parents are a decisive factor in every country influencing your starting chances, the education you get, we even know today that it influence your IQ level and character. If you try to fight the social-scientific data on that, you are fighting windmills. To think we all have the same chances and it is only our deed and our will that decides were we land, is simply wrong. With some it works like that, there are some who make it from dish washer to millionaire. but for everyone making it I tell you you have a hundred loosers who tried and tried desperately, but had not enough power or ressources to make it, were not given a chance, or were abused by those who already made it before them. Your basic assumption by which you defend the justice of capitalism - is a self-deception, a fallacy.

If you don't believe me, come over and I show you around in Frankfurt and Berlin, I still know social worker in the field wo can lead you around a bit to make you chnage your mind.

Yes, there is abuse of social systems, but the majority of people tries hard and desperately, and accept miserable conditions and offending wages for reasons of self-respect, become physically or psychologically ill, and supress it to their cost in fear to lose the little they have. And you dare to tell them all in their faces they are not trying hard and are lazy and parasites? Obviously you have no clue what giant and mean offending you talk out to them. Maybe you do not know of the existence of such people, that may serve as your excuse.

if they make bad choices, or choices that limit their standard of living,
Yes, some black sheep do that, and they are not even rare, but still they are a minority, I claim, and really, I got some professional feedback from the social reality out there about it, even when I have left it all behind. Most sheep are white sheep. But black sheep exist. Naturally, the latter get all the attention, since they are the eyecatcher in the mass of sheep.

Also, there is ill-functioning regulation by the state, no doubt. But again, I argue it is not the rule, but the ecepotion from. To slaughter the many white sheep just to catch the few black sheep is not what I am willing to accept. A question of simple maths.

why should I subsidize them?
To prevent abuse by the few, you are willing to let the many jump into the abyss, is that your argument?

As long as a capitalist system provides opportunity, it cannot be beat. :smug:
Capitalism creates more opportunities (=options) than socialism, regarding private initiative, it inspires creativity and initiative where socialism accepts stagnation of these and calls that "equality" on a much lower standard of communal performance. In so far I agree, as therapist I know that the key to healing often lies in increasing a person'S options for thought and action, and for the same reason I have repeatedly argued that weakness is no virtue since it decreases your options, and only strength allows you to increase your options. But strength comes with responsibility, and where that is missing, it turns into tyranny and the enslaving of others. responsibility in case you are strong, is a ethical imperative, imo, you must accept it, else you become a threat to the community.

So, as long as capitalism is allowed to follow egoism without scruples, without social responsibility and without awareness for world and values that are not included in it's materialistic and selfish self-perception, it makes few and fewer people even richer, and makes more and more people poorer, it corrupts the social system and erodes the basis of the community, and over time kills competition and replaces it with monopolism, and then dictates prices and policies arbitrarily to maximise it's profit. Totally unregulated capitalism is nothing else but a crime against humanity and mankind. And who has eyes to see, can see it in the world, everywhere. the state of the capitalistically dominated world for me is the clear evidence that capitalism does not work as advertised, and has become a threat to the ongoing existence of human civilisation, and the natural preservation of the biosphere.

P.S. and please, everybody, bite your tongue before thinking you must accuse me due to this criticism of mine to be a socialist. I am not, I find it disgusting. Accepting social responsibility does not equal "being a socialist". What I want is a capitalism with the needed ammount - but as little as possible - regulation to guarantee that this social responsibility is accepted and adequately met. Also, the individual (the company as well) shall not be allowed to realise it's interests at the cost of the community, that is another imperative I want to see being enforced. How dramatically that is needed, the current finance crisis is showing us. and finally, political decision makers and economical lobbyists shall not be allowed to be in office in several posts at the same time, uniting private business and political power inside the community in one hand. It must be kept separate, strictly. Like state and religion should be kept separate, so should private enterprise and state be kept different. the state should be the stronger of the two, but acting with self-restraint and sense of responsibility towards the social community and the legitimate interests of business. In keeping his responsibility to protect the community and the planet in mind, the state nevertheless is free to react to intersts and requests of the economy, but the economy shall not be allowed to dictate the policies of a state, neither directly nor indirectly.

[McBeck]

I think that every country has its own level of wellfare state in most of Europe.
And its constantly changing.

In Denmark we are moving towards the goverment not being alone on the hospital market.
In Denmark education is free.
In Denmark not-private hospitals are free.
In Sweden you have to buy wine in certian stores.
In Denmark we have free speech and free press.

Within this you have choice, posibilities and freedom to shape your life.

Does that make it Communistic?
Sure the goverment controls some things, but not you as a citizen and that is what makes the difference.

[Biggles]

In Sweden you have to buy wine in certian stores.
In Denmark we have free speech and free press.


Just to clarify: In Sweden we have to buy wine in certain government owned stores. It's also mighty expensive.

And free speech and free press is nothing that Denmark is alone with up here;)

[Thomen]

@Biggles and McBeck:

Just out of curiosity, what's the tax rate and VAT in your countries?

[Biggles]

Well, no exact figures, but I think that Denmark and Sweden fights about being the place with highest taxes in the world, with Denmark slightly higher at the moment. VAT I know nothing about...

[Digital_Trucker]

Danish tax rates for 2006-2008 http://www.skm.dk/foreign/facts_and_figures/1602.html

[McBeck]

Yup its those high figures that ensures free education among other things....

VAT...is 25% in Denmark

[Thomen]

Thanks ,guys. :up:

[Biggles]

Yup its those high figures that ensures free education among other things....

VAT...is 25% in Denmark

Aye, high taxes is the thing if you ask me!:up:

[Thomen]

Yup its those high figures that ensures free education among other things....


Free education as in the whole shebang (incl. College/University) or just the 'lower tier' like from Kindergarten to Highschool?

Germany had the all free deal too, but I do remember that they started to charge for 'public' University education.. some relatively small amount of a couple of hundred Euros per semester or something like that.

[Skybird]

Yup its those high figures that ensures free education among other things....


Free education as in the whole shebang (incl. College/University) or just the 'lower tier' like from Kindergarten to Highschool?

Germany had the all free deal too, but I do remember that they started to charge for 'public' University education.. some relatively small amount of a couple of hundred Euros per semester or something like that.
Some German federal states have introduced charges per semester indeed, ranging from 250-500 Euros per semester. As long as the money is left to the universities indeed and not beign used to fill holes in the state's budget elsewhere, and as long as the charges don't get any higher, I can accept that to improve the equipement of the universities. However, the education mistry keeps locked a study that showed that these charges alredy has been high enough to prevent a significant ammount of young people from socially weak families, and many females, to go to university. the effect is unwelcomed for the offocial position of the government which claimed this would not happen, so they try to delay the publication to find ways to relativise the findings.

The percentage of young people in Germany going for a university's degree is relatoivels small compared to other Wetsern nations, so in Germany this study's findings really are an issue. On the other hand universities in germany, the status of their buildings and rooms and the equipment especially of libraries in not rare cases leave a lot to be desired.

In general I propagate general access to education for all people, if they want, for an educated population is precondition for a free and responsible society. For the same reason I want education to not focus exclusively on technical specialisation, but on educating the character and positvely forming the general attitude of people, what in german traiton would be the old humanistic education ideals of Humboldt. But eduaction more and more is falling apart over here, in school it becomes a politically overregulated, uninspired ideological trenchwarfare of flawed paedagocical concepts versus simple healthy reason, and university focusses very strongly on just tecnical specialisation, not on the rest I mentioned. Both is a loss of education culture.

[McBeck]

Yup its those high figures that ensures free education among other things....

Free education as in the whole shebang (incl. College/University) or just the 'lower tier' like from Kindergarten to Highschool?

Germany had the all free deal too, but I do remember that they started to charge for 'public' University education.. some relatively small amount of a couple of hundred Euros per semester or something like that.
The whole shebang :)
Its ensure that everybody gets a chance for higher education.

[GoldenRivet]

HERE IT IS FOLKS

Well here is my take on health care.

Doctors charge a lot of money so they can maintain their lifestyle.

BUT...

i know several doctors - one of which was telling me a story about how two weeks ago he had been charged with the task of removing a nine inch long serrated kitchen knife from the blood spewing vagina of a crack whore who was so strung out on various drugs all she could say was "I got ya!" "i got ya!" "i got ya!" over and over again in some sort of wide eyed demented chant.

now...

had i been charged with the task of removing a nine inch serrated kitchen knife from the blood spewing vagina of a crack whore.... you can bet the bill for that one would total up to one very large number.

On socialism.

I live about 3 blocks from an apartment complex which could easily be mistaken for a federal prison if it were not for the lack of guard towers and razor wire.

The people who live in this "compound" dont have a pot to piss in figuratively speaking... yet they all drive flashy purple and green metallic flake painted cars with gold "22" inch wheels.

i know they are "22" inch wheels because the fender above each wheel says "twenty two's bitch!" in fancy old English font

i stand next to these same folks in line at the grocery store... they have two carts of groceries... one contains the legitimate groceries which they pay for with their welfare check and with various food stamps but the second cart contains about $100 worth of beer, wine and liquor.

im sorry.... but if you can afford $100 worth of liquor every week you can surely pay for your own groceries.

Every morning when we go to work, we pass this compound and all these people do is sit on the porch and smoke and drink, most of the day.

and the busiest time of the month arond their mail boxes is the 1st and the 15th (the time welfare checks come in) so they drag their nine kids down to the mailbox and repeat this grocery / liquor parade.

Its disgusting to me.

it literally makes me angry.

why should i work, and then against my will donate "charity" money to these losers? why should i pay taxes on anything if it is only going to support this lounge about life style in the cities? why should i run my own business and let Obama tax me into bakruptcy just so he can have his ideal vision of America where everyone earns the same money no matter how hard they work (or dont work)?

Seems to me the best job in america is to sit on your ass all day long and let the feds send free cash!

:nope:

[Zachstar]

Yup its those high figures that ensures free education among other things....

VAT...is 25% in Denmark
Aye, high taxes is the thing if you ask me!:up:

Well let us look at it in another way.

You pay extreme taxes. So you would be encouraged to actually take advantage of free education so you get the jobs that shell out the euros or whatever so after taxes you can get tons of great stuff while not having to worry about the health issue or your child's education.

If not you work at a local grocer. Get only free healthcare or whatever and get little spending money. a boring life and thus encouragement to get an education.

[McBeck]

The thing is that hospitals doesnt have to worry about the profitmargin. They got a budget - sure, but you are never gonna worry if your healthensurance will cover whatever disease you get. It also covers Europa :)

In the univercities there are people working only on basis research. Why is this good? Because they look into stuff private companies would never do, because the risk of it not turning out profitable is high, but its research like that, that will bring about the cure for diabetes.

[McBeck]

My question to you is....

Is my country socialistic?
It has alot of goverment owned areas....

[Biggles]

My question to you is....

Is my country socialistic?
It has alot of goverment owned areas....

My question on this would be...

Are you satisfied with your country at the current time mate?

[DeepIron]

The thing is that hospitals don't have to worry about the profit margin.
I wish that were true in the US... I have a hard time not believing that the appendectomy I had three years ago, which cost $10,000+ and in which I spent A TOTAL of only 23 1/2 hours in the hospital didn't contribute to the the "bottom line" more that a little... :shifty:

[Frederf]

I hear you GoldRivet, it's a crying shame that people will subject themselves and others to poor priorities. There will always be maladjusted people, but their numbers might be lessened with an education system, culture, and heck society that doesn't drive them to such behavior.

I mean a house cost $400,000 at least and gold wheels and booze maybe $900 a year. If people don't get on the high track of college, education, decency then the consolation prize of a sub-culture is pretty much the only thing they have to fall back on in terms of feeling at least partially worthwhile and fitting in.

A lot of social services are abused but it doesn't mean the concept behind it is bad. I wouldn't mind more restriction on some social services. A safety net should be functional but not comfortable.

If you start saying that socialism & free market are not mutually exclusive you're gonna confuse a lot of people here :D

God I hope so. People should get confused about their ideas so they have to look hard at their notions and possibly get better ones.

[McBeck]

My question to you is....

Is my country socialistic?
It has alot of goverment owned areas....
My question on this would be...

Are you satisfied with your country at the current time mate?All countries has theirs good and bad things. Im satisfied with my country...if I wasnt, I would still be here. I like other countries too, but only to visit :D

[JHuschke]

Socialism, Communism is okay.

The reason why, is yes it would raise taxes..like in Great Britain they have very high taxes but free medical expenses.

Plus, they would probably tell you what kind of doctor to go to and there would be millions of people at doctors every day if there were free meds and healthcare.

You got 4 types.

1. Elderly, who need certain types of medicine
2. People who are injured and/or suffering
3. People who are crazy and "think" they need medicine but they really don't.
4. Those with diseases

Think of what kind of crisis it would be in America, it would be a good thing but a bad thing at the same time.

[Hylander_1314]

Ahem, Hylander. I don't think you just called Europe, particulary GB, you're greatest ally, a totalitarian state, did you?

What?


"If" you read what I said, is that every welfare state eventually becomes a totalitarian state. Look to ancient Rome, and Greece as examples. That does not mean that it has already happenned or that it will tomorrow. But eventually, it must run it's course. Most likely, just as the transformation of the Constitutional Republic of America will transform closer to socialism over the next four years. The government in America is supposed to be small, and very limited in it's powers and authority. But over especially the last 90+ years it has grown into a sprauling octopus that invades personal liberty on a daily basis to the point that our liberty is slowly but surely be squashed under the pretence of safety, and security. And the people are foolish enough to let it continue. Thinking they will gain from it, when history has proven the opposite.

I harken to what Patrick Henry said,

"If ye love wealth better than liberty; the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom; go home from us in peace. We ask not your arms nor your councils. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that, Ye, were our countrymen."

And Bejamin Franklin when he said,

"They that would trade liberty for a little temporary safety; deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[caspofungin]

@hylander

how were ancient greece and rome welfare states?

also, if you look at the social democracies in europe, civil libertie tend to be pretty similar to the usa.

i do get your point though. i have to admit, i did laugh when i read that bit in the army manual that went something like "the public officials best suited for the job." that's a pretty tall order these days.

[Respenus]

Hylander, try reading my first post in this topic.

As far as welfare states that become totalitarian. The need for socialist reforms and a welfare state has created totalitarian countries in Europe during the 20th century. As for USSR and others, try checking my first post.

As for you quotes. Yes, they are nice and meaningful, yet when most of the society has nothing to eat or sleep in, what will you do then? Talk about liberty, when security is needed? What about New deal? Do you think Roosevelt was a communist?

[Fish]

I'm guessing that the people for Socialism are all dependent on government, and all of them think that government is going to make them rich, and that government is going to take care of them regardless of what happens in the future.

This is how Socialism is sold. A little clue, not only does this not work, but it will also bankrupt your country in due time. On top of that, those at the top use Socialism as a form of control for the rest of you, regardless how you all hide from this simple fact.

Capitalism is about choice. Always has been, always will be. I don't like people running around and telling me what I can or can't do. To live as an adult, this is my #1 job to figure out what it is that I should do and then do it. This has made my life better than that of those that sit around hoping the government will take care of them and that the government is the end all to all their problems. Sorry! Go take another crack hit because that is not how it works.

Socialism is the type of big government that made people leave their countries and come to the USA in the first place. They wanted a better life. They wanted control of there life. They were allowed to control their destiny as they see fit. And ya know? If a company like Microsoft has a monopoly hold on the market, and you think capitalism created this monster, in the end you still don't have to buy it! In a Socialist country however, the state might make you pay a tax so that everyone has to have a copy for the good of the country!

I could go on all day about why, but in the end, it all comes down to this:

Grow up, get out of your diapers, and be an adult.

Also read Neal's post.

-S

I wonder, what country's do you call socialist?
We have socialist party's, but that doesn't mean we are socialist country's.
We have a sort of republican party's as do we have religious and liberal party's. Most time left, right and 'in between' have to work together.

And we do just fine for socialist country's:
By GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power (PPP), using 2007 figures from the World Bank:

1. Luxemborg
2. Norway
3. Singapore
4. United States
5. Ireland
6. Switzerland
7. Austria
8. Netherlands
9. Iceland
10. Sweden


PS: Iceland is gone on the next list I am afraid.

[Hylander_1314]

Yes he had those leanings. He reacted to what the Federal Reserve did in creating the depression. Congressman Charles Lindberg Sr, said about the Federal Reserve

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President
[Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....
the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
-- Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

And he foretold the future

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created."
- Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

As far as security goes, America's sercurity is the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution copyright @1791

As far as food and shelter goes, America took care of her own just fine until big brother stepped in. Gee what are people going to do? Be responsable. I would be willing to give more to charities of my own accord, except that the biggest welfare recipient, the government takes too much as it is.

This is the main cause and effect of our present situation.

[Note – From 1913 until now inflation of the dollar has been 2950%. A 1913 dollar would now be worth $.034. When I became a wage earner in 1950 I could buy a full breakfast, eggs, sausage, hashbrowns, shortstack, juice, and coffee for $.39. This morning I paid $9.60 for the same, an inflation of 2460%]

The original is here if it's easier to read:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/banking-fed-quotes.html

A good read on the subject is The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Privately owned Central Banking has been ruining America since 1913. And it will continue to do so, until it is stopped the way Andrew Jackson did in the 1830's. When the monetary system is based on value, instead of debt, there is plenty work to be had, and costs in turn decrease. There is less taxation, and better representation since the elected officials are there to serve the people, not those who bought their election.

The New Deal was communist in nature. Roosevelt was intrigued with it.

Woodrow Wilson initiated it, Franklin Roosevelt shifted it into high gear and it hasn't slowed since.

[tater]

Government largess is only "free" to the deadbeats who don't pay more in than they take out.

Write a few checks to the government big enough to buy a house with and it doesn't seem like such a great idea for them to want to take even more.

[Onkel Neal]

No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone
Are you sure about this? I'm not sure about this. Increasingly I am finding that the system is in fact not working, and certainly the antecedents to its partial breakdown can readily be observed, even in the US. That's been my whole point in this thread.

I don't know what he is sure about but things must be nice where he lives because I do not have the same Opportunity.


Pubs like to pretend lawsuits are the main reason when in fact lack of free preventive care has allowed healthcare costs to explode when you have to fight the 2nd or 5th stages.

What? You mean you have been restricted from applying for open job positions? The local university has banned you? Your boss told you that no matter much effort you apply to your work, you will never see a promotion?

Someone stated earlier in the thread that everybody in the US has the same opportunity. This just isn't really true. Sure, everyone has the same legal opportunity, in that there are no laws regulating your position in life (things like if you are born a serf, you stay a serf), but actual opportunity depends greatly on your parents' position in life.

Think about two people, both having the same drive, motivation, intelligence, etc., but one has very wealthy parents, while the parents of the other struggle to put food on the table. The wealthy child will be going to a better school, will be able to get a better initial job due to family connections, will be able to afford university (college) without needing loans, and will be able to deal with any health issues early, rather then having to wait until they get serious enough for the emergency room.

Yeah, that was me. I think you are getting opportunity confused with advantages. Yeah, not all of us have the same advantages, but the opportunity is there, and it's the same. Some people use their lack of advantage as an excuse.


Quote: Neal
Yeah, I have my mind made up, same as you. So what? I'm not falling in line with your viewpoint. I live in the US, I understand how capitalism works, and what it takes to get ahead in life. So, I do it. No complaints here, the system works as advertised. The opportunity is the same for everyone,

To assume that is an opportunistical choice of yours, but nevertheless is wrong. The chances are not the same for everbopdy, both statistics and understanding of and insight in social contexts or experience in social work tell that, and very clearly. You can philosophise about the fairness of capitalism as loud as you want, nevertheless ypour claim is wrong and you ignore a major disadvantage of the system. Birth is fate, and wealthy parents are a decisive factor in every country influencing your starting chances, the education you get, we even know today that it influence your IQ level and character. If you try to fight the social-scientific data on that, you are fighting windmills. To think we all have the same chances and it is only our deed and our will that decides were we land, is simply wrong. With some it works like that, there are some who make it from dish washer to millionaire. but for everyone making it I tell you you have a hundred loosers who tried and tried desperately, but had not enough power or ressources to make it, were not given a chance, or were abused by those who already made it before them. Your basic assumption by which you defend the justice of capitalism - is a self-deception, a fallacy.



No, you are wrong, the assumption I made is plain fact. You just refuse, or are unable, to understand it. I'm not surprised. People in this country who are born in poverty have the opportunity to get ahead. The college system here is very generous with grants and student aid. I retired from my job after 30 years last summer, and now I am a full time student (the old man in the group) at University of Houston. I'm not content living on a fixed income, I am planning to work very hard and grasp the opportunties that exist in this country. I know people here who are getting all their costs covered by student aid. I know students who try really hard and attend class, and some who play with their iPhones in class, don't take notes or pay attention, miss class because they drank too much the night before, and stuggle and ask me to help them. These people are right there in the system and they are willfully throwing away their opportunities. What the hell, is the college supposed to graduate them anyway? Well, when they drop out, they won't be able to get a high-paying job, but I bet they will be clamoring for socialized medicine and other govt help. "It's not fair". BS. And that's a phrase I never let my children say.

And I am not counting black sheep or people who abuse the system, I am talking about regular, good people who make the decision not to compete for better jobs, not to pursue a lucrative degree (a degree that gives one the knowledge and skills to add real value to a company, a degree that is worth paying someone real money for), people who don't put forth the effort in school and life, people who do not like to deal with pressure, deadlines, and other undesirable job situations. People who want free health care because someone else is paying for it. I pay my insurance premiums and they ain't cheap. If people want a system of govt. where 50% of their salary is taken from them and used by the state (we know how to take care of you better than you do), that's fine, but not here. Socialism is more beneficial to some people more than others. We know who.

[Skybird]

Typed a reply, and deleted it. So now this.

You ignore major ingredients of what forms man's reality, Neal. And that leads you to conclusions that are part of america's mythology, which I do not mean metaphorically, but factual. To assume that life is what you make of it, and you can make anything because everybody has the same chance and opportunity, simply is foolish nonsens and shows that the insight into the wide diversity of ways man's life can unfold on for the worse or the better, is extremely limited. Why isn'T everybody a millionaire, then, why are the few on top live at the cost of the many at the bottom, and why are there so many slums and underprivileged juveniles turning criminal? Social extremes collide here, like two supernovas. And the wealth of those at the top - needs the weakness and poverty of those at the bottom. Damn, the whole world is made up of this principle. "Seines eigenen Glückes Schmied sein", we say in german. that works only within the set of chaces life provides you with, and not beyond, and many of them come later, and cannot be forseen, and even come without a link to your earlier efforts or laziness. And the intial starting coditions are different for everybody. Social systems formed differing ways and levels of how to compensate for these differences later on, and call that a form of social justice, which it is, at least by ambitions of estabolishing a more general basis of fairness. But again, this works only so far, and not beyond. we all are subject to the social environment in which we grow up. Skin colour, religion. Antipathy and sympathy between two people meeting. Accident and disease. Wrong and right assessmements, and different preparations because of that. Different interests. Different possibilities of the family you grew up in, regarding money, education, interest of the parents. that just one single follish mistake you made, because you were young. The list is ENDLESS.

Same opportunity for everybody? Not even in paradise. It has been one of the modern American myths that made america attractive for many people going there, it was an attractive dream. But today, more and more it serves exclusively as a self-justification and excuse not to self-reflect, while very many people's dreams for a better life have turned into pragmatism of just surviving the next forseeable future - and that covers the wide range from "opportunities" (that all of a sudden for many are not so much equal anymore), and reaches even as far as crime. Same opportunities for everyone is also a basic precondition for this literal world-famous american optimism, that can only be maintained by either assuming there is a deity meaning it well with you (God's own country), or by assuming that everthing is possible for you. If both are missing, optimism falls back in favour of realism. And if you think of it, in politics, this simple link is something that explains a lot of america's foreign-political adventures, this optimism versus realism thing. And by that record we see that optimism eventually can grow to overestimation of one'S abilities.

Your neat and tidy views work on paper only, like those of socialists as well, you both are utopians. But dirty, unsorted, chaotic reality - neither world, nor "fate" nor man's nature - does not match. You could as well try to trim a big park with nail scissors.

And finally I am wondering: has a little luck never made that decisive difference in your life, when your life's path splitted...?

[Bewolf]

Neal, with all due respect, but that is pretty much cliché and ideology born nonsese and also defying any common sense.

1. There are millions of ppl out there working hard, cleaning toilets, cleaning streets, packing groceries, etc. etc. To generally label these folks as lazy and lacking the will to use opportunity is more prejudiced then anything else and a very one sided view. Yeah, there are those black sheep out there, but to put them all within one basket is unfair and most of all, uninformed. Without propper education, there is hardly a way to get a good job. And propper education...well, there is a certain lack of it, let's put it this way. Last but not least, education requires intelligence. Intelligence is nothing you can train later on. Either you have it, through genes and supported by propper upbringing, or you don't.

2. If everybody had "opportunities" and used them as such, who then would do the low wage jobs? it is not as if a society has good paying jobs for everybody, thus it is "impossible", by any sense of reason, to provide anybody with a good job. Not doable, no way. Even more so if the typical middle class jobs are transferred to third world countries, thus making progress even harder domestically. So why are ppl preaching about everybody's opportuntities when by the very numbers it's impossible to achieve this for everybody no matter what? This does not add up.

3. Your premise for a good life shows a uniformed type of human almost reminsicent of communist ideology. All ppl must be equal, in this case, motivated, professional, able and more then willing to work to earn their place in society and have any rights to healthcare and other measures to make life a little less worrying. You forget that these criteria are ideals, not premises. Humanity is much more diverse and not anybody is fit for a work environment that nowadays is completly fixed on mobility, flexibility and self education. In fact in no time in the history of mankind were requirements for a good and more important, stable job as high as nowadays. It's hardly wonderous ppl fail in ever increasing numbers to cope with such a situation. There are quite a few studies out there tackling these problems. It is wishfull thinking to assume ppl have the very same chances and opportunities, far removed from reality of life. There are those that manage it, in huge parts through to their own work, but also partly to luck, chance, talent and connections. And there are those that miss the train for whatever reasons despite their best attempts or simply because modern day economics don't provide places for these kinda folks anymore like in former times.

Attitudes like yours will eventually cost a country it's democracy. Turbo capitalismm, as is shown in history, always produces very few rich and masses of poor folks, with a very small middle class. Simply because only very few ppl are "able" to use oportunity propperly and sooner or later everything works through networks. And more often then not you also have to be a ruthless to get where you want. This was the situation in Europe before the birth of communism. Environments like these carry the fruits of revolutions. And it's getting worse if hard working ppl are labelled "lazy" and unfit for higher pay just because they do not fullfill certain characteristics defined by capitalism or simply have other priorities in life then career, like home and family. This is what causes outrage and a breakup in society. It's an extreme ideology and chances are that the pendulum will swing to the other extreme sooner or later. This usually happens when a powerful minority dictates the terms of living to the majority against their basic needs.

[Onkel Neal]

Typed a reply, and deleted it. So now this.

You ignore major ingredients of what forms man's reality, Neal. And that leads you to conclusions that are part of america's mythology, which I do not mean metaphorically, but factual. To assume that life is what you make of it, and you can make anything because everybody has the same chance and opportunity, simply is foolish nonsens and shows that the insight into the wide diversity of ways man's life can unfold on for the worse or the better, is extremely limited. Why isn'T everybody a millionaire, then, why are the few on top live at the cost of the many at the bottom, and why are there so many slums and underprivileged juveniles turning criminal? Social extremes collide here, like two supernovas. And the wealth of those at the top - needs the weakness and poverty of those at the bottom. Damn, the whole world is made up of this principle. "Seines eigenen Glückes Schmied sein", we say in german. that works only within the set of chaces life provides you with, and not beyond, and many of them come later, and cannot be forseen, and even come without a link to your earlier efforts or laziness. And the intial starting coditions are different for everybody. Social systems formed differing ways and levels of how to compensate for these differences later on, and call that a form of social justice, which it is, at least by ambitions of estabolishing a more general basis of fairness. But again, this works only so far, and not beyond. we all are subject to the social environment in which we grow up. Skin colour, religion. Antipathy and sympathy between two people meeting. Accident and disease. Wrong and right assessmements, and different preparations because of that. Different interests. Different possibilities of the family you grew up in, regarding money, education, interest of the parents. that just one single follish mistake you made, because you were young. The list is ENDLESS.

Same opportunity for everybody? Not even in paradise. It has been one of the modern American myths that made america attractive for many people going there, it was an attractive dream. But today, more and more it serves exclusively as a self-justification and excuse not to self-reflect, while very many people's dreams for a better life have turned into pragmatism of just surviving the next forseeable future - and that covers the wide range from "opportunities" (that all of a sudden for many are not so much equal anymore), and reaches even as far as crime. Same opportunities for everyone is also a basic precondition for this literal world-famous american optimism, that can only be maintained by either assuming there is a deity meaning it well with you (God's own country), or by assuming that everthing is possible for you. If both are missing, optimism falls back in favour of realism. And if you think of it, in politics, this simple link is something that explains a lot of america's foreign-political adventures, this optimism versus realism thing. And by that record we see that optimism eventually can grow to overestimation of one'S abilities.

Your neat and tidy views work on paper only, like those of socialists as well, you both are utopians. But dirty, unsorted, chaotic reality - neither world, nor "fate" nor man's nature - does not match. You could as well try to trim a big park with nail scissors.

And finally I am wondering: has a little luck never made that decisive difference in your life, when your life's path splitted...?

Thank you for that bit of naivete. :up: To repeat, starting conditions may differ, but here the opportunity is the same. Maybe there's a language issue here, I never said some people have don't advantages over other people. I said with or without advantages, the opportunity is the same. No one is stopping a ghetto kid from doing well in school and becoming a lawyer, or a dope dealer, or President--or all three! Nothing stops a farm boy from learning to weld and becoming a good craftsman, or a girl from a broken home from getting a degree and becoming an architect. Who says everyone has to be a millionaire to be successful? Life is what you make it. If that's not true, then what is life? The stuff that happens to you that you have no control over? Ha! Believe that if you want, but don't expect me to buy it. I understand some people want to coast through life, that's fine, but that's their choice. Don't lay this "we have no power over our lives" crap on me. What a lame excuse.

American mythology, is it? So now we move this arguement into national characteristics? Do we want to go there? :hmm: Always with the "American" this and that. Well, in keeping with that theme: American optimism, may I have some more, please.

And don't call me a utopian again, that's a hanging offence.:x

Finally, yeah, I have had good luck and bad luck. Haven't we all? There are cases where someone has something BAD happen to them and they need help--but there are many more cases where someone wants to get help they don't deserve. That's socialism. Hey, just look at handicap parking spaces here. 9 times out of 10, the person I see get out of the car or truck is no more handicapped than me. That's the rule, not the exception.

Probably one of the most unlucky things that ever happened to me was the day I decided to start a website about submarine games...:roll: if only I had possessed the foresight to start BeautifulBreasts.com, a website about great plastic surgeries...the annual Meets would be so much more fun.

Neal, with all due respect, but that is pretty much cliché and ideology born nonsese and also defying any common sense.

1. There are millions of ppl out there working hard, cleaning toilets, cleaning streets, packing groceries, etc. etc. To generally label these folks as lazy and lacking the will to use opportunity is more prejudiced then anything else and a very one sided view. Yeah, there are those black sheep out there, but to put them all within one basket is unfair and most of all......

With due respect back, Beowulf, I don't know agree. "cliché and ideology born nonsese and also defying any common sense" You sound like one of the 18th century monarchs in England when presented with the notion of American democracy and a classless society. :smug: Let's just say, your definition of common sense and mine are polar opposites. I'm sure you think yours is correct.

There are millions of ppl out there working hard, cleaning toilets, cleaning streets, packing groceries, etc. etc. To generally label these folks as lazy and lacking the will to use opportunity is more prejudiced then anything else and a very one sided view.

Oh, these poor people, trapped in their lives. Wait, I'm one of them. Yeah, I'm not a heart surgeon or captain of enterpise, but I acknowledge that was my decision, not some oppresive fate grinding me down. I am doing exactly what I want, and if I keep working toward it, I will achieve it. That's opportunity and I'm taking it.

There's nothing wrong with cleaning toilets, packing groceries, driving a truck, sorting records for a chemical company, or being a bum, if that's what people want. But nothing is stopping the truck driver or toilet cleaner from bettering himself, except him (extraordinary circumstances aside). As long as he doesn't try to sell society on the idea that someone needs to take care of him. And nothing is stopping Mr. Toilet Cleaner or Ms. Grocery Packer from doing the same. Let me repeat: nothing is stopping them, except them. Oh sure, the toiler cleaner with a wife and six kids and huge credit card bills may find it a challenge to take the opportunity, but I think he had some part of the decision-making process concerning those kids and bills.


If everybody had "opportunities" and used them as such, who then would do the low wage jobs? it is not as if a society has good paying jobs for everybody, thus it is "impossible", by any sense of reason, to provide anybody with a good job. Not doable, no way

Finally we agree, although you miss the point: opportunity exists for everyone but not everyone will take it. That's a given, obviously. :)To say that everyone will take the opportunities is to willfully ignore the human reality you keep bringing up. The reality is some people are not interested in taking the opportunity, because they are not willing to do what it takes to get it (ie Lazy, everyone's favorite word now).

Your premise for a good life shows a uniformed type of human almost reminsicent of communist ideology.

Nice, really nice. Actually, communist ideology of having a uniform type of human is done by force. I'm saying you can have what you want, if you want it enough, no one is stopping you (and no one is propping up a bunch of non-performering slackers for you to compete with).


Attitudes like yours will eventually cost a country it's democracy. Turbo capitalismm, as is shown in history, always produces very few rich and masses of poor folks, with a very small middle class. Simply because only very few ppl are "able" to use oportunity propperly and sooner or later everything works through networks. And more often then not you also have to be a ruthless to get where you want. This was the situation in Europe before the birth of communism. Environments like these carry the fruits of revolutions. And it's getting worse if hard working ppl are labelled "lazy" and unfit for higher pay just because they do not fullfill certain characteristics defined by capitalism or simply have other priorities in life then career, like home and family. This is what causes outrage and a breakup in society. It's an extreme ideology and chances are that the pendulum will swing to the other extreme sooner or later. This usually happens when a powerful minority dictates the terms of living to the majority against their basic needs

What? Who's dictating anything? No powerful minority is dictating anything. No one needs to be ruthless. Talk about cliche. Hello, Upton Sinclair called and he wants his premise back. This isn't 1899, there is opportunity now.

Sheesh, poor Neal, so brainwashed and directionless. How is he going to get by in life?

Very well, thank you ;)

Neal

[CCIP]

No powerful minority is dictating anything.
To quote the Das Boot captain - "Not yet kameraden, not yet!" :doh:

I'm surprised we're at such odds here Neal, considering that Skybird, Bewolf and myself here, along with others, have never said anything other than that there needs to be a way of protecting opportunities and ensuring that the majority of people aren't driven into becoming slaves of the production/consumption cycle.

The problem is that your arguments are primarily social. Our arguments are primarily economic. The two are related, but in fact it's the latter that's the driving force in the end. A go-get-em attitude is a good one. A society that is built on one is even better. But it's all irrelevant if the socioeconomics are going the opposite way. And increasingly they are.

[Skybird]

Copying what CCIP and Mikhayl are saying, at least most of it.

Thank you for that bit of naivete. :up: To repeat, starting conditions may differ, but here the opportunity is the same. Maybe there's a language issue here, I never said some people have don't advantages over other people. I said with or without advantages, the opportunity is the same.
with or without motorised aid in a race, the sprinters at the starting line have the same opportunity, the chance to win the race. Well, nice, but what worth does that have if some may run on motor power and implantates, or doping, while others just on muscle power?

No one is stopping a ghetto kid from doing well in school and becoming a lawyer, or a dope dealer, or President-or all three!

In what way is that different in Germany? England? France? And so many other countries?

Neal - the mere fact it is a ghetto kid already is a handicap disqualifying it for certain later opportunities, and social scientists, intelligence researchers, social biologists and quite some more can tell you that it feeds back on intellectual capacity, mental developement, forming of personality, character, langue skills, IQ level. the mere circumstance of your birth already sets factors that influence your potentials, and handicaps. And this decides about your access to schools, and your performance there. And so on and on. Since people are born with different genes, they are differemtly affected by it, that and lucky chance are the reason why some get out of a ghetto, while others can't.

Don't argue with me on that, it is pretty much beyond scientific discussion, but well accepted, and social statistics verify it. And I must say: healthy reason confirms it as well.

Nothing stops a farm boy from learning to weld and becoming a good craftsman, or a girl from a broken home from getting a degree and becoming an architect.

Wrong. the events themselves already create a feedback on the person that may handicap it comp0letely, or partially, or not at all. the less chance there is in your starting environment to suffer such handicaps, the more chance you have to fulfill your dreams later on.

Must we really debate this...?


Who says everyone has to be a millionaire to be successful? Life is what you make it. If that's not true, then what is life?

A mixture of things that are within your reach to influence, and others that still influence you, but are beyond you to influence them in your favour.

There is an old prayer that I really like:

Gewährt sei uns der Mut,
die Dinge zu ändern, die wir ändern können,
Gelassenheit, die hinzunehmen,
die wir nicht ändern können,
und Weisheit,
zwischen beidem zu unterscheiden.

In English, it is known as the serenity prayer, and was slighty changed in order of lines, and was added lines with God and Jesus and Amen, but as you know that kind of stuff is not my thing. Translation:

Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed; the courage to change that which can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other.

Some things we can change. Others we can't. And it must not necessarly be our fault. the world just is bigger than ourselves, that'S all.


The stuff that happens to you that you have no control over? Ha! Believe that if you want, but don't expect me to buy it. I understand some people want to coast through life, that's fine, but that's their choice. Don't lay this "we have no power over our lives" crap on me. What a lame excuse.

You americans always must think in extremes, in black and white, in 1s and 0s, yes? where have I said "we have no power about our lives"? He...? Read my last paragraph above. I mentioned TWO factors. and even before I never indiscated something like you put in my mouth, nowhere.

as I see it, my position includes yours, attaches it to situation where it is adequate - but goes beyond it and includes other things as well. Yours is tunnel-eyed, and excludes every other thing. You exlcude an awful lot of the realiy poutn there. Esoecially the things you do not wish to learn about, when they are quetioning your position.


American mythology, is it? So now we move this arguement into national characteristics? Do we want to go there? :hmm: Always with the "American" this and that. Well, in keeping with that theme: American optimism, may I have some more, please.

And don't call me a utopian again, that's a hanging offence.:x

the pursuit of happiness is one of the greatest utopic concepts ever introduced in human culture. Regarding your snappy reply on where I referred to mythology, take what I said not as a metaphor, but as a factual statement, I mean it serious. most long-developed nations and peoples have their mythology that helps them to see and define their identity. Tolikien once said the British have none, for the elements of mythology they have in British "sagas" are of foreign origin, french and scandinavian, even the saga of King Arthur is francophil by orgin. america is very young, just 200+ some years - you had no time to let your collective unconsciousness form and develope a mytholgy that reaches back in time one or two centuries, or longer. Instead your forefathers were faced with a situation of challenge and confrontation, things needed to get done, not long philosophised about. there was no tradition on which to found the cultural inner natu7re of america, for the indians were denied, and that wouold have been an act of mere copying only anyway. so your forefathers sat down and wrote down a replacement for the lack of historic identity, this pursuit of happiness one item of the collection. Zhey did not do it intentionally to form a mythology, but if serves in that function, for you have no real mythology of your own. your modern othat apprared over time supported the colonizing of a new world. that the border always needs to be pushed. That everyone can make a fortune, what he understands as that. the sky is the limit. Last but not least from dishwasher to millionaire is part of that too. All this is to be seen separate from pragmatic measures that just reflect the situation of the time 200 years ago: from your antique indirect voting system over several guaranteed rights that were given due to the reasons that one hoped to escape when leaving europe, to the deep mistrust towards centrlaised power and the right to bear arms and have militias in each state - all that is offspring of the thinking of a long ago time, which meant a different world. Thats why much of it really is antique in the modenr present. the reasons why things were designed the way they were designed, may no longer be existent.

Finally, yeah, I have had good luck and bad luck. Haven't we all? There are cases where someone has something BAD happen to them and they need help--but there are many more cases where someone wants to get help they don't deserve.

That is what you say. and many people, including me, cannot see that to be true. and no, I am not socialistic. For the x-th time: socialism and social responsibility are two totally different things.

That's socialism.

Is it? :hmm:


Hey, just look at handicap parking spaces here. 9 times out of 10, the person I see get out of the car or truck is no more handicapped than me. That's the rule, not the exception.
You mean it is socialist drivers doing so? I say it is some ignorrant a$$hole not caring a bit, or a self-declared VIP who think rules do not apply to him. Which might come as no surprise in a country where egoism has turned into the economical ideology and cultural value. :hmm: BTW, half my life ago, when I still had access to a car, I once parked on such a slot, too. Because I was not aware of it's special status.

Actually, it happens in Germany as well. Often it is people in expensive dark-blue or grey uniform and white pressed shirts driving a black limousine. Sometimes they have gel in their hair. Socialists, i mean, and who knows, by their parking habits maybe even communists.

Try to look a bit more to your left and right when walkign down that path of yours. Tunnel-vision only turns youn into an extremist. You may not wish to intentionally do harm, and hurt others, but nevertheless you do - wether you know it, or not.

This whole stuff angers me, and I read between the lines that you are angered too. Maybe we stop here, then, before this leads to a level that we regret.

[Skybird]

Maybe Neal is just angry because his favourite candidate is loo-hoo-hoosing tonight! http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Frech/smileymania.at_02706.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

[baggygreen]

here's my take on the whole socialism thing

first of all - across the board health care.

In Austraya we have it. Anyone can go to a public hospital, all is well. Sure the system is stretched, but that is because you get a lot of people going there for reasons they don't need a hospital - ie a cold, flu, hypochondria, etc. What I think really stretches the system though, are people being looked after for their own faults, and not at their own expense. I'm not talking about the driver who crashes, but about the woman who was a regular to my pharmacy who had her voice box removed due to cancer from smoking (at no expense) and then continued smoking through the hole in her throat. All the while, getting expensive drugs again at no personal cost.

IMO, I shouldn't be paying for her. but I am. Same with the druggies, why am I paying for the treatment of their habits when they're generally not interested in recovery? Why am I paying to support people who drink until their livers give out?

I don't like that. Sure, it might make me a callous bastard, but I fail to see why my money should go towards people who aren't interested in taking care of themselves.

This extends on to welfare payments for the unemployed. I've been there, received that. I however took on a right dodgy job to get myself a regular income. No education needed, and no huge salary, but I took it. On the other hand, we have thousands and thousands of pure bludgers who aren't interested in working at all, who claim one benefit after another. The work is there, but their interest to work is not, and so I pay to support them. I dislike it immensely.

In both cases, the woman who smoked and the person who didn't work, they have the opportunity the same as every other person in the country. The smoker hd the opportunity to live healthily and not smoke, but chose to do so, and so now I have to pay to support her. The bludger has every chance to get a job, start working and get a regular source of income for him/herself, but chooses not to, and so I pay for them.

How is it fair, that I'm expected to continue supporting them when I've created my own opportunities from a similar situation?? They too have the chance, but choose not to take it.

/end ramble:D

[GoldenRivet]

Well on ANY form of government... Its like my grandfather says

"I dont give a damn what government you have... you cant take care of everyone."

[AntEater]

Problem is, Libertarianism is an ideology, just like communism.
Both except people to behave according to morals.
In Communism, people have to put the collective good first, in Libertarianism, people have to be "perfect" sensing opportunities and using them.
Which is a bit far from the reality.
Especially in time when most of the really heavy companies of the western world basically make their money by conning people into making decisions which are NOT in their objective interest (the media, the consumer industry), how can you assume that everyone chooses rationally?
It is not rational for a worker to buy a TV set or a SUV on a loan, yet the economy demands it. Other people making rational choices work day and night to make that guy buy more than he could afford.
For those people, objective right choice would be to buy a smaller TV or a more economic car, thus having more money for medial emergencies, retirement, education or whatever.
Yet if they all did, the whole western economy would collapse...

Re Druggies and so on, some people always fall through, no matter what system or ideology you prefer. Then it becomes a matter of humanity, not of economy.

[Onkel Neal]

No powerful minority is dictating anything.
To quote the Das Boot captain - "Not yet kameraden, not yet!" :doh:

I'm surprised we're at such odds here Neal, considering that Skybird, Bewolf and myself here, along with others, have never said anything other than that there needs to be a way of protecting opportunities and ensuring that the majority of people aren't driven into becoming slaves of the production/consumption cycle.

The problem is that your arguments are primarily social. Our arguments are primarily economic. The two are related, but in fact it's the latter that's the driving force in the end. A go-get-em attitude is a good one. A society that is built on one is even better. But it's all irrelevant if the socioeconomics are going the opposite way. And increasingly they are.


I don't have a problem with "protecting opportunities". I don't get the slaves bit. I guess that depends on where you live, honestly, I cannot find any signs of enslavement here. I don't agree with the part about socioeconomics going the opposite way, middle class and lower class people here have it better than their grandparents, by huge margins.

[Onkel Neal]

Fine post Neal :yep:
I happen to think a bit alike, but where we probably disagree is this : does the guy with a wife and 6 kids, who cleans toilets for a living, has to live with a ridiculous wage and be unable to afford basic services just because he choose this life rather than another ?
I think modern socialism should and could ensure people a decent life and access to basic human services regardless of their choices, and still offer opportunities and reward those who seize these opportunities.

Here's the deal with the toilet cleaner and his choice: he is getting paid what people who hire him think he is worth. Anyone can clean a toilet, no skill is involved. It is not a valuable vocation. To push his wages up to a level where he is fat and happy would mean dictating what he is paid, instead of letting the demand for his skills determine his pay.

I swear I'm not making this up; when I was ~26 I made a similar statement to my father; "why should a janitor get low pay, he deserves to live well too". My dad looked at me and said, "you think a janitor should get paid like a doctor? Any guy off the street can be a janitor, how would you like the guy off the street to open your chest cavity and work on you?"

Besides, there would be no incentive for people if even the lowest skill jobs paid $50K a year.

[Onkel Neal]

Maybe Neal is just angry because his favourite candidate is loo-hoo-hoosing tonight! http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Frech/smileymania.at_02706.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

No, I posted that this afternoon well before any polls closed. and McCain is not my favorite candidate, he's only marginally better than Obama, but what the hell, they are the only two choices.

[Onkel Neal]

In what way is that different in Germany? England? France? And so many other countries?

Neal - the mere fact it is a ghetto kid already is a handicap disqualifying it for certain later opportunities, and social scientists, intelligence researchers, social biologists and quite some more can tell you that it feeds back on intellectual capacity, mental developement, forming of personality, character, langue skills, IQ level....
Ok, we can call the ghetto boy President soon.


Don't argue with me on that, it is pretty much beyond scientific discussion, but well accepted, and social statistics verify it. And I must say: healthy reason confirms it as well.

Oh, ok then, you win. I've already wasted too much time on this topic, I've got work to do.

[nikimcbee]

Hooray for the revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9mIs53HK4g&feature=related

[August]

Neal - the mere fact it is a ghetto kid already is a handicap disqualifying it for certain later opportunities, and social scientists, intelligence researchers, social biologists and quite some more can tell you that it feeds back on intellectual capacity, mental developement, forming of personality, character, langue skills, IQ level.... Ok, we can call the ghetto boy President soon.

Kinda blows Skybirds theory right out of the water eh?

[Frame57]

You can look at the former USSR and Cuba and tell me how great socialism is...Right! People have to have incentive in order to make goals and climb the ladder of success. I have no desire to be a millionaire, therefore I will not become one. If I wanted that I could find ways to acheive that goal. I set a target for the income I needed and wanted and went out and did it. Capitalism may not be perfect but it sure beats what forms of socialism have shown in history. The abuses of the welfare system in America have proven that it does not work. America is doing fine! People are working and i do not see any soup lines with the exception of the drunken bums who want a hand out on the street corners of San Fransicko. The myth is the lie the liberals and social engineers are hyping about the economy. Economies fluctuate, as does ours. Time to find a balance in it, but life here in America will go on just fine in spite of the scare tactics that are going on to hypnotise the masses. Our economic history has been up and down and that will continue. All foreign aid must cease! No more raises for politicians! Cut the pork barrell spending! Eliminate all welfare checks unless the person is disabled! Lower capital gains taxes! Make incentives for companies to succeed rather than punishing them...!

[Christopher Snow]

I haven't read any of the previous posts (so apologies if I'm covering ground that's already been thoroughly mowed under with this post).

In my view, socialism is unsustainable in the long-term. It's merely a degenerate, even "cancerous" form of capitalism. Socialism is the disease that overtakes otherwise healthy capitalist societies when a large number of the individual citizens get it into their heads that they can simply TAKE the things they want...by voting to "redistribute" them from the other people who have them (usually meaning the people who worked for them, or who took financial risks to get them), and give them to themselves. With larger and larger proportions of said societies "on the dole" and smaller and smaller proportions actually producing anything, the socialist society will begin to feed inward on itself, as does a cancer. It will begin to kill itself (by shrinking away, oddly enough).

Socialism cannot sustain itself longterm, IMO. It can only sustain itself short-term, and even then only on a "parasitic" basis (as a leech, in the case of the EU, feeding on the otherwise capitalist, and heretofore healthy US).

Many here will know that quite a few of the European economies/societies have been socialist for quite a few years now, and may point to them as examples of where my theory is wrong.

But note two things: #1) None of these societies suffers any real burden of cost for self-defence: NATO (meaning mostly the US) is the actual, true force that props up these countries, and not the countries themselves. Left to their own devices (as I think they now will be given the fact that the US itself has now moved strongly toward socialism with tonight's election), I think their defence system will very quickly begin to break down...and without the economic might of a capitalist US as backup, I suspect those resurgent forces in the east will begin to re-flex their newly found muscle back toward the EU in the west (The Russian feelers into Ossetia are just the beginning).

A weakened semi-socialist (or completely socialist) US will no longer be able to back them up (even if we were still willing to do so).

#2) Few of the EU countries have anything even approaching sustainable birthrates--they are almost all of them in steep decline right across the board.

Q: So What is a sustainable rate? A: A woman generally has to have 2.2 children, in her lifetime to replace (without significant decline or increase in overall societal numbers) both herself and her mate. 2 children to replace herself and her mate directly and 0.2 children more for losses due to illness, birth defects, sterility, etc....

Almost all the EU countries these days are FAR short of this number, with the result that the percentage of world population of the EU countries is expected to drop from 4.5% now to about 3% by 2050.

End result? Each of these socialist societies becomes less and less significant, and less and less meaningful every day.

Socialism is really quite cancerous, as I said.

-----

The one, and ONLY reason China has now become a new power on the world stage is because it has embraced CAPITALISM as it's new, core, driving economic force.

Not entirely, or course, when it comes to the individual freedoms and desires (but then China still has in place the vestiges of the Communist society--the "well parceled and well described" society from which it flowered too).

That will change with the arrival of their next generation (who were born into economic properity, but who did not necessarily work for it).

"We live in interesting times," as the man said....


CS

[frenzied]

I don't think anyone is arguing for full "socialism" - most people merely want freely available health care, freely available education, and, some people, a system of welfare for the unemployed so they can get back on their feet.

I argue that ensuring everyone has good healthcare, good education (so that the phrase "I would have gone to college, I had the marks, but couldn't afford to" is never spoken) will strengthen, not weaken, a country.

Good healthcare will equal healthy people which, in turn, will equal productive people. This would also prove cheaper in the long run, as people will seek help early, and therefore face only a small fix, rather then leaving their problems until they are chronic, and possibly unresolvable. Likewise, well educated people will be capable of performing more skilled jobs, bringing in a higher income, advancing science more quickly, and other such benefits.

Some form of unemployment benefit is the sticky issue, but if it is managed properly it can help. If there is no unemployment welfare system, if you lose your job for whatever reason, you are in deep trouble, and becoming homeless is a real danger. If you receive enough money to stay on your feet in the time it takes to find a new job, you are much more likely to become a highly productive member of society again.
Well managed is the true key to this. I don't think anybody wants to give money to people who do not have a job because they are too lazy to get one, and I certainly do not advocate that. Australia's problem with "dole bludgers", while still present, has reduced greatly in the past decade due to a few simple precautions: you need to provide evidence that you are actually searching for work, and if you are unemployed for a certain time you get put on a 'work for the dole' scheme doing crappy work that nobody wants to do. While this is by no means perfect, it helps. It also ensures that Australia has a much smaller homeless population - when I went to the US I was appaled at the number of people I saw begging on the streets.

[Christopher Snow]

I don't think anyone is arguing for full "socialism" - most people merely want freely available health care, freely available education, and, some people, a system of welfare for the unemployed so they can get back on their feet.

[Well, sure. Everyone always wants "only" what they want, and nothing else. So what?

We'll see what Obama and the new US democratic Congress have in mind, in any case, so I won't hold you to anything in particular yet--that would be unfair at the moment (for my part, I have about 60 days to bail completely out of my US investments, and I fully intend to do so) If YOU want to place your trust in Obama sence of "fairness" (I don't) then you can do so. And you can pay for his new programs (I won't--I'm moving my meager resources out of the country)].

I argue that ensuring everyone has good healthcare, good education (so that the phrase "I would have gone to college, I had the marks, but couldn't afford to" is never spoken) will strengthen, not weaken, a country.

Good healthcare will equal healthy people which, in turn, will equal productive people. This would also prove cheaper in the long run, as people will seek help early, and therefore face only a small fix, rather then leaving their problems until they are chronic, and possibly unresolvable. Likewise, well educated people will be capable of performing more skilled jobs, bringing in a higher income, advancing science more quickly, and other such benefits.

Some form of unemployment benefit is the sticky issue, but if it is managed properly it can help. If there is no unemployment welfare system, if you lose your job for whatever reason, you are in deep trouble, and becoming homeless is a real danger. If you receive enough money to stay on your feet in the time it takes to find a new job, you are much more likely to become a highly productive member of society again.
Well managed is the true key to this. I don't think anybody wants to give money to people who do not have a job because they are too lazy to get one, and I certainly do not advocate that. Australia's problem with "dole bludgers", while still present, has reduced greatly in the past decade due to a few simple precautions: you need to provide evidence that you are actually searching for work, and if you are unemployed for a certain time you get put on a 'work for the dole' scheme doing crappy work that nobody wants to do. While this is by no means perfect, it helps. It also ensures that Australia has a much smaller homeless population - when I went to the US I was appaled at the number of people I saw begging on the streets.

All anyone ever wants, when it comes to socialism (social programs) are the ones they deem "necessary" at the time.

Yet, curiously, no one ever mentions "Defense"

As though it's somehow free just for the asking.

Ask Georgia-Ossetia if it's free. It isn't. It's costly.

Or even ask Poland. After all, they had "Free" defense forces (defense against aggression from those of us in the evil WEST) for many years while under Communist rule.

Ask them? Were these services offered to them as "free?]"


CS

[caspofungin]

@snow

what are you on about?

[Christopher Snow]

As to EU birthrates: Pope John Paul II described moderns Europe as having embraced "a culture of death."

[Paraphrase mine (2008):

Not only with regard to the Dutch (and their very Nazi-like embrace of instiutionalized infanticide, as described in the "Groningen Protocol;

But also as regardes abortion in general.

To devalue human life is to devalue youselves..

It's truly suicide].


CS

[caspofungin]

@snow
um, ok. birth rate is inherently related to gdp, rather than specifically due to a socialist viewpoint. what does abortion or "infanticide" or the pope have to do with an argument of socialism v capitalism?

and thanks for once again proving goodwin right. wtf?

anyway,most people merely want freely available health care, freely available education, and, some people, a system of welfare for the unemployed so they can get back on their feet.

i'm with you. but apparently, some people disagree.

[Christopher Snow]

@snow

what are you on about?
I'm "on" about the fact that your EU socialist sytstems cannot sustain themselves (except at our (US exepense).

We'll find out if I am right (or wrong) sometime in the next few months, I suspect.

At some point after inauguration day you EU types will discover that the US CANNOT (and WILL NOT) pay to defend you any more.

You'll discover NATO is bankrupt.

It will probably come as quite a shock to you.

Heck...You might even find yourselves missing George W. Bush (wouldn't that be rich!).

We'll see.

Hopefully you will have got through it, in any case, and will have managed to conjure up some sort of defense before the Russians realize they have an open (and relatively undefended) opportunity for aggression out toward the West.

Or not.

It will be up to you, in any case, and you alone.

WE won't be able to do a thing to help you. Even if Obama were willing to do so (and he won't be, so don't count on it--he'll be too new, so he will willingly give ground to the Russians. His only OTHER option will be to use the nuclear response...and he won't do that. At least not yet).

You wanted Obama...and you got him.

---------

That's what I'm "on about."

CS

[caspofungin]

I'm "on" about the fact that your EU socialist sytstems cannot sustain themselves (except at our (US exepense).
the marshall plan ended 55 years ago. if there's been any massive injection of us funds into the eu since then, i must've missed it. other than buying your goods, i guess.

the US CANNOT (and WILL NOT) pay to defend you any more.
well, the us is going to have a hard time paying to defend itself -- excuse me, its interests -- so we'll both just have to stumble by as best we can.

You wanted Obama...and you got him.
actually, i'm cynical enough to appreciate that while things might change in the us itself, for the rest of the world it will most likely be business as usual -- the us standing up for its own interests (nothing wrong with that) while bashing us over the head with self-righteous hypocritical justifications for their actions.

but who knows, maybe i'll be proved wrong. maybe you'll be proved right. now let's get back on topic.

[Skybird]

Snow seem to live on Mars, in an isolated habitat.

NATO bankrupt. Hm, last time I checked the american national debt appoached the level of it'S yearly GDP.

america paying for europe: last time I checked, eurpope and many others payed subsidies into the american system after it collapsed under it'S design. Trillions got lost due to that system being like it is.

Finding out we miss GWB, hm, dream on.

"We'll see", hm no, we already know.

russian aggression imminent, western Eur0pe short of falling. Pure paranoia. Most military wars and interventions after WWII have been fought not by russians or Chinese, but America. Often uncalled.

Not being able to help you, you are right, with that crippled state fiances, those debt levels, and that even more crippeling trade deficits you soon will not be able to do anything anymore indeed, if others do not pay your bills and allow you to continue to live on tic and excessive spending and consuming. Without the willingness of the chinese, europeans and Russians to buy your worthless state bonds to keep your market a bit available for our exports, you would already be state-bankrupt, and there would not be troops standing in Afghanistan or in Iraq, because paying for them then would have needed you to pay from your own cash that you have in full taken away from domestic puroses at home. If you take 3-5 trillion dollars (Iraq war costs and follow up costs 2003-2008) away from the state's budget at home, and no foreign aide comes in, that causes a hard matter loss that would cause riots and civil unrest in your homes and cities. Promised.

Try to pick up some of the attitude of the noble speech McCain gave to admit his defeat, try to show a bit of his greatness and style in which he did it, and fought down the boooohs whenever Obama's name was said. Finally, he has found the positive posture again for which he had been known before going on campaign. Get down from Mars, and back to Earth. It's here where the music plays, not somewhere out there, in the outer space of your fantasies.

[Christopher Snow]

[quote=caspofungin]@snow
um, ok. birth rate is inherently related to gdp, rather than specifically due to a socialist viewpoint. what does abortion or "infanticide" or the pope have to do with an argument of socialism v capitalism?

Pope JP II (not just "a pope," but rather this specific pope ) would have argued that a socialist society, which embraced (even only "unofficially" a monstrosity as great as infanticide" would have also, necessarily been an arguement against socialismin general. He would have argued that Socialism itself, if it could support infanticide, was necessarily at least suspect. And possibly even quite degenerate (and I would have agreed).

I would put it, myself, in economic terms (roughly as outlined in previous posts).

JP II himself might have said "the deliberate devaluation of human beings is monstrous. Evil. And a society which supports it is monstrous too.

And this is what the Nazis did in the 1930's and 40's.

They decided some human being were simply "inconvenient."

Perhaps only 80-100 today are deemed as such per year, currently the case in Holland today (or for the last 20 years--and so there is a deliberate MURDER--by Dutch doctors-- of "inconvenient" infants...because society deems it "necessary."

Is that really so different from the deliberate MURDER of 6,000,000 people (mostly Jews) , in the case of the Nazis...because society also deemed it so? Because society deemed they were "unnecessary people?"

Those murdered were generally too old or too young to gain useful work out of them (via Nazi slave labor)...and so their lives were also deemed "not worth living."

AKA: "Inconvenient."

It's an all-to-slippery-slope we slide down, and one with which, we humans should not be so safely trusted.

We are not that far advanced as a species.

To make decisisions like this, IMO, we need the guidance of God.


CS

[Christopher Snow]

Fair enough. Even though we all disagree how it is we arrived here, we also all seem to agree we ARE here at least.

So.

You deal for yourselves. NATO is off the table entirely.

I didn't say it wasn't bankrupt before, btw, I just said we wouldn't keep bleeding ourselves to support it.

Not necessary any longer? Cool! I really do think Obama won't want to keep supporting either (hey....there is one thing I actually AGREE with him on).

And good luck with those Russian tank columns. It's not that we won't WANT to help you....really, we would if we could...

...but we're just too broke.

Tanks, soliders...airplanes....all cost a lot.

What IS relatively cheap to use are NUCLEAR WEAPONS (hey....you let us know what you want to do).

To Paraphrase Obama himself, during the US fiscal crisis: Call me if you need me/Call us if you need us. We also have twelve interceptors somewhere in Poland (you'll remember those twelve defensive weapons--they don't have any offensive warheadds....and you were all protesting them as "uneccassarily provacative").

Hey....'m sure those twelve warheadless missiles alone will be enough to stave off any attack that might come your way (and I'm sure you have the same level of faith too)! :D


CS

[Kaleu_Mihoo]

we also had things like empty shops because of the central distribution of goods and other "pleasures" like that. I really dont't think someone would like - if he had a chance to decide- to live in a country where it was an effort to buy toilet paper or bread and you have to save your whole life to buy a car? But it's kinda difficult to feel when one haven't seen this with one's very eyes... thats the real story about the high ideals of marx & co. :rotfl:

[Catfish]

Hey,

quote from C. Snow:

" ...We are not that far advanced as a species.
To make decisisions like this, IMO, we need the guidance of God. ..."

You and i have obviously a different perception, or idea, of god. If we need a god like you imagine to make decisions like "do not kill babies" in Holland or "do not kill jews" by the Nazis (which b.t.w. cannot at all be compared! :shifty: ) we are indeed not a very advanced spcies.
Ethical behaviour or common sense was not invented by christians, muslims, or any religion, but indeed of people who lived together and - if at all - believed in a lot of gods - you might call them pagans.

Back to the thread ?

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

Fair enough. Even though we all disagree how it is we arrived here, we also all seem to agree we ARE here at least.

So.

You deal for yourselves. NATO is off the table entirely.

I didn't say it wasn't bankrupt before, btw, I just said we wouldn't keep bleeding ourselves to support it.

Not necessary any longer? Cool! I really do think Obama won't want to keep supporting either (hey....there is one thintg I actually AGREE with him on).

Andood luck with those Russian tank columns. It's not that we won't WANT to help you....really, we would if we could...

...but we're just too broke.

Tanks, soliders...airplanes....all cost a lot.

What IS relatively cheap to use are NUCLEAR WEAPONS (hey....you let us know what you want to do).

To Paraphrase Obama himself, during the US fiscal crisis: Call me if you need me/Call us if you need us. We also have twelve interceptors somewhere in Poland (you'll remember those twelve defensive weapons--they don't have any offensive warheadds....and you were all protesting them as "uneccassarily provacative").

Hey....'m sure those twelve warheadless missiles alone will be enough to stave off any attack that might come your way (and I'm sure you have the same level of faith too)! :D


CS
:dead: Don't stress your mind too intensely, it may hurt.

We are not that far advanced as a species.
To make decisisions like this, IMO, we need the guidance of God.
Ask him why he made us this not far advanced species that we are, then. Or better, ask yourself what it tells you about God when this not far advanced species has been made in God's own image (Gen 1,27).

Oh dear, politics and religion in one thread - we all know how this is set to end.

+++ proximity alert +++ destruction is imminent +++ proximity alert +++ destruction is imminent +++ EJECT +++ EJECT +++ EJECT +++

[Christopher Snow]

[/quote] Ask him why he made us this not far advanced species that we are, then. Or better, ask yourself what it tells you about God when this not far advanced species has been made in God's own image (Gen 1,27).[/quote]

All that suggests to me is that he has/had some hopes for us (assuming you believe all that "made in his own image" stuff--I'm rather skeptical about it, quite frankly).

If you want to know what he thinks about it--then YOU ask him! He and I aren't even on decent speaking terms 98% of the time. I don't read the Bible (might have read a few bits just once). :D (shocking but true).

I just happen to recognize that men who operate WITHOUT some guidance from God (and some willingess to listen to him) are generally far worse off (and are far more "devolved" than are those who are at least willing to listen).

Not that I'm so willing to listen myself much of the time.

I just can't help but see that when men WON'T listen, they generally devolve once again, and quite quickly too.

And sometimes they devolve to the point that they actively....and even willingly...begin to hurt their fellow man.


CS

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I just happen to recognize that men who operate WITHOUT some guidance from God (and some willingess to listen to him) are generally far worse off (and are far more "devolved" than are those who are at least willing to listen.


Operating on that logic, if someone sought guidance from Captain Kirk, they'd make better decisions than if they hadn't?

And for that matter, am I devolving because I dont ask a God for guidance in my daily decision making?

In my recollection, people in positions of power who have thought that they have been given 'divine guidance' haven't exactly had the greatest of successes, have they. :hmm:

[Christopher Snow]

I just happen to recognize that men who operate WITHOUT some guidance from God (and some willingess to listen to him) are generally far worse off (and are far more "devolved" than are those who are at least willing to listen.


Operating on that logic, if someone sought guidance from Captain Kirk, they'd make better decisions than if they hadn't?

And for that matter, am I devolving because I dont ask a God for guidance in my daily decision making?

In my recollection, people in positions of power who have thought that they have been given 'divine guidance' haven't exactly had the greatest of successes, have they. :hmm:
Good points, all.

1) Kirk: If the "someone" in question were a starship captain, then yes, I think he or she would be likely to make better decisions after having consulted him.

I think that even stands up logically.

2) Quite possibly yes. Please do note, before I proceed any further, that I, myself, am "guilty*" of the same crime/error almost every day too. In fact, I've probably been "guilty*" of it for longer than you have been--as a "Christian," I, personally, am a collossal failure.

[* I use the word tongue-in-cheek, so don't jump all over me--it's just because I cannot, at the moment, think of one that illustrates the dual concept of "choice"+"responsibility" and any better]

3) Very true. On the whole, (and because, IMO, even our best leaders have rarely been able to keep ego and self-centeredness out of their "talks with God"), a great many leaders HAVE, indeed, failed to succeed.

"Talking to God"...and relying on his wisdom (when it trumps your own) is a very difficult thing to do well--in my own experience (I am very, very poor at prayer), it's almost futile.

But I believe it is, despite all that, STILL the best hope and best path by which man might improve himself and his lot (WITHOUT doing so at the expense of his fellow man).

To put it another way (and I'm sure you've heard this one): "if God did not exist, it would still be necessary for man to invent him."

"Man, left only to his own nature, is just a monster**"

[**don't know if anyone else ever said this, but the last phrase is purely my own. To put it still another way: "I don't trust...US...left only to ourselves."]


CS

[frenzied]

Whatever happened to Church and State being separate?

[August]

Whatever happened to Church and State being separate?

It's as separate as it ever was...

[Christopher Snow]

Whatever happened to Church and State being separate?
I am not suggesting a "recombination of Church and State" be implemented by our government. Not at all.

I am merely suggesting it would be prudent for ANY elected official to consult God, when in doubt (and perhaps even when NOT in doubt too).

Moreover...and especially if you DON'T believe it...why should you then fear a short prayer?

Could it be because some of you actually DO (even if only secretly) believe in God...and do fear what he might "do to you" if given the opportunity? Or what he might suggest to you?

Most of you will, after all, have heard the phrase: "There are no athiests in foxholes...."

-------------

This is one of the reasons I am fond of Governor Palin: She doesn't claim to know all the answers.

Instead, she says will ask for guidance when she feels she needs it. I like that.

I could only wish our other world leaders would actually (and in all sincerity) try to do so too....

If they all did, at least ASK (with open hearts and minds) I do believe this world would be a better place to live in...

...for all of us.


CS

[Bewolf]

Just a little bit of info regarding immidiate Russian attack.

This is the current military budget of the US, the combined EU, Russia and China

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/f692853c21f56dabcf8df86c69aa0a4a.png

EU combined: over 8 million military personal, including reserves. 17.000+ tanks, 4000 combat aircraft of all kinds.

Russia is not doing anything stupid anytime soon. It is not even remotely back to it's cold war capabilities. If you made the choice to live in fear, have fun, but we prefer a bit more realistic outlook on the world.

[Skybird]

Couldn't we leave religions out of all this? where believers make no stand, non-believers must not feel provoked to make an opposing stand - and all the mess we have seen happening in past polit-religious threads - all so often! - could be avoided. Man's belief and relation to what he names as his idol, deity, messiah, whatever, necessarily are most private things, and nothing that must be paraded and shown around in public. It is no fairground attraction you show around, proud and self-rightous. Keep it for yourself, where it belongs.

[Skybird]

Just a little bit of info regarding immidiate Russian attack.

This is the current military budget of the US, the combined EU, Russia and China

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/f692853c21f56dabcf8df86c69aa0a4a.png

EU combined: over 8 million military personal, including reserves. 17.000+ tanks, 4000 combat aircraft of all kinds.

Russia is not doing anything stupid anytime soon. It is not even remotely back to it's cold war capabilities. If you made the choice to live in fear, have fun, but we prefer a bit more realistic outlook on the world.
you know how the games is played - where there is no demons, there is no justification to demand a rise in defense spendings! ;)

what europe needs, is not so much a rise in defense budgets, but a massive restructuring, reorientation and closer supra-national cooperation, and I say: by exclusion of the US. not becausue of some blind anti-Amerricanism, but becasue european and american views of what NATO should be are very different, and because european forces cannot gain the strength and independance from America, what America always demands!, if always relying on american military power. Also, here in europe eurppean interests are different from American interests in europe, both interests only share some things. The problem is that america may want a stronger military in europe, but wants it to be available globally for american policy. It does not want truly independant eurpean forces - of what use would this be for america, if it is not available to america? It would more be a rival, like economically europe already is (f.e. do you think Boeing is happy that Airbus exists?) That's why they pressed so hard to get US-dominated NATO structures into every effort there has ever been for NATO-independant european military structures, it sometimes led to interventions on highest political level. It's not about sharing resources, and greater efficiency. It is about control and influence. In some way, Europe should serve as america's legion etrangere. especially in Afghanistan it was obvious, when they pressed and finally succeeded in NATO officially accepting a military mandate for operations in that country. If you remember, originally NATO had no interest and no role in Afghanistan, it was a purely American war, american and eurppean missions were tried to kept separate. Which probably was a folly in itself, nevertheless. Not before america shifted troops to the war of choice in Iraq and things in Afghanistan detoriated as a consequence of that, NATO was pressed to embark on the mission.

[Bewolf]

Just a little bit of info regarding immidiate Russian attack.

This is the current military budget of the US, the combined EU, Russia and China

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/f692853c21f56dabcf8df86c69aa0a4a.png

EU combined: over 8 million military personal, including reserves. 17.000+ tanks, 4000 combat aircraft of all kinds.

Russia is not doing anything stupid anytime soon. It is not even remotely back to it's cold war capabilities. If you made the choice to live in fear, have fun, but we prefer a bit more realistic outlook on the world. you know how the games is played - where there is no demons, there is no justification to demand a rise in defense spendings! ;)

what europe needs, is not so much a rise in defense budgets, but a massive restructuring, reorientation and closer supra-national cooperation, and I say: by exclusion of the US. not becausue of some blind anti-Amerricanism, but becasue european and american views of what NATO should be are very different, and because european forces cannot gain the strength and independance from America, what America always demands!, if always relying on american military power. Also, here in europe eurppean interests are different from American interests in europe, both interests only share some things. The problem is that america may want a stronger military in europe, but wants it to be available globally for american policy. It does not want truly independant eurpean forces - of what use would this be for america, if it is not available to america? It would more be a rival, like economically europe already is (f.e. do you think Boeing is happy that Airbus exists?) That's why they pressed so hard to get US-dominated NATO structures into every effort there has ever been for NATO-independant european military structures, it sometimes led to interventions on highest political level. It's not about sharing resources, and greater efficiency. It is about control and influence. In some way, Europe should serve as america's legion etrangere. especially in Afghanistan it was obvious, when they pressed and finally succeeded in NATO officially accepting a military mandate for operations in that country. If you remember, originally NATO had no interest and no role in Afghanistan, it was a purely American war, american and eurppean missions were tried to kept separate. Which probably was a folly in itself, nevertheless. Not before america shifted troops to the war of choice in Iraq and things in Afghanistan detoriated as a consequence of that, NATO was pressed to embark on the mission.

Nothing to add to that, sums it up pretty nicely.

[Bewolf]

Man's belief and relation to what he names as his idol, deity, messiah, whatever, necessarily are most private things, and nothing that must be paraded and shown around in public. It is no fairground attraction you show around, proud and self-rightous. Keep it for yourself, where it belongs.
That's interesting, isn't your deity your socalled "intellect" and don't you parade it around without pause? Proud and self-righteous? :roll: You should leave off hitting on people's religon.

Intellect hardly is a deity. If at all, intellect is more real then the world surrounding you, as it is your intellect making sense of the world. Without intellect, the concept of a deity would never have been invented in the first place. Or the lack thereoff, whatever you decide fits you better.

[Skybird]

Man's belief and relation to what he names as his idol, deity, messiah, whatever, necessarily are most private things, and nothing that must be paraded and shown around in public. It is no fairground attraction you show around, proud and self-rightous. Keep it for yourself, where it belongs.

That's interesting, isn't your deity your socalled "intellect" and don't you parade it around without pause? Proud and self-righteous? :roll: You should leave off hitting on people's religon.
Hm, thought I heared something. Must have been the wind...

[Letum]

Man's belief and relation to what he names as his idol, deity, messiah, whatever, necessarily are most private things, and nothing that must be paraded and shown around in public. It is no fairground attraction you show around, proud and self-rightous. Keep it for yourself, where it belongs.
That's interesting, isn't your deity your socalled "intellect" and don't you parade it around without pause? Proud and self-righteous? :roll: You should leave off hitting on people's religon.
He's not 'hitting on' your religion. He is just saying that you should keep it to your
self and those that hold similar beliefs and not try to impose it on others.
As for SB's deity of beliefs, so far I know he holds various beliefs, but, naturally, he
keeps them to him self.
However unhumble he may or may not be in his stance on more worldly topics, that
is a very different set of issues from spiritual side of life.

[castorp345]

Perhaprs, but even without intellect, a deity could still exist.

that's true.

the great Flying Spaghetti Monster is definitely watching-out over us all with His Noodly Appendage, even those kooky red states!

:arrgh!:

:88)

[caspofungin]

i don't know about mankind, but this thread hass certainly devolved.

[Digital_Trucker]

i don't know about mankind, but this thread hass certainly devolved.

Amen

[Letum]

i don't know about mankind, but this thread hass certainly devolved.

How so?

It doesn't seam in that much of a bad state.
There have certainly been worse in GT!