NationStates Jolt Archive

My country is new to the UN, so we do not know how we should lay out our proposals.

The Holy Republic of Seriphyn is proposing a free health service, one that would be paid for by people's taxes.

Why should you pay to save your life? You will always have enough money for a life-saving operation by paying for it via taxes.

Taxes are paid via how much you earn so you don't need to be rich to get your leg fixed for example.

This lightens the load on people who need to work hard to earn money to cure a disease running in their family. In many third-world countries, people have to work 24/7 to earn just enough money to cure their children of diseases that ravage this Earth.

As I said, I am new to the United Nations, so I would appreciate if someone who supports this idea back it up.

This has the support of the United Socialist States of Vanua. We believe that it would be an excellent way to alieviate suffering. But, we would like to know how much tax would go to this programme, the people of the USSV, for example already pay a 36% income tax, mainly directed at social welfare, education and helathcare. How much would this cost?

The best way to write a proposal is get together your thoughts on the subject, write a draft, and post it here to defend it and let people help you improve it. Like so.

My people also pay an oppresive tax rate of 48% which I hope to lower over time (foreign help requested, please telegram).

We will divide the tax between the seperate demographic needs, but healthcare will receive a larger division as, in our opinion, is the most important. The healthier, the happier.

The problem presented here is that countries with a lower income tax will get a less funded healthcare service, unless the people are highly paid.

However, this problem can be fixed by having a high population to pay for it.

Unfortunately, if a country has a low population, low income tax and low salaries is presented with problems.

Therefore, revenue could be paid by corporations in the country. The revenue would be high, but not too high to damage the company.

Perhaps supporters could rectify this problem better then we are proposing.

Best regards,

Sebastian Pepperell
President of the Holy Republic of Seriphyn

As a strictly socialist nation, Voroziniya firmly supports this ideal. However, I think that free healthcare should not be guaranteed to all citizens, but rather to all working citizens and their household families, as well as only to taxpaying workers, so that lazi bums who contribute nothing to the state, including taxes, do not get such a benefit.

Although I already support this proposal, may I ask where the funds are being cut to fund this idea with tax money? Is it the police force? Education? Military?

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

"...so that *lazy* bums..."

I find this an honorable idea, and support the idea of public health care.

I have a problem with it though.

If this were to pass, it would bring down all of the private health care companies, and leave thousands of people unemployed.

It's a good idea, but at what cost?

To answer the USSV's question, the budget from the military will be cut to support the free health service. The health of the people is more important than trying to kill each other with the latest military technology.

And what would happen to private health companies? 'Assimilation' into the government's health service may help fix the problem, but it might be undemocratic.

What are your opinions about the assimilation of private health care workers into the state health service?

I believe that if this law is passed, these people will not lose their jobs as private healthcare workers, but simply focus less on competition and more on the common goal--health. Perhaps they would make slightly less off of tax money, but the measure of a doctor's profit (which like all skilled careers is already comfortable) is not more vital to the people than health.

Oh, boo-hoo, maybe a little capitalism will go. But capitalism, as you will soon see, can be lethal and viceful to the majority of society; the prolitariat, the workers, the middle-class.

My only opinion, as I stated before, is that this service only be offered to the household families of loyal taxpayers. That must be specified. I withdraw my previous opinion that only workers should be allowed this privilidge as well.

I agree with the cut from Military funding, but you can't take all of the funds from the military. As health is perhaps the most important investment in social welfare, perhaps certain aspects of social welfare should be cut, e.g. construction, unemployment welfare (For the record, I speak on behalf of all Socialist nations when I say that welfare for the unemployed should be abolished. We defend the working class, which means they have to WORK.).

Good luck with the passing of the proposal!

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

The Most Holy City of Epopolis' residents pay a very high tax rate also, topping out at 100% at one point in time, but being that we are a socially minded theocracy whose universal health care supports our entire reigons religous pilgrims and devout faithful. Our permanent residents don't see this as an issue, because they comprise of clergy, and so are already devoted to our nation, as it is the holy site of our holy Catholicistism.

However, seeing as this is not the case for most nations, Epopolis does not support this proposal, because it feels it is the right of a nation to determine how it's citizens will be cared for. We also do not endorse the proposal for it's simplistic and naive language. (Note: Sorry to sound harsh, my nation is a harsh place, and I do my UN work In Character)

I don't believe that preserving the freedom to abuse your citizens is a fair trade off for many, many innocent deaths due to lack of healthcare. I think that although it will always be existant in some horrible nations, we should take a stand and try to stop it instead of sitting idly by and letting other nations bleed simply because you choose to be indecisive.

I also cannot believe how naive you must be to refuse something based on its language. If your going to be so immature he can always refine the language.

Finally your morality and the presence of a strong theocracy are contradictory. Although I am a firm atheist, wouldn't your supposed lord, jesus, trade-off freedom for life?

Nations who give up and dont even fight for such a life-saving cause are weak and unworthy of consideration by active UN nations.

The United Socialist (atheist) States of Voriziniya

Let me, specify, the citizens of my nation are all clergy, who are willing dedicated to the Lord. I see no contradiction, in that the clergy in Epopolis need no money because they are supported by the charity of the faithful, which is untaxed. In other words, the clergy work for free in devotion to the Lord, but have a great deal of freedom and spending cash, due to the generosity of my reigon's other nations, and many faithful pilgrims.

Also, I was just pointing out that my nation does offer free health care, and that it works for us due to our unique circumstances. I clearly mentioned that I do not believe our system would work for most. There is no trade-off going on, between health care and freedom.

Theocracy does not mean little freedom or a bad government. You seem to support the "Holy Republic" that proposed this idea.

Vorozinyia, I delight in your debate and am glad to see that you are so interesting in the affairs of the people of Epopolis. Also, I was merely saying that the rather abstract wording of the proposal is open to abuse by other nations, who may give sub-standard care, which may cause more harm than good, and also because UN proposals are not merely "ideas" they are law. For example, I support the idea of Universal Health Care, but I believe it's a nation's choice, and I do not support this law for the aforementioned reasons.

Thank you.

Obviously my response was not read carefully--your end statement is exactly was I was trying to convince you out of. It should NOT be the nation's choice. You and I both know how this idea works, and aren't you willing to spread its great influence to other nations?

Isn't trading-off some national freedoms for a broader range of healthcare?

And finally, although I FIRMLY disagree with a theocracy I was not critisising it, and if my reference to Jesus as your "supposed Lord" offended you than I take it back. I simply think that the UN has to take a stand for something right and not let nations hurt themselves by not being affected by this resolution.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Your free health care is an excellent idea I must say and I myself have already proposed two separate pieces of legislation to bring about some much needed reforms in the medical industry. The first would be free health insurance. This would preserve the private sector of the medical industry but still allow the poor to get the life-saving care that they need from the best doctors available. This, I believe, is a much safer and more effective route to travel for the free health care system. If you read my proposal, you will discover some of the other added benefits of the system.

To complement that idea, I have also submitted a second proposal to the UN that would limit the rewards for "pain and suffering" in medical malpractice lawsuits so as to stop the rising costs of medical malpractice insurance. While the poor and the patients do need their free health care, many talented individuals have swayed away from the health industry due to this rising cost to practice it versus the amount of money they could make in other fields. This hurts the people as a whole as the best potential doctors don't go into the medical field as they seek a more money-making alternative. Also, seeing as it is almost impossible to set up a practice without malpractice insurance these days, it only seems fit that the doctors can get a break from the constant threat of being sued for 25 million dollars every day so that they can focus more on taking care of their patients and less on how to pay for their malpractice insurance.

My fellow politicians, do you know when this proposal will actually be passed?

Perhaps we should summarise,

A free health service, paid for by people's taxes. The taxes are divided by the seperate demographic needs, where healthcare receives a larger division.

Budget from the military will be cut, but not a lot to hurt it, to fund the free health service.

Private health care workers will take up jobs in the state health service and focus on the common goal.

This one we have not decided on, but corporations could pay revenue to support the service.

Best regards,

Sebastian Pepperell
President of the Holy Republic of Seriphyn

[out character: it is 'holy' because seriphyn was based off 'seraph' which means angel. just because a country is called democratic republic doesn't mean its democratic. look at the congo for example.]

You asked:

Why should you pay to save your life? You will always have enough money for a life-saving operation by paying for it via taxes.



So help me out on this question:

Why should you pay for food: If that would come out of taxes too, hey, nobody would be hungry anymore, right?

I think, free healthcare is a BAD IDEA.

People SHOULD be very aware, that healthcare costs money. Making it free thru taxing, I can tell you, this will lead to a horific misuse and inefficiency of general funds. Come and have a look in some European countries.

Healthcare should be accesable to everyone, I agree to that. But FREE?

NO WAY.

Everyone has the right to food: yet we find it very very normal to pay for that ourselves...

Having "the right to healthcare" does not mean it should be free.

Can I please see an actual clear cut draft on this ? I am some-what concerned by the idea of the U.N. forcing national governments to have free-health care. And tax their people for it. Some of us want to keep our taxes down, you know, evil pro-capitalism, pro-privitisation and all that, ;)

In fact, I am pretty sure there is an N.S. national issue that covers national health and all that, and lets you privitise it, nationalise it, or other-ise it.

I'm some-what afraid while this is a nice idea, it just does not seem to suit alot of N.S.U.N. members, not everybody likes the idea of oppressive taxes and government run this, that, and everything. Sorry, but thats the way it is. I should know, CCS - Father Knows Best pendulum my nation is :D.

I hope you'll take my concerns on board and review the issues list on the " Got Issues ? " forum. Thanks. :)

Vrydom, I DO believe in such necessities guaranteed to all taxpaying workers. I am a socialist, and I feel it is necissary to uphold Marx's statement, "Each according to their ability, each according to their need." This is the only way to end poverty, and furthermore end the opression of the workers who get so little merely because their funds are b eing stolen by the ruling class.

If it were up to me, food, clothing, shelter, furniture, electricity, plumbing, water, insurance, and healthcare would be guaranteed free to all workers, and that all workers would receive and equal share with any additions if a worker has special needs. This is certainly a step towards socialism. If you absolutely must be so naive as to believe that the dominance of the ruling class opressors is the only way to succeed, I urge you to contact me and we can discuss the topic further.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Oh, I don't know whether this has already been pointed out to you (or if you've found it on your own since), but this thread may be of use to you in the future:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342360

Anyway. Mattikistan supports its own free -- and rather effective -- healthcare system, and would like for every nation to have one eventually. However, we also recognise that some schemes such as this may not work for everyone due to economic constraints, and that it should be left to the government of each country to decide. Perhaps the only way you could really make this proposal work would either be to make it optional (essentially useless, for any government who wants a healthcare system and can afford one will already have one), or to spend an unnecessary amount of time drafting up conditions.

For this reason, we will not vote FOR this proposal (if it gets that far -- we are not a Delegate nation). I'm sorry; we recognise the benefits of free healthcare too, but we simply do not believe it could be effectively applied to EVERY SINGLE nation in the UN without causing some serious economical problems -- ultimately making some of them worse off than they already are.

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Confederacy of Mattikistan

We have thought of the basics such as food should be free, but it falls dangerously close to socialism (nothing against the USSV) which is not what we're aiming for. But then again, this proposal is part-socialist.

Unfortanetly, this proposal is unlikely to get passed, as I am not a delegate and their are not enough nations in my region to get endorsed enough. Perhaps British leaders could move to the British Isles?

Holy Republic of Seriphyn Foreign Office

You can believe what you please, don't misunderstand me. If it works for you and your nation, that is fine.

It does by no means justify that others will have to follow that belief as well, by forcing it on them thru a UN resolution or proposal.

There is not justification to force socialist ways to other UN members; I not only resent the idea of free healthcare, I resent it even more if UN resolutions force it upon other UN members. This is local stuff.

Furthermore:
If you give people things for free, they loose the value of it. If you feed wild animals everyday, they stop hunting.

I strongly believe, that socialism is NOT the answer in the long run. It paralises your society. People need things that challange them, or they will stop working for it. Socialism may work in theory, it does not work in reality and I live in a country that is expiriencing that right now. People start talking about their rights and FORGET their duties. They claim more than they give.

JF Kennedy once said:
Don't ask what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

I think it applies here as well.

I fully support people having a right to be able to get healthcare. I resent it being for free. You can't let it out of your sight and mind, that healthcare is very very expensive. Nobody gives away something expensive when it comes to their own possessions. Why would you wanna give away healthcare?

How is it moral to demand that one human being involuntarily sacrifice the fruits of his labor for the sake of another with nothing in return? Imagine we all live in an apartment building. I live in apartment A, you live in B, and some old lady lives in C. The lady in C gets sick. She calls you up. "Can you buy me some medicine?" "Sure," you say. You give her some pills and she starts to feel better, but then the effect of those pills goes away and she is sick again.

She calls you again. "Can you buy me some medicine?" "I'm sorry, ma'am, but I can't afford it anymore." You drop by my apartment and ask if I might be able to help the old lady. "Sure," I say, and I buy her the next bottle of pills. She takes these, and starts to feel better, but eventually the effect wears off and she is sick again.

You drop by my apartment again asking me to help the old woman. "I'm sorry, I can't," I reply. "Money has become real tight, my car broke down, my wife is sick, my kids need new shoes, and I have my other obligations to look after."

You tell this to the old woman, who replies, "Hell, he's got tons of money! Just take it from him!"

At that point, do you have the right to point a gun in my face and take my money to buy that woman her pills? Absolutely not.

In that example, the person in apartment A is the taxpayer. In B is the government, and in C are those whose life decisions prevent them from affording their own healthcare. Does the government have the right to forcefully take money from the taxpayer to pay for someone else's healthcare? Absolutely not.

Your apartment analasys is completely untrue. Doctors are compensated for their work, as you would be for buying the pills, through TAX MONEY. The public to whom the healthcare applies PAYS THE TAXES THAT GO PARTIALLY TO THE HEALTHCARE SERVICE, the old lady would be paying you for buying the pills. Therefore, the doctors are being compensated, by the people. It is just that people already pay taxes, why should they pay more for healthcare when it can be covered by taxes?

Healthcare can only be guaranteed to all citizens if it is paid by taxes. It is the same with all other services that we feel must be guaranteed, education (public schools), law enforcement, construction, and the firefighting force. And, if health cab arguable be the most vital and important thing a human can have, why should it cost anything?

Socialism is not working without compensation. Socialism is not receiving work without a price. It simply takes away from corrupt capitalism and guarantees equality to all workers and rulers. It is basically forcing people to be wealthy and work for it, if you had to put it in capitalist terms, but that gives it a negative spin.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

We agree with Richardelphia's scenario.

As we said before, in many 3rd world countries, people have to work 24/7 in dangerous mines, and maybe their children too, to get just enough money to cure their dying mother.

Hell, the sick might even have to work to earn money for themselves.

You may take the United Kingdom as being a bad example for having bad free health service. But remember, communism didn't work, but how about communism under a democratic state?

Something to think about.

Holy Republic of Seriphyn Foreign Office

COMMUNISM IS DEMOCRATIC --STALINISM ISNT. STALINISM CLAIMS TO BE A SYSTEM OF COMMUNISM BUT REALLY ISNT. COMMUNISM IS MARXISM, AND MARX SAID THAT DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM WERE MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVEN EQUALITY, ALTHOUGH EQUALITY IS IMPORTANT AS WELL. THE USSR, AND MOST OTHER USSR-INFLUENCED NATIONS, WERE PRIMARILY STALINIST, NOT TRUE COMMUNIST.

I am becoming rather impatient with all the confusion and misconceptions about communism.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

We agree that healthcare should be free to all.

However, we don't see any definitions of what 'healthcare' consists of. Do psychiatrists fall under this heading? They provide a health servide as essential to quality-of-life (and social productivity) as the local doctor who cures a a case of the 'flu or an STD. Do gyms, yoga classes, nutritional therapists, osteopaths and so on count? They undoubtedly contribute significantly to health, but many would consider them a luxury. What about cosmetic surgeons? Some of them provide an essential service to, e.g., burn victims; they also provide an utterly unnecessary luxury in the form of vanity surgery: facelifts, liposuction and surgery to allow women who've destroyed their feet with high heels to destroy them with high heels some more.

You see my point?

Any proposal so wide-reaching needs definite limits. If you go and read the existing UN resolutions, you'll see that there are already several guaranteeing minimal health protections of certain kinds. While we despise any nation which would be so amoral as to cast their citizens adrift and leave them in a state where even the majority of productive workers live in fear of what will happen to them if they incur too high a medical bill, (and if you catch something nasty just as the economy slumps slightly... heaven help you), we see a definite need for 'healthcare' to be defined in clearer terms than are currently on the table. We don't want to be hit up for someone to realign their chakras through crystal-healing. You dig?

There are strict limitations to the free health service. Anything is cosmetic will cost you. As you said, Recochipe, cosmetic surgery is a needless luxury but to the people who feel the need it, it will cost. Dearly.

The health service will only be for 'life-saving' issues, such as an operation, AIDs/HIV etc.

Gyms etc. will cost the people. We understand exercise IS crucial, but not life-saving. They could always go out and jog round the block, for example.

Perhaps the gyms and cosmetic surgeries could be state-controlled as an alternate source for retrieving money for the health service. But this might be undemocratic as it does not give people the choice for what service they want. They could pay revenue to the state however.

One final note. Communism may be free, but we do not believe it is as free as capitalism. You are given no money to 'make it big' and are always given the same food as everyone else. You walk outside and you see row after row of the same houses and think 'I want to be better then this'. But you can't.

My philosophy with the Capitalism/Communism arguement.

Capitalism: Freedom
Communism: Equality

Either way, your people might want to experience the other system. I know I do.

Here's a true story.

A communist general was taken to the US. He was shown the different stores you could shop from. He thought it was all a set-up so he was taken inside the stores and saw people buying food that they wanted. He then loved the idea of this 'capitalism'.

However, with capitalism, the system is rather weak. A business crashes and it causes a 'domino effect'. The Wall Street Crash was a perfect example. Also, the poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer.

This is getting off the topic on hand. So let's just accept the differences.

Holy Republic of Seriphyn Foreign Office

A decent explanation - but one that needs to be incorporated into the actual proposal.

Further, 'life-saving' is kind of a crude term. A patient may require an incredibly expensive operation that will save his life, but only for a matter of weeks before his condition inevitably deteriorates and he dies. Under this legislation, a health service would be forced to pay out a massive sum to briefly extend the suffering of one bedridden individual - money that could have been better spent on treatment that might not be life-saving, but could make the difference between life in a wheelchair and full physical capability. You see the problem? Healthcare is about more than a single objective to save life, and governments who objected to having to comply could easily shift the burden to people whose lives weren't threatened but whose quality of life was.

! SHA - BAM !

" #48: Give Us Healthcare or Give Us Death! [Dictator Amanda; ed:Reploid Productions] "

As you may guess, there is a NATIONAL ISSUE which deals with this quite well. It gives us three options, which should surely make most people happy. This in mind, I fail currently to see the need for this as a U.N. proposal.

The Issue
A large group of @@NAME@@'s uninsured citizens have petitioned the government to provide a universal healthcare system, citing the poor health of many low and middle-class workers. Some of the more vocal of them are threatening violence if something isn't done.

The Debate
1. "A universal healthcare system would provide everyone with the same quality healthcare the more wealthy and well-insured currently receive," says recently laid-off citizen and civil rights activist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Sure, taxes would probably have to increase a bit. But isn't it worth it to provide our lower-class citizens with the same opportunities the upper-class citizens have?"

2. "Are you all INSANE? This will ruin the health insurance business and drive up unemployment rates," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, head of the largest insurance provider in @@NAME@@. "If everyone working for their health insurance could suddenly get it free, there would be fewer jobs filled. It would get worse for everyone involved. The government should investigate the motives of these troublemaking 'protestors', instead!"

3. "Why do we have to choose either radical option?" says your Secretary of Health, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Couldn't we just provide limited basic healthcare for our citizens and have major operations covered by private health insurance? It would be more affordable and the poor would suffer less than they do under the current system."

Capitalism: Freedom
Communism: Equality



Capitalism gives you the freedom to make your own choices, yet it will (and should) force you to accept the consequences of those choices.

Communism/socialism forces you to accept other peoples choice, no matter how bad or stupid they were, and forces you to help them pay for the consequences.

I cannot see anything "right" about that.

The appartment building story is very good.

Noone or nothing gives anyone the right to steal my money and give it away to those who were not able to make choices in their life to deal with their own problems or risks they encounter. Nothing is FREE.

Sure, the third world exploits people: the crime here being the fact that people are more or less forced to work for hardly any money, making it like slavery. That still does not justufy, you can fight it with another crime: stealing from the rich to give it to the poor.
Set minimum wages if you feel workers deserve a minimum wage. That's fine.

The main issue however is: IS THIS A UN ISSUE?
NO: deal with it in your own nation. No matter how 'RIGHT' you think you are, you have no right to demand other UN nations act the same way.

Well it appears your lack of knowledge for the issue is much dangerously greater than I had thought.

Communism doesn't force you to accept other people's ideas. Communism is pro-democracy and pro-freedom, and people can have their own ideas. It isn't exactly equal in every aspect. People do not live in the same houses, eat the same food, and think the same thoughts. Although that is what many anti-communist allegory novels will try to communicate, it isn't true. Communism only allows for economic and social equality, not the complete annihalation of individuality. On another extreme, it isn't Stalinism. Stalinism is a horrible, anti-democratic dictatprship and mockery of true communism. Too many lies have gone on, saying that communism IS Stalinism. Stalin claimed to be a communist, but Marx [the inventor of communism, for those duller readers out there] specifically said that democracy is more important than anything--even equality.

The only difference between communism's economy, socialism, and capitalism, is that in capitalism workers are directly affected by OTHER'S CHOICES, for better or for worse. If a manager decides to be greedy and take away worker's wages, he can do that. If a company decides to buy out the others and put them out of buisness and on the streets, they can do that. In socialism, every worker is independant but works for th group, as opposed to capitalism in which workers and dependant on other's actions, yet work merely for personal gain, or personal gain of their manager.

So, in a way, socialism is slightly less free, yet much more equal.

You say that with a negative spin, however. You do not understand that some freedoms MUST be sacraficed for equality. Socialism does not make people slaves, it simply forbids people to control the wages and business of others, and allows the workers to be equal.

Remember, freedom in its purest form is anarchy, so it will always be restricted somewhat. And what is capitalism if not anarchy in economy?

I call desperately on any socialist and leftist nations to educate the masses and cleanse the UN of such preposteros lies, of communism controlling everyone's ideas.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Wonder WHO did not understand...

Noone gives any socialist - whatever you call yourself is not important - the right to steal from the wealthy to give to the poor. You cannot fight what you consider a crime by committing another one.

What need is there to be equal? why take away challanges? But most of all, why denie anyone a part of their freedom and take away what is rightfully theirs?

Yes, capitalism allows people to make bad choices. What you should look for is a way to make sure that each individual will be held responsible for the consequences of those choices.
That does not mean that everyone can do as they please. It means, that you will be held responsible for what you do.

Yes, I said it in a negative spin: In real life, there is plenty of proof that socialism paralises your society. Humans are just like animals in many ways, and this I do not say with a negative spin or disrespectful: it is natural to stop chasing something if it's been given to you.

Socialism supports what I call the Robin Hood theorie: steal from the rich and give that to the poor: Yet noone denies that stealing is wrong.

If a society has not given everyone equal OPPORTUNITIE, than one should debate THAT. I believe every individual deserves equal opportunitie to achieve wealth and happyness. I believe in freedom of choice. But I also believe, that this inevitably means that the results of our opportunities and our choices will not lead to BEING EQUAL. And there is NO REASON it should lead to that, because it takes away the challange.

If a society has many poor people, one should try and find the reasons for this. The reasons will undoubtedly have much more to do with not having had the same opportunities that others did have. No opportunity to a decent education or no opportunity to learn skills. Than find a way to offer everyone equal oppertunities, the challange however being to do that without stealing from another and taking away what is rightfully theirs. Finally, accept that we are not equal.
So: equal opportunity: yes, equal result: NO

If I work hard and make $ 1000 a week because of that, give me one good reason why I should give some of that away to someone who does not work hard and makes half of that. Provided we both had equal opportunity to start out with, I deserve to make more if I have worked harder than the other person. That doesn't make the other person 'poor' or pitiful. His financial position reflects his choices. There is noone saying he MUST work as hard as me, but it will mean he is not EQUAL in his salary.

I call it 'right'. If you call it capitalism, that's fine too.
I call desperately on all socialists to start thinking about this.

This is the way I understand it:

CAPITALISM is the realization that people who work harder and do things better merit greater reward. You do a good job, you get good money. True enough.

SOCIALISM is the realization that not all people have the same opportunities, circumstances, and abilities. And that people shouldn't be punished for things outside of thir control. A noble enough concept, and based in just as much truth as capitalism.

These two competing ideas need to find some middle ground if there is to be any sense of both equality and entrepenuerial spirit. I'd like to have both present in my nation's economy.

I agree with this proposal, but the only people who pay taxes and work..so I am agreeing with Voroziniya if I am correct

This is the way I understand it:

CAPITALISM is the realization that people who work harder and do things better merit greater reward. You do a good job, you get good money. True enough.

SOCIALISM is the realization that not all people have the same opportunities, circumstances, and abilities. And that people shouldn't be punished for things outside of thir control. A noble enough concept, and based in just as much truth as capitalism.

These two competing ideas need to find some middle ground if there is to be any sense of both equality and entrepenuerial spirit. I'd like to have both present in my nation's economy.


Capitalisim proves that different input give you different results

We can only call ourselves truly civilized if we create an environment in which everyone has the same freedom of choice and thus have equal opportunity in achieving what we set out to. I agree to anyone, that reality is still far from that idea. I think THAT, however, is a challange politicians have not yet recognized.

Socialism takes a shortcut to that goal, using unjust arguments. I see it as the easy way, with short term win and long term loss. It takes away our challanges. If there's no dream to chase, why would I work harder than strictly nescesary?
We need to accept, that there is no need for equality: there is need for the respect of labor with decent wages, true enough. There is need for respect of workers on all levels. There is need for creating equal opportunity, so that 'raggs to riches' does not remain a dream for some. I will support that.
Socialism suggests, that that dream is a dirty one. There is nothing wrong with making (a lot of) money in an honest way. I like that dream. It creates challanges and those challanges have lead to progress.

Well thanks a lot for reading my replies, vrydom...

Socialism gives you a dream, the dream of having anything. Not working will get you nothing, only working to certain standards will give you your assets.

Additionally, I'd like you to explain why you believe socialism is a shortcut with long-term loss? Because it sacrafices certain freedoms to eliminate oppression, unemployment, and poverty?

There is nothing wrong with making (a lot of) money in an honest way.

As a socialist, I have no problem with people becoming personally wealthy as a result of their own, honest labours.

I have a serious problem with them becoming wealthy through inheritance, market manipulation, unethical practises and the exploitation of other people's hard work. All people should start out equal, and have equal expectations of what happens if they fail completely. What they then do with that should be up to them.

That said, I believe that what happens if you fail completely should be relatively kind, out of concerns of basic humanity. When you work, you should do so because you want to better yourself, because you enjoy your work, because it does good for other people, and so on: what I call 'positive concerns'. Nobody should have to work, as many people I know do, out of terror about what will happen to them if they become unemployed. Unemployment shouldn't be a land of milk and honey - but it shouldn't be the valley of the shadow of death.

I fully agree.

If someone fails, having had his opportunities, we should not let them without any help, but I do believe they are responsible for their own choice and cannot claim to be helped for nothing; Once lifted from a dead end situation, there is no reason why society can't ask for something return.
It is not supposed to be easy if you screw up. Those who do set examples for others.
Failing because of circumstances beyond your control is a different thing though.
I'm not saying it's wrong to help others. On the contrary:
What I mean to say is:
No matter what your choices, good or bad, you have to accept responsibility for them. You can only "blame" another, if that other is actually responsible for your misfortune.

Right, so you're saying its better people fail than be discouraged not to.... even if it means criminal offenses.

You believe certain life choices are more important than people being successful and possibly saved from a life of misery and unemployment...

Thats just illogical.

I cannot promise you a world that is trouble free. Noone can, and anyone saying he could is either naiv or stupid.
I am looking for a world, that has justice and opportunity, accesable for all.
I strongly believe that not matter what form of government or political stand taken by it, you will never have a perfect world.

I strongly feel, that each individual should have freedom of choice. A freedom only limited by limiting or denying the same freedom of another indvidual, therefore not unlimited.
That said, everyone has to accept the consequences of their own choices. One can never demand others thru a government initiated law to help solve the problems caused by poor judgement or poor choices.
That may not give us the "best world to live in", I will agree to that. The question is, will it be a fair world.

In my country (real life) we have a socialist environment. We have government ruled unemployement and welfare systems as well as a government controled healthcare system. Because the government is spending more than it gets in tax revenues, the conditions of the social security system get worse every year and the costs rise every year. It's like an insurance with less coverage each year, yet increasing premiums each year. This leaves us with sky high taxes and we STILL have to pay most of the care we need, because the government takes away things the insurance covers.

I favor a free enterprise system; I will support anyone, that sais insurance to cover unemployement or healthcare is a good idea. OF COURSE IT IS!!!
What is a bad idea, is that a government rules it. Why not simply leave it to free enterprise; let companies compete to get their clients, give the people something to choose from. The conditions of the 'insurance' will be the result of a business contract and not of political wishfull thinking OR politcal poor management. Good competition gives you a good price/quality ratio.
The governments job is not to BE the 'insurance company' but to ensure that we all go by the same - fair - rules. Cut taxes significantly and people will have options what insurance company gives them the best deal. If you don't spend more than half of your income on taxes, you HAVE the recources to do so as you please.

This is exactly why I said, socialism is short term win and long term loss; Of course it's a good idea to have some assurance that you don't die of hunger when you live in a western country and you loose your job. However, I have never yet seen a government in a socialist country able to perform GOOD management. All socialist countries expirience the same problem: political choices make the government spend much more than the revenues let them; Meaning less service, more taxes (costs). Meaning that a we are not getting RICHER, we are getting poorer by the year because government needs more of our money to fill their budget wholes. Once you're on that train, it's hard to stop. Wasn't the original idea to all be BETTER of? Are we achieving that?

Furthermore: I still strongly believe, that people loose sight of what is really important. I can give you plenty of real life examples:
Devorced mother, two kids, has a wellfare check every week; Wants to go back to work, because she feels socially isolated. Looks for a 20 hrs a week job. Finds out her wellfare check will be cut in half when she finds one. Meaning: whether or not she does work 20 hours a week, her weekly income is unchanged. Do you honestly believe she will go to work if noone forces her? OF COURSE NOT (and I don't blame HER, I blame the system).
Again, short term win, long term loss; The government costs are not going down. Mother is still socially isolated, which can never be something a socialist government favors! Society is supporting these people, because socialist governments told it it had to. Anyone will understand, that once a society has individuals like that, things will only get worse. It happens very slowly, but it comes into your society: people loose sight of what their obligations are but I can asure you, they know what their rights are.

It's become so bad in my RL country, that employers (unable to fire workers as they were protected under many socialist laws preventing it) could more easily 'get rid of workers' to have them classified as disabled (long term illness or invalidity) than to fire them so they were force to find a new job. And I'm not saying firing should be EASY, not even in economic downfall - specially caused by mismanagement. As for now, we have almost 10% of our workforce sitting home, categorised as disabled workers, collecting 70% of their last earned salary. Most of them working 'on the side' (black labor market); Finding a new legitimate job is very hard, because being 'disabled' is a negative brand no employer cares to take in! Everyone knows it, noone willing to identify the problem. A politician doing that will be immidiately classified as EXTREME RIGHT WING.
Two years ago we had one; He was shot to death. He was only simply identifying these problems and said: we need to solve them if we want to keeping being able to afford a system like this.

Therefore, I often quote a former US president with the line:
Government doens't solve the problem; Government IS the problem.

Some people tell me: if the government doesn't initiate these social securities, noone will.
I do not believe that; if there is a demand for them, there will be entepreneurs to offer them. If there's one, there will be more. Because in a free economic world, we are challanged by competition and that is great.
Let's say - in a doom scenario - that those people are right and there will be no entepreneur offering them; Than we should question whether there was a demand in the first place!

Another dilemma: will everyone be smart enough to get the right insurances?
No, I don't think so. So people learn from their own mistakes. Better yet, people learn from the mistakes others make.
Do we leave those with NO help?
I hope not. Didn't we say we were civilized?

Oh, boo-hoo, maybe a little capitalism will go. But capitalism, as you will soon see, can be lethal and viceful to the majority of society; the prolitariat, the workers, the middle-class.
Now we're back to acting as if there is an international prolitariat waiting to rise up and declare that they want socialism.

The fact is that people would thier jobs if the health insurance industry were taken over by the government. All the advertising/marketing people would be the first to go. Then some of the rank and file would be trimed, as the industry would become more efficient, with all the best ideas from the industry combining.

I'm all for a basic public health care program, but I firmly believe that many of the workers, the middle-class, the "prolitariat" would then find themselves helpless.

As for capitalism going, I would doubt it. It's slowly working it's way into China as we speak.

Taxes ?...... Citizens of the Dominion of New Virgina don't pay taxes and health care is provided by your employer and if you dont have an employer the chances are good that you are being deported as we speak. Our budget is financed by a small corporate tax rate of 5% and the 5% tariff on imports. We decline to support ANY type of tax except in a time of war and will refuse any such infringement on our national sovereignty.
Roderick UPS
Ambassador of New Virgina
Minister of Information
Overlord of the Louisville Protectorate
Vox Populi, Voz Dei :sniper:

AH FINALLY!!!!!! Finally somebody thinks like me. Here in Aelov we fully support this resolution. We pay a 100% income tax here and money has been abolished for hundreds of years. We have a 1% military budget here though and i don't think we can cut it much lower.

This program would help out thousands of people who can't afford to pay the medical costs of a life saving operation. It would save thousands of people and would subsidize the medical insurance industry while your at it =).

And for people who argue and say well why would i work harder in socialism if i don't get paid more. Well look at it this way. Well hell i wouldn't work either if buisinesses were public. I'd just say screw it and slack off. But if buisnisses were subsidized into the government then thats diffrent. If the government owned all buisnisses i would give it 110%. The reason for this is that the better you do your job, the better the products the government can produce or services give. Now if everybody worked that hard for the common good of the people and state, then you'd have a very nice country. You'd have to instill a fierce patriotism in your people though.

Aelov:
What you are doing is nothing different than slavery; people are working and have NO SAY over how they spend their money, as they have to pay 100% of their income as taxes.
If you honestly believe you will keep people motivated to do work, you are either terribly naiv of terribly stupid.
Give me one good reason why I should work hard if you take everything away from me. I can think of no other reasons than the thread of punishment (prison or worse) and that makes it even worse than slavery.

What gives you the right to control the lives of other people? A democratic vote? Than you proove, that democracy has the weekness I have indicated before; If 51% of the people want to kill the other 49%, we have a democratic decision that is FAR FROM RIGHT. The majority is not always right.
If you got control by dictatorship, you're even worse.

democracy has the weekness I have indicated before; If 51% of the people want to kill the other 49%, we have a democratic decision that is FAR FROM RIGHT. The majority is not always right.

This is true, democracy is not a fully safe governemntal style. But it is the safest we have. It spreads the decision making body over the largest area. This means that it has the lowest chances of decisions being bad. With so many data points being injected in the decision making process, it becomes much, much harder for there to be an unjust decision. I'm dare not say that democracy is perfect or that it doesn't have risks. It isn't and it does.

But it is safer than all other forms.

Powerhungry Chipmunks

I fully agree. It's the best we've got and I suppose it will be hard to find something that is fullproof.
That said, I think it is always best to have as much as possible decided locally, so that voters on a small scale can have more direct influence. The larger the area you cover with something up for voting, the larger the population that is NOT happy with the majorities vote.
If you devide your country into small counties, maybe even make voting districts no larger than a town, people will have much more influence on what is decided and will remain interested because it directly affects their surroundings.
Furthermore, if they don't like the outcome, they'll have a better chance to find a place that is more to their liking without having to go to another corner of the world.

This is exactly why I feel the Nation States UN is going completely the wrong way. It should only concern itself with determining basic rights but should let Nations decide on detailed legislation locally.
There is NO SENSE in trying to create a UN in which everything is the same.