why hate socialism?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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...?

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]

Originally Posted by 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...?

Thank you for that bit of naivete. 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.

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... 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. 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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

No powerful minority is dictating anything.

To quote the Das Boot captain - "Not yet kameraden, not yet!"

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.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Thank you for that bit of naivete. 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.

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!

[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

[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.