NationStates Jolt Archive

Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair

You are enlightened. Congratulations. Never waver and do not listen to those who question your righteous belief.

So young, so naive.

These forums are fairly balanced between liberal and conservative bashing, really.

First, let me applaud you on your entering the political realm at such a young age. You already are one step ahead of your contemporaries. Bravo, young man.

Now, it needs to be stated that my views lean to the right, rather than left. I say this so that noone thinks I am simply "patting the back of one of my own".

You political views are your own, and your position is yours to defend. I respect that, and congratulate you on it. What you will find, I fear, as you get older is that most people's beliefs turn from ideology and conviction to some form of a superiority complex that forces that person to insult and belittle, spin and distort facts, against members of the opposite party (ies).

It degenerates, in many people, from simple political ideology to an almost completely inflexible set of rules which, if you don't agree with them, you are branded an idiot at best, or a traitor at worst. In my relatively short time here on NS I believe this to be the case on both sides, relatively equally. You will usually see the debates/discussions on here quickly fall from a free form exchange of views into a sarcastic, biting, vicious "you are an idiot and I don't respect you" barrage of personal insults.

I admit, I feel the temptation myself because of how strongly I believe in some things. I try very hard to remain objective, and to stick to the issues.

Sticking to the issues is a rare commodity here.

Again, I applaud your ambition and your decision to get involved. A multi-party system is always best, as it provides checks and balances, so I invite you to throw your ideals into the ring. i will not insult, belittle, degrade, or denigrate you, or what you stand for. I may not disagree with you, and I may feel that disagreement very, very strongly, but I will always try to attack the problem, not the person.

Good luck to you.

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

No because they are filled with Republicans and Democrats alias Republican wannabes who think universal health care is too expensive and much rather spend lavish amounts for someone many of us get in our universal healthcare systems.

This forum is filled with an overwhelming number of left-wing communists.

This forum is filled with an overwhelming number of left-wing communists.
Jewish Commies, right TT?

See what I mean, Doncastonia?

Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair
If you want to stay away of the bad-mouthing etc, just stay away from threads where they discuss about US politics. Other ones seem to be more "thoughtful". Europeans more often have more flexible opinions. The US citizens in the forum tend to think more in black and white. (I don't mean to offend anyone but seems to be the case here). Europeans don't usually (I've never heard) call each other commies if they have leftist thoughts. You will notice that just being European makes you a commie... :(

If you want to stay away of the bad-mouthing etc, just stay away from threads where they discuss about US politics. Other ones seem to be more "thoughtful". Europeans more often have more flexible opinions. The US citizens in the forum tend to think more in black and white. (I don't mean to offend anyone but seems to be the case here). Europeans don't usually (I've never heard) call each other commies if they have leftist thoughts. You will notice that just being European makes you a commie... :(

Here's a picture I call "American Centrism":

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/plasmaphoenix/american-centrism.jpg

Here's a picture I call "American Centrism":

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/plasmaphoenix/american-centrism.jpg

If you're going to call it "American Centrism", then you should use the American spelling of the word in your photo...."center".

Just a joke...I hope you know that.

If you're going to call it "American Centrism", then you should use the American spelling of the word in your photo...."center".

Just a joke...I hope you know that.

Yes, I know it's a joke. What do you take me for, an American? :D

Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair

Congratulations on taking an interest in politics. I'm actually 16, so I'm younger than you lol, but still, most people under the age of like 20 don't seem to know or care at all about politics, even if you happen to take a left-wing stance (I'm right wing)

*shrug*. This forum, if anything, is strongly left-wing. Go into a debate such as one on homosexuality and stuff. Don't just look at it and say "omgsh so many right-wingers", count it. Count it, post by post, the number of people who support, the number of people who oppose. Same with gun control and such. The forum has far more left wingers than right.

Also, a while ago someone posted a link to www.politicalcompass.org a site with a relatively accurate estimation of where you stand on social and economic issues. The guy then plotted the results on a graph, and the results showed a heavy bias towards left wing economics and libertarian opinions on this forum, I might actually consider doing this again since that was a while ago myself.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's get down to refuting what you said in support of the left shall we?

"Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?"

I'm American technically, but I wasn't raised there (raised in Canada). However, besides that point, I'm not AFRAID of communism, I hate it, there's a difference. Please consider the fact that people oppose communism because of what communism is, not because of events passed decades ago.

"Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL."

Me for one. The merits of allowing privatized health care are another debate, but I'll quickly sketch over it. The private sector ALWAYS does things more efficiently than the government (although there are a few things I wouldn't trust to private companies, such as national security). In a private system, standards will be maintained, costs brought lower, new technologies and medicines discovered, all due to competition AND the good-will of the people working in the field. When the government does it it's only the good-will of the government, which I highly question. And what's wrong with paying for health care? Is it that wrong to have to work for what you get?

"Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off."

Left wing politics is the politics of the LOWER class people, not people in general. Left wing politics punishes people for being smart and hard working. Left wing politics ensures that there is no real incentive to do better. The whole concept of the "sum of the whole is greater than it's parts" is a highly fascist concept :) For that I applaud you (since I'm mostly a fascist, except I don't believe in a singular authoritarian ruler). However, left-wing politics stresses the importance of every individual person regardless of their contribution to society, hence being OPPOSITE to this statement that you said you believe in.

"So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?"

Well our schools are pathetic, they teach a very limited and basic curriculum, dumbed down so that the idiots in the world can get by in it (I don't know if this is true where you are, but it is where I am). Our schools don't teach any values or ethics either... leading to a degeneration of society.

The entire world is moving towards the left... please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the world is becoming a more conservative place? The death penalty is being banned in more and more places, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable (I tend to dislike gays, but hell even I'm slightly centrist on this, since I don't hate them or anything), more and more social welfare programs are popping into place, etc. etc.

Oh, by the way, I'd like to clear up something for you. Maybe you do already realize this, I'm not sure, but it seems from the general tone of the way you speak of right wing politics that you don't understand what the right wing stands for.

The right wing believes that there is no need for the government to help the unfortunate, and they will only get in the way. The right believes that private charity will help the less fortunate, while spending less money, less man-power, and doing it faster and better.

The right wing believes that lower taxes will lead to a stronger economy and that people can handle their own finances. The left wing believes people are too stupid and the government must control their financial life.

The right wing believes in economic freedom. Do you think that you, me, or our fellow human beings are truly so greedy that there will be no private charities? That people are too stupid to manage their own finances so the government must take it in the form of taxes and do it for you (less efficiently I might add)? That everybody on the planet is equal, despite the fact it is clear that some people are smarter, nicer, more honorable, more honest, stronger, more moral, etc.?

Here's a picture I call "American Centrism":

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/plasmaphoenix/american-centrism.jpg
You have a very distorted view of the world in that case. America is the most liberal nation in the world, being the leading exporter of liberalism. Europe was quite well not all that many years ago, but Americanism has caught on among the indoctrinated youth there.

America is the most liberal nation in the world

Hahaha.

I'm American technically, but I wasn't raised there (raised in Canada). However, besides that point, I'm not AFRAID of communism, I hate it, there's a difference. Please consider the fact that people oppose communism because of what communism is, not because of events passed decades ago.

I'm happy to see young people interested in politics but I have to say people DO hate communism because of events passed. True communism has never occured anywhere on our planet, it's just an ideology. People don't hate the ideology behind it, they hate the way Russians, Chinese, North Koreans etc have practiced it.

Hahaha.
I couldn't even bother to answer to that, but HAHAHA, I agree.

Hahaha.
What is so funny about the truth?
The Jew seized power in Europe post-1945 and now it is looking more and more like the ultra-liberal Jewnited States.

Me for one. The merits of allowing privatized health care are another debate, but I'll quickly sketch over it. The private sector ALWAYS does things more efficiently than the government (although there are a few things I wouldn't trust to private companies, such as national security). In a private system, standards will be maintained, costs brought lower, new technologies and medicines discovered, all due to competition AND the good-will of the people working in the field. When the government does it it's only the good-will of the government, which I highly question. And what's wrong with paying for health care? Is it that wrong to have to work for what you get?


Hey you're talking to an English bloke. Ask him about their railway system...after it has been privatized.

I'm happy to see young people interested in politics but I have to say people DO hate communism because of events passed. True communism has never occured anywhere on our planet, it's just an ideology. People don't hate the ideology behind it, they hate the way Russians, Chinese, North Koreans etc have practiced it.

Well I can't speak for everyone obviously, but I'm sure you can't either.

I personally oppose Communism because of both what ideological communism is, and what it was when an attempt was made to implement it. Both are wrong IMO.

If America is so liberal, why has it refused to agree with certain Human Rights amendments involving children and torture/execution? Liberal America, with a death sentence? Liberal America where you can't DRINK until you are 21? (Just to note, I'm teetotal) Liberal America, where votes sometimes don't get counted because you differ in skin colour?

Kudos, Doncastonia. I am myself a self confessed cynical socialist since the age of 14, though I find a highly personal breed of anarchy sometimes lightens my mood considerably.

It's wonderful that people are so idealistic and will strive towards ideals and so forth; just try not to get bitter and twisted on the way.

Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair

We need both left and right to keep us honest, or at least relatively so. I just happen to believe in things which prompt me to lean a bit more to the right than those at top dead center of the political spectrum. I believe in a strong national defense because the world is a dangerous place. I believe in an economy which rewards those who start their own businesses ( entreprenuers ). I'm a realist when it comes to understanding that people in general are more likely to work hard if the rewards are great. If you would like to know more, please feel free to ask me.

Communism, and Marxism in general have become rather quaint anachronisms, especially since the end of the USSR. Almost without exception, nations which attempted to adhere to Marxist philosophy became grim, drab places with hordes of unmotivated people, catering to a ruling class much like those of feudal monarchies.

As far as I can recall, I haven't called leftists any nasty names, and have even tried to discover common ground with them. It's just that the current election in the US has polarized the population along right/left lines moreso than most in recent memory. For some reason unknown to me, there seem to be more leftists in this forum than in most. Sometimes rightists tend to get a bit defensive and that may go a long way toward explaining the "flaming" that goes on.

I hope that helps explain at least my own position on this.

The entire world is moving towards the left... please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the world is becoming a more conservative place? The death penalty is being banned in more and more places, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable (I tend to dislike gays, but hell even I'm slightly centrist on this, since I don't hate them or anything), more and more social welfare programs are popping into place, etc. etc.


The entire world? At least the EU is moving towards right...as are most of the Asian nations. Are you maybe referring to Venezuela?

"What is so funny about the truth?
The Jew seized power in Europe post-1945 and now it is looking more and more like the ultra-liberal Jewnited States."

Is this guy being serious?

The right wing believes in economic freedom. Do you think that you, me, or our fellow human beings are truly so greedy that there will be no private charities? That people are too stupid to manage their own finances so the government must take it in the form of taxes and do it for you (less efficiently I might add)? That everybody on the planet is equal, despite the fact it is clear that some people are smarter, nicer, more honorable, more honest, stronger, more moral, etc.?
I hope that when you grow up a little you won't be as cruel to your fellow humans anymore and find out that nothing is so B/W as may seem now.

"What is so funny about the truth?
The Jew seized power in Europe post-1945 and now it is looking more and more like the ultra-liberal Jewnited States."

Is this guy being serious?

If he is then he is very unintentionally funny. If he's not then he's doing a damn good job of a parody nation.

Hey you're talking to an English bloke. Ask him about their railway system...after it has been privatized.

Unfortunately I don't know too much about what happens domestically in Britain, none of the papers or news sites I read are British. Care to enlighten me?

I'm assuming it was a disaster from the way you talk about it. I'm going to guess that this was due to probably either a) No checks were in place to ensure the standards of these private companies systems or b) They were handed a situation where they began off a monopoly.

Of course it might not be, I don't know what happened. Explain if you want to use this as an argument. I can get you examples of privitization working far better than public when I go to the library next time, there's this book that's got alot of examples of it, I can't remember most of the details, and I'm sure you won't be happy with it if I just tell you what happened without giving a time/place/source and such.

The entire world? At least the EU is moving towards right...as are most of the Asian nations. Are you maybe referring to Venezuela?

America is moving to the left, look at the increased social spending, look at the increased government size, look at the way the death penalty has been abolished in many states, look at how gay marriage has become a huge controversial issue when a few decades ago no one would have even tried to say gay marriage should be allowed.

The EU is the same thing, except they are much further to the left already. You didn't say why you think the EU is moving to the right? Please explain with REAL arguments, not just "they are moving to the right". Give reasons.

What is so funny about the truth?
The Jew seized power in Europe post-1945 and now it is looking more and more like the ultra-liberal Jewnited States.
You got to be kidding me. Please don't try that on Europeans...

If America is so liberal, why has it refused to agree with certain Human Rights amendments involving children and torture/execution? Liberal America, with a death sentence? Liberal America where you can't DRINK until you are 21? (Just to note, I'm teetotal) Liberal America, where votes sometimes don't get counted because you differ in skin colour?

Kudos, Doncastonia. I am myself a self confessed cynical socialist since the age of 14, though I find a highly personal breed of anarchy sometimes lightens my mood considerably.

It's wonderful that people are so idealistic and will strive towards ideals and so forth; just try not to get bitter and twisted on the way.

Is this not the same America that passed "Civil Rights" acts as well as opening the borders to negroes and mohammadans c. 1960s?
The same America that dismisses sodomy laws as unconstitutional and allows Jews and homosexuals to exist within its borders?
The same America presently under the control of the Supreme Chairman Ariel Sharon through the puppet of Jorge Bush?
The same America that fabricates lies to justify a war for Israeli interests?
The America that doesn't support mandatory Christian teaching in every classroom? The America that awards scholarships based on how savage your race is?

The heresy of Americanism has long been condemned.

America is the beacon of liberalism for the world.

I hope that when you grow up a little you won't be as cruel to your fellow humans anymore and find out that nothing is so B/W as may seem now.

So far in EVERY post you've made so far to me, you haven't stated a single fact or reasoned opinion, nothing but blind statements with no reasonable thought behind them. Maybe if you want someone to take what you say seriously you should actually try backing what you say with reasons?

Where did you get the idea that I'm cruel to people? I do community volunteer work, I help tutor students at my school for no reason other than to help them (I don't get payed or anything like that, and it's done after school and during my lunch break so it's taking time out of MY day), if I had more money (being 16 I don't exactly have alot, but once I'm older) I would donate to charities, etc. etc.

So what was it that I apparently think is very black and white?

You haven't so far said a single thing that's actually well thought out and logical. Please change this or I'm just going to stop bothering to reply. I've made all my posts with reasons backing what I say and not just blind opinions, please do the same.

Is this not the same America that passed "Civil Rights" acts as well as opening the borders to negroes and mohammadans c. 1960s?
The same America that dismisses sodomy laws as unconstitutional and allows Jews and homosexuals to exist within its borders?
The same America presently under the control of the Supreme Chairman Ariel Sharon through the puppet of Jorge Bush?
The same America that fabricates lies to justify a war for Israeli interests?
The America that doesn't support mandatory Christian teaching in every classroom? The America that awards scholarships based on how savage your race is?

The heresy of Americanism has long been condemned.

America is the beacon of liberalism for the world.
You're a funny, funny guy. Do you do private acts, or public only?

Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL."

Me for one. The merits of allowing privatized health care are another debate, but I'll quickly sketch over it. The private sector ALWAYS does things more efficiently than the government (although there are a few things I wouldn't trust to private companies, such as national security). In a private system, standards will be maintained, costs brought lower, new technologies and medicines discovered, all due to competition AND the good-will of the people working in the field. When the government does it it's only the good-will of the government, which I highly question. And what's wrong with paying for health care? Is it that wrong to have to work for what you get?

Actually studies have shown Americans pay the most for health care of anyone in the developed world. More then Canadians, French, Germans, Swedes, ect... That would seem to show that public health care is more efficient because of it's lower costs.

If you won't trust the private sector to defend your national security then why trust it to defend your people's health?

The private sector has shown itself less effective at delievering drugs at a decent price, why do you think so many seniors get their prescriptions filled in Canada? Because medicines are substantially cheaper here.

Some of the biggest drug developers are German and Swiss, again, countries with public healthcare and subsidised drug programs.

What's wrong with paying for health care? The fact that not everyone can afford the costs. I don't just mean 'welfare bums', much of the middle class can't afford to cover medical costs, especially with the changing economy. Full time jobs are being replaced with temp jobs, most employers only give benefits to full-time employees, meaning that temps have no private health insurance, they can't afford to pay for it and their job doesn't provide it.

This means that when someone in the family gets seriously sick they can't afford the medical costs, even worse if it's the main source of income.

It's the government's job to protect the poor, public health care should be dealt with as a human rights issue.

Wow, he was being serious. Speaking as a European I can say with complete confidence you are wrong.

If you say things like "The America that awards scholarships based on how savage your race is?" one wonders what can really be said to you that you will listen to.

America is moving to the left, look at the increased social spending, look at the increased government size, look at the way the death penalty has been abolished in many states, look at how gay marriage has become a huge controversial issue when a few decades ago no one would have even tried to say gay marriage should be allowed.

The EU is the same thing, except they are much further to the left already. You didn't say why you think the EU is moving to the right? Please explain with REAL arguments, not just "they are moving to the right". Give reasons.
I'll come back to the railway issue. It has been a huge problem in the UK. I would be happy if any Brits would like to write about it too (as I'm not a Brit)

But to the second issue. You say America is moving to the left while you have a rebublican president. As far as I know Mr Bush has cut the pensions of veterans. They have created more jobd, but more than half of the jobs goes to people who are not unemployeed but finding a second job or illegal immigrants. (I know I know, the sources, I'll get them for you in a minute. They are from Time magazines and I have to find the numbers first..) How gay marriage is leftist? I didn't know sexual behaviours have political views.

The EU. You know there's 10 new members in EU (since last spring) Every single one of those are more on the right than the old members of EU. Eu is turning to the right. And not only the new members. Right-wingers are winning more seats in almost every government.

Wow, he was being serious. Speaking as a European I can say with complete confidence you are wrong.

If you say things like "The America that awards scholarships based on how savage your race is?" one wonders what can really be said to you that you will listen to.
Try, "You know, Hitler once said..."

Wow, he was being serious. Speaking as a European I can say with complete confidence you are wrong.

If you say things like "The America that awards scholarships based on how savage your race is?" one wonders what can really be said to you that you will listen to.

What do you mean "he was being serious"? He's one of the most blatant parody nations I've seen!

So far in EVERY post you've made so far to me, you haven't stated a single fact or reasoned opinion, nothing but blind statements with no reasonable thought behind them. Maybe if you want someone to take what you say seriously you should actually try backing what you say with reasons?


And your sources this far: 0.
If you don't use sources I can't be bothered either.

If America is so liberal, why has it refused to agree with certain Human Rights amendments involving children and torture/execution? Liberal America, with a death sentence? Liberal America where you can't DRINK until you are 21? (Just to note, I'm teetotal) Liberal America, where votes sometimes don't get counted because you differ in skin colour?

Kudos, Doncastonia. I am myself a self confessed cynical socialist since the age of 14, though I find a highly personal breed of anarchy sometimes lightens my mood considerably.

It's wonderful that people are so idealistic and will strive towards ideals and so forth; just try not to get bitter and twisted on the way.
Whoa, 14 and an anarchist huh? Anarchy is not as cool as SUM 41 says dude.

These forums are fairly balanced between liberal and conservative bashing, really.
Damn Straight.
My response to you, as another 17 year old, is that if you haven't grown enough of a thick skin to take quips from guys over the internet, then you are not mature enough for politics. I, for instance, have never started a thread like this one for the simple reason that I either ignore or intelligently respond to the rude comments of liberals. You are a senior in high school, or should be, and should have learned by now to put up with someone else's trash talk.

As to what is wrong with liberals.
I have no problem with moderate liberals and republicans. I do have a problem with extremists of either side, but most definitely those of the liberal persuasion. Why? Because I disagree with them even more than extreme right-wingers. I am decidely anti-socialist, and I believe that the US has already drifted too far to the left. Thus I support the right, in an effort to maintain a happy medium. Our country was better off economically, for instance, when it was utilizing a laissez-faire economy. And the people still had enough money to buy what they wanted. Now, however, minimum wage laws and other restrictions on business have instigated out-sourcing. Thus, Americans are losing jobs because American companies can not afford labor costs in country, and still compete with the world market. This is just one of my many reasons for disagreeing with the left. In fact, I can not stand anything that resembles an extreme liberal. Why? Because we are too liberal already! We have drifted so far to the left that it is hurting our country's economic status.

This is why I, personally, don't like extreme liberals. Moderates, however, are fairly easy to get along with.

Actually studies have shown Americans pay the most for health care of anyone in the developed world. More then Canadians, French, Germans, Swedes, ect... That would seem to show that public health care is more efficient because of it's lower costs.

If you won't trust the private sector to defend your national security then why trust it to defend your people's health?

The private sector has shown itself less effective at delievering drugs at a decent price, why do you think so many seniors get their prescriptions filled in Canada? Because medicines are substantially cheaper here.

Some of the biggest drug developers are German and Swiss, again, countries with public healthcare and subsidised drug programs.

What's wrong with paying for health care? The fact that not everyone can afford the costs. I don't just mean 'welfare bums', much of the middle class can't afford to cover medical costs, especially with the changing economy. Full time jobs are being replaced with temp jobs, most employers only give benefits to full-time employees, meaning that temps have no private health insurance, they can't afford to pay for it and their job doesn't provide it.

This means that when someone in the family gets seriously sick they can't afford the medical costs, even worse if it's the main source of income.

It's the government's job to protect the poor, public health care should be dealt with as a human rights issue.

Interesting, since the US has a much lower tax percentage than those nations. Sweden, for instance, I believe is around 50%?
So they are paying far more of their income to their government.
They have fewer people, and that is why we spend more money.
Logical reasoning is fun.

This is not what I was looking for but is interesting anyway.
301:1 The ratio between average CEO compensation and worker pay in the US in 2003, up from 282:1 two years ago
15.76$ What the federal minimum wage, now 5.15$ per hour, would be if it had grown at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990.
(Time 9/13/2004)

Actually studies have shown Americans pay the most for health care of anyone in the developed world. More then Canadians, French, Germans, Swedes, ect... That would seem to show that public health care is more efficient because of it's lower costs.

Could I see some of these studies? And are you sure it's not because these studies are taking into accoount all the people who pay little to no taxes but drain the health care system? Does the middle-class and upper-class?

If you won't trust the private sector to defend your national security then why trust it to defend your people's health?

Because if the private sector were running the military for example, a foreign country could buy them out and annex the nation, it's not like there would be competition in that sort of thing. With health care, even if a foreign country bought out a health care company (Why on earth they'd do so I don't know... doesn't make much sense), there would be competition to step up and take their place

The private sector has shown itself less effective at delievering drugs at a decent price, why do you think so many seniors get their prescriptions filled in Canada? Because medicines are substantially cheaper here.

Why do you think so many Canadians go down to the United States for certain diagnostics and certain medical procedures? If public is always better, why did Ontario feel the need to refuse entry to an American diagnostics company that wanted to come into Canada? If the public health care system were truly so much better, then why fear having private health care offered? Afraid it might be better?

Some of the biggest drug developers are German and Swiss, again, countries with public healthcare and subsidised drug programs.

See above.

What's wrong with paying for health care? The fact that not everyone can afford the costs. I don't just mean 'welfare bums', much of the middle class can't afford to cover medical costs, especially with the changing economy. Full time jobs are being replaced with temp jobs, most employers only give benefits to full-time employees, meaning that temps have no private health insurance, they can't afford to pay for it and their job doesn't provide it.

This means that when someone in the family gets seriously sick they can't afford the medical costs, even worse if it's the main source of income.

Tell me how high do you think a medical bill will get for the average person in the average family? Definitely not to the point of collapsing their family's finances. That might be the case for a small very few among the middle class, but definitely very very few. Now why is it that you suppose people couldn't pay for their own health care? I will be completely happy to pay for my own health care, will be capable of doing so, and have no problems with it. Why can't you?

It's the government's job to protect the poor, public health care should be dealt with as a human rights issue.

It is NOT the government's job to protect the poor. It is the government's job to ensure the country is kept running smoothly, to ensure that it remains in good standing with other countries of import, and to ensure that the future of the country is good and bright. Not to protect people that are draining society's resources because they are too stupid, or because they show horrible judgement. Those that are poor through true misfortune (i.e. if someone like stole all your money or something somehow and no one's been able to recover it), private charity will be more than happy to take care of you. At least they might if the government wasn't taking away all their funder's money.


.

Whoa, 14 and an anarchist huh? Anarchy is not as cool as SUM 41 says dude.
Absolutely right. SUM 41 actually doesn't know shit about anarchy. Anarchy is the worst possible philosophy, because by nature it means that you, a 14 year old, will probably not live to 20. After all, what's to stop that guy from shooting you, taking your clothes, and using them for his kids?

15.76$ What the federal minimum wage, now 5.15$ per hour, would be if it had grown at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990.
(Time 9/13/2004)
15.76$- What minimum wage could be.\
Broke- What America would be if that was the minimum wage, because no company could afford to hire anyone.
Friggin brilliant.

Interesting, since the US has a much lower tax percentage than those nations. Sweden, for instance, I believe is around 50%?
So they are paying far more of their income to their government.
They have fewer people, and that is why we spend more money.
Logical reasoning is fun.
The CEO's tax percentage in Sweden may be 50 but "normal" Swedish workers certainly do not pay so much as taxes.
You need to realise also that Swedes don't have to pay to study in university, to get their kids to daycare or for the food their kids are eating in school etc.

There is nothing inherently WRONG about leftist politics.

Actually, anything wise sounding I might have said here has already been said by Keljamistan, so I'll just take the post time to rant.

I hate when people try to mix morality with political idealogy. It's done all the time. "Left" is good/evil, "right" is good/evil, the world is black and white.

From where I stand there IS no right and left. They are meaningless terms. As are liberal and conservative. They mean nothing. When I say that Bush is a dumbass, people call me a limp wristed liberal. When I say that free market economics is paramount, people call me a right wing fascist. The terms have no real definition and serve only as rallying points for the mindless masses - so people know what color flag to be waving. People need that sort of thing.

If people aren't allowed to can all their angst into one neat package that puts all the blame on all the worlds problems on some other package - Republicans, Democrats, terrorists, Jews - they just aren't satisfied. Its too complicated if you can't draw a line between "us" versus "them."

15.76$- What minimum wage could be.\
Broke- What America would be if that was the minimum wage, because no company could afford to hire anyone.
Friggin brilliant.
Somehow the companies manage to find the money for their CEO's...

Interesting, since the US has a much lower tax percentage than those nations. Sweden, for instance, I believe is around 50%?
So they are paying far more of their income to their government.
They have fewer people, and that is why we spend more money.
Logical reasoning is fun.

The US spends more on health care per capita.

Yes SoDems pay more taxes, but overall have a higher standard of living.

*shrug*. This forum, if anything, is strongly left-wing. Go into a debate such as one on homosexuality and stuff. Don't just look at it and say "omgsh so many right-wingers", count it. Count it, post by post, the number of people who support, the number of people who oppose. Same with gun control and such. The forum has far more left wingers than right.

Do remember that people can vary on their opinions. I tend to be rather liberal in social opinions, because I think the government should stay the hell out of my personal business. You have chosen to speak of homosexuality, which doesn't even fit into classic left-right politics - as those deal with economic issues.

Me for one. The merits of allowing privatized health care are another debate, but I'll quickly sketch over it. The private sector ALWAYS does things more efficiently than the government (although there are a few things I wouldn't trust to private companies, such as national security).

I agree that privatized healthcare should be maintained, but:

In a private system, standards will be maintained, costs brought lower, new technologies and medicines discovered, all due to competition AND the good-will of the people working in the field.

HAHA!! Are you kidding? The private system will only stick to standards if standards are imposed upon them - there are two many people out there with a "Screw you, I got mine" mentality. Do you really think that, for instance, Vioxx would've been voluntarily pulled if the company hadn't been worried that they might get sued otherwise? While health care should definitely be a private industry, there should definitely be governmental regulations placed on it. Otherwise, those out for a quick buck take, rather than save, lives.

When the government does it it's only the good-will of the government, which I highly question. And what's wrong with paying for health care? Is it that wrong to have to work for what you get?

There is nothing wrong with paying for health care, when you have the money. I think the problem is when people bitch so much because the lady down the street who can't get a job that actually provides health care gets hit by a car and those other people "Don't want their taxes paying for her medical bills!"

Left wing politics is the politics of the LOWER class people, not people in general. Left wing politics punishes people for being smart and hard working. Left wing politics ensures that there is no real incentive to do better.

This may be true of extreme left wing politics, but is hardly true of more centrist/slightly left views.

The whole concept of the "sum of the whole is greater than it's parts" is a highly fascist concept :) For that I applaud you (since I'm mostly a fascist, except I don't believe in a singular authoritarian ruler). However, left-wing politics stresses the importance of every individual person regardless of their contribution to society, hence being OPPOSITE to this statement that you said you believe in.

Actually, if the sum is the whole of its parts as you say you believe, then every part (even the little washer that goes between the nut and the bolt) is important to maintaining that whole. In my experience, left-leaning politics tends to stress the equality of individual rights, not equality of the individual.

The entire world is moving towards the left... please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the world is becoming a more conservative place? The death penalty is being banned in more and more places, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable (I tend to dislike gays, but hell even I'm slightly centrist on this, since I don't hate them or anything), more and more social welfare programs are popping into place, etc. etc.

Again, these are social views, not economic ones.

Oh, by the way, I'd like to clear up something for you. Maybe you do already realize this, I'm not sure, but it seems from the general tone of the way you speak of right wing politics that you don't understand what the right wing stands for.

And you quite obviously do not understand what the left wing stands for. Try taking a true look at both sides and you may realize that the moderate view is often important. Taking one side and sticking to it on all things just gives you a myopic view of the world.

That everybody on the planet is equal, despite the fact it is clear that some people are smarter, nicer, more honorable, more honest, stronger, more moral, etc.?

But are they lesser people that deserve fewer basic rights?

I'll come back to the railway issue. It has been a huge problem in the UK. I would be happy if any Brits would like to write about it too (as I'm not a Brit)

Okay

But to the second issue. You say America is moving to the left while you have a rebublican president. As far as I know Mr Bush has cut the pensions of veterans. They have created more jobd, but more than half of the jobs goes to people who are not unemployeed but finding a second job or illegal immigrants. (I know I know, the sources, I'll get them for you in a minute. They are from Time magazines and I have to find the numbers first..) How gay marriage is leftist? I didn't know sexual behaviours have political views.

I'm not talking about what the president is doing. The president is hardly representative of what most American's think. Now obviously I don't know exactly what every American thinks, but those I've talked to (when I go on vacation there, relatives, friends of relatives, random people I talk to on the net, etc.) all take left wing stances on things. They all think we should raise taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the poor. They all think this "redistribution of wealth" thing is a good idea, so on so forth. Where do you live? If you live in America go talk to the younger people (younger = represents what the country is moving towards, older = what it was), find their views.

As to gay marriage, you're saying you've never heard of the controversy over gay marriage? And it's definitely a political issue. Getting married in itself isn't, but the issue over whether gay marriage should be permitted IS.

The EU. You know there's 10 new members in EU (since last spring) Every single one of those are more on the right than the old members of EU. Eu is turning to the right. And not only the new members. Right-wingers are winning more seats in almost every government.

Then explain the insanely high tax rates and social spending and social welfare programs? Also explain the attitude of most Europeans? Look around on this board if you don't know what I mean
.

-snip-
I'm a Libertarian, which makes me left/liberal on social issues and right/conservative on the economy (I'm moderate enough however to place enough regulations in place to keep corporations in check, secure wokers' rights, but other than that I stress an almost regulation-free market)

And Communism, isn't evil; the worker philsophy of it is that everybody does work hard (and I wish they were) - however I'd like to make a case against communism with logic of my own:


The government is really nothing more than a public corporation (if you understand the analogy). If you shift too far to the right on economics (anarcho-capitalism), you are basically letting private corporations have their way with EVERYTHING. However, as you go towards the left, the government begins to curtail corrupt corporate practices (which I do like them to do).

However as you go further to the left, eventually the government will consolidate all these corporations and land into itself forming one mega-'corporation', with total control over the economy (and way too much power IMO).

If corporations alone are corrupt, imagine the consequence of consolidating them into one monopoly. I dont think it would end well . . .

I have to say people DO hate communism because of events passed. True communism has never occured anywhere on our planet, it's just an ideology. People don't hate the ideology behind it, they hate the way Russians, Chinese, North Koreans etc have practiced it.

Have you ever considered the fact that in every country that communism has been tried it has resulted in pretty much the same think, namely poverty amongst and oppression of the people? Communism hasn't malfunctioned because of poor leaders, it has malfunctioned because the system is flawed, in the way that it doesn't consider people's aspirations and dreams.

I personally hate communism for the way it disrespects individuals and I hold a great deal of contempt for people who support it and say it is a system where everyone is treaded equally and supported after their personal needs.

The fact that communism is the greatest killer in modern time only adds to that.

Still not the one I've been looking for...
60% The percentage of US companies that paid NO federal taxes from 1996 to 2000.
70% The percentage of foreignowned companies that paid no federl taxes.
$265 million. Increase in the amount spent on federal tax-law enforcement in the US last year.

I'm not talking about what the president is doing. The president is hardly representative of what most American's think. Now obviously I don't know exactly what every American thinks, but those I've talked to (when I go on vacation there, relatives, friends of relatives, random people I talk to on the net, etc.) all take left wing stances on things. They all think we should raise taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the poor. They all think this "redistribution of wealth" thing is a good idea, so on so forth. Where do you live? If you live in America go talk to the younger people (younger = represents what the country is moving towards, older = what it was), find their views.
so you just think you're moving towards the left, you don't know it.


As to gay marriage, you're saying you've never heard of the controversy over gay marriage? And it's definitely a political issue. Getting married in itself isn't, but the issue over whether gay marriage should be permitted IS.
It wouldn't been so political if the church wouldn't be so close to politics. Spain is a very religious country but they have (today, not passed yet, but obviously will) decided to legalize gaymarriages and give all the same rights to gay couples.


Then explain the insanely high tax rates and social spending and social welfare programs? Also explain the attitude of most Europeans? Look around on this board if you don't know what I mean.
Oh I do know what you mean. I live in Finland which is very similar to Sweden. But you don't obviously know that we are old members of the EU. The new members (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc) don't have high tax rates.

The CEO's tax percentage in Sweden may be 50 but "normal" Swedish workers certainly do not pay so much as taxes.

Yes they do, but the taxes are hidden. The average tax rate in Sweden is over 50%

HAHA!! Are you kidding? The private system will only stick to standards if standards are imposed upon them - there are two many people out there with a "Screw you, I got mine" mentality. Do you really think that, for instance, Vioxx would've been voluntarily pulled if the company hadn't been worried that they might get sued otherwise?

Law suits are private, hence your whole argument is flawed. As long as there are laws protecting the lives and property of people a private system with law suits can be very effective, without having to lean on public popularity as any governmental system always has too - assuming we talk about democracies.

Have you ever considered the fact that in every country that communism has been tried it has resulted in pretty much the same think, namely poverty amongst and oppression of the people? Communism hasn't malfunctioned because of poor leaders, it has malfunctioned because the system is flawed, in the way that it doesn't consider people's aspirations and dreams.

I personally hate communism for the way it disrespects individuals and I hold a great deal of contempt for people who support it and say it is a system where everyone is treaded equally and supported after their personal needs.

The fact that communism is the greatest killer in modern time only adds to that.
I'm certainly not supporting it. I just wanted to say that not so many people are familiar with the ideology.

Yes they do, but the taxes are hidden. The average tax rate in Sweden is over 50%
Please explain.

Do remember that people can vary on their opinions. I tend to be rather liberal in social opinions, because I think the government should stay the hell out of my personal business. You have chosen to speak of homosexuality, which doesn't even fit into classic left-right politics - as those deal with economic issues.

No, it doesn't fit into CLASSICAL left-right politics. However I'm sure you must have noticed that nowadays (at least in North America, and I wouldn't doubt Europe too), left-wing right wing in a modern sense generally refers to a wide range of things, from economic to social to personal.

I agree that privatized healthcare should be maintained, but:

HAHA!! Are you kidding? The private system will only stick to standards if standards are imposed upon them - there are two many people out there with a "Screw you, I got mine" mentality. Do you really think that, for instance, Vioxx would've been voluntarily pulled if the company hadn't been worried that they might get sued otherwise? While health care should definitely be a private industry, there should definitely be governmental regulations placed on it. Otherwise, those out for a quick buck take, rather than save, lives.

I don't recall saying there should be no limits or standards... when I said standards will be maintained I thought that was fairly clear I would still want some basic standards in place to ensure companies do not lie and such. Once minimum standards are at the level where people will not get royally screwed, then the competition begins. They might have a selfish mentality, but that's the beauty of the right wing, self interest and helping others go hand in hand, since in helping others you will yourself become wealthy.

There is nothing wrong with paying for health care, when you have the money. I think the problem is when people bitch so much because the lady down the street who can't get a job that actually provides health care gets hit by a car and those other people "Don't want their taxes paying for her medical bills!"

Why can't she get a job that doesn't provide health care and doesn't provide enough of a salary that she can afford medical bills? Or does she just suck at managing money? If she just sucks at managing money, then is it not her own fault? We must remember to look at the REASONS behind things that happen, and not just what's happening. For example:

What's happening: Woman can't pay for her health care
Reason: She blew all her money on gambling

See what I mean? If you only look at what's actually happening, of course you want to help her. When you see the reason behind it, you see she doesn't deserve to be helped.

This may be true of extreme left wing politics, but is hardly true of more centrist/slightly left views.

Well it's less so for more centrist views, but regardless of how you look at it, is a progressive tax rate not punishing people for working harder? (You work harder, more of your money is taken away)

Actually, if the sum is the whole of its parts as you say you believe, then every part (even the little washer that goes between the nut and the bolt) is important to maintaining that whole. In my experience, left-leaning politics tends to stress the equality of individual rights, not equality of the individual.

The quote was:
"sum of the whole is greater than it's parts" That word "greater" makes a HUGE difference.

Again, these are social views, not economic ones.

Refer to what I said at the beginning.

And you quite obviously do not understand what the left wing stands for. Try taking a true look at both sides and you may realize that the moderate view is often important. Taking one side and sticking to it on all things just gives you a myopic view of the world.

I don't pick one side and stick to it on everything heh. I know I haven't really said so in this post, however I strongly support environmental protection and although I tend to dislike the idea of homosexuality, I am not opposed to allowing them civil marriage. I also do not believe in outlawing alcohol for everyone under the age of 21, I think the age of 14 is good enough. A few other things, but yeah.

I might not understand the reasoning behind what the left-wing thinks, but I sure know what it is. I live in a very liberal part of a liberal country (Canada), I am surrounded by leftists. Maybe left-wingers in your part of the world are different... but I know damn well what they think here.

But are they lesser people that deserve fewer basic rights?

Erm... if they are dishonorable, cheating, lying, stupid, weak, cowardly, etc. etc. then yes they are lesser people....

People should have what they earn, so long that they earn it through honorable means (for example, becoming rich by holding up a bank isn't respectable, and you should be punished heavily for doing so, but becoming rich through entrepeneruship (sp?) and good business practices is commendable)

I believe people should have those basic rights, respect, etc, but that can be lost through the type of person you are and the life you lead.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

of course, one could just as easily say that conservative politics is the politics of the people rather than of the State, and is the thinking man's politics because it emphasizes personal responsibility over government support. it also takes the more realistic stance that we are often NOT better off as a group, as any experience with the real world will show you. we teach our children to share, true, but we also teach them that it is not right to DEMAND sharing from another person; we teach our children that forcing somebody to "share" with you is called "stealing." much of the radical left-wing message seems to ignore this simple lesson.

Could I see some of these studies? And are you sure it's not because these studies are taking into accoount all the people who pay little to no taxes but drain the health care system? Does the middle-class and upper-class?

Unfortunately I don't have a link to these statistics, it was on The National: Magazine, about a month ago...


Because if the private sector were running the military for example, a foreign country could buy them out and annex the nation, it's not like there would be competition in that sort of thing. With health care, even if a foreign country bought out a health care company (Why on earth they'd do so I don't know... doesn't make much sense), there would be competition to step up and take their place

If you were contracting the military to the private sector you'd have contracts with multiple countries... but anyways...


Why do you think so many Canadians go down to the United States for certain diagnostics and certain medical procedures? If public is always better, why did Ontario feel the need to refuse entry to an American diagnostics company that wanted to come into Canada? If the public health care system were truly so much better, then why fear having private health care offered? Afraid it might be better?

The Canadian healthcare system has been underfunded for almost a decade, because Paul Martin was more concerned with paying off debt. People go to the US to avoid waiting, not because the service is any better. I don't know why Ontario refused entry to an American company, I don't have access to the people responsible for this.


Some of the biggest drug developers are German and Swiss, again, countries with public healthcare and subsidised drug programs.

See above.

Huh?


Tell me how high do you think a medical bill will get for the average person in the average family? Definitely not to the point of collapsing their family's finances. That might be the case for a small very few among the middle class, but definitely very very few. Now why is it that you suppose people couldn't pay for their own health care? I will be completely happy to pay for my own health care, will be capable of doing so, and have no problems with it. Why can't you?

No, but semi-common things like a heart attack or stroke can have a very significant impact on a family's finances. Additionally we should take measures to prevent families from being forced to risk bankrupcy over things they have no control over, like little Timmy's leukemia. Why can't I pay for my health care? I dunno, I don't have to. ;)


It is NOT the government's job to protect the poor. It is the government's job to ensure the country is kept running smoothly, to ensure that it remains in good standing with other countries of import, and to ensure that the future of the country is good and bright. Not to protect people that are draining society's resources because they are too stupid, or because they show horrible judgement. Those that are poor through true misfortune (i.e. if someone like stole all your money or something somehow and no one's been able to recover it), private charity will be more than happy to take care of you. At least they might if the government wasn't taking away all their funder's money.

I'll get to this one later, it's mostly opinion anyways...

so you just think you're moving towards the left, you don't know it.

Um, do what I suggested. Talk to people here who grew up 40 years ago, and then people who grew up in the 90s. You'll notice a significantly more left-wing group in the younger people, basically the new generation. I don't know about where you live, but I live in southern Canada (very close to the U.S border), and everyone around here definitely follows this pattern.

It wouldn't been so political if the church wouldn't be so close to politics. Spain is a very religious country but they have (today, not passed yet, but obviously will) decided to legalize gaymarriages and give all the same rights to gay couples.

I'm not arguing why it's political. The point is that it is...

Oh I do know what you mean. I live in Finland which is very similar to Sweden. But you don't obviously know that we are old members of the EU. The new members (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc) don't have high tax rates.

Actually I did know Finland and Sweden were, but my point is that do you not see that these new members (I don't know what Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are like politically, Poland I knwo a bit better) will move towards the left? They just joined the EU, of course they aren't very leftist yet... they will move there though.

Anyways I'm getting off for a bit, I'll be back on later. If this thread has been sunken into obscurity under a million posts, feel free to telegram me if you'd like to discuss something. I will respond when I get back on. Otherwise I will try to respond to whoever says something to me here.

more....
2.5 billion. Gallons of water it would take per day to support 4.7 billion people at the UN's daily minimum.
2.5 billion. Gallons of water used per day to irrigate the world's golf courses.

1.3 million. Number of new US jobs created between the first quarter of 2003 and the first quarter of 2004
26% Portion of these jobs that have gone to noncitizens who are ineligible to vote.

$78,460 Average tax cut this year for Americans whose annual income ranks in the top 1%, according to a new US Congressional Budget Offise report
$1.090 Average tax cut this year for households with an average annual income of $57,000

Helio,

Sweden has the Value Added Tax, or VAT tax. A good is taxed at every stage of production, and these taxes are rolled into the purchase price of the good. The consumer pays all the taxes when he or she purchases the good.

Actually I did know Finland and Sweden were, but my point is that do you not see that these new members (I don't know what Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are like politically, Poland I knwo a bit better) will move towards the left? They just joined the EU, of course they aren't very leftist yet... they will move there though.


This is my last one too. Come to Europe. Read European magazines and watch European news channels. Then make your mind. You live there, alright maybe young people in Canada are more leftist than the older ones. I believe you. But you should believe me that Europe is beginning more and more rightist all the time. If you can find any kind of arguments. please let me know, because as a European I can't see such a thing happening.

Helio,

Sweden has the Value Added Tax, or VAT tax. A good is taxed at every stage of production, and these taxes are rolled into the purchase price of the good. The consumer pays all the taxes when he or she purchases the good.
As do most of Europeans....

Yes they do, but the taxes are hidden. The average tax rate in Sweden is over 50%
Please explain.

In Sweden many perceive that they are paying a tax rate of 30%, but they are then disregarding the fact that there is also an added tax to their paycheck, directly paid by the employer, which exists to pay for pensions and social security. There is also a VAT of up to 25% paid on all goods purchased. All in all it adds up to over 50%.

It's okay don't worry. Not everyone can be right all the time; to err is human.

Have you ever considered the fact that in every country that communism has been tried it has resulted in pretty much the same think, namely poverty amongst and oppression of the people? Communism hasn't malfunctioned because of poor leaders, it has malfunctioned because the system is flawed, in the way that it doesn't consider people's aspirations and dreams.

I personally hate communism for the way it disrespects individuals and I hold a great deal of contempt for people who support it and say it is a system where everyone is treaded equally and supported after their personal needs.

The fact that communism is the greatest killer in modern time only adds to that.

Ok. The theory behind Communism is that everybody is equal. What you are talking about is not Communism, rather it is Stalinism/Maoism .
Also, the leadership for these revolutions was also incorrect for how Communism should begin. It was meant to be a bottom up revolution where the Proletariat gain their freedom from the Bourgeoise. However the 'Communist' revolutions that have occured were orchestrated by the middle class (petit bourgoise) in a top down revolution.
Also, on the whole idea of contempt for the people. Again, under Stalin this might well have been true, however, many Russians would like to return to what they saw as their communism (Khrushchev onwards) as they were in many cases much better off than they are now.
I'm not saying I am Communist, or that I believe in all their ideals but it would be nice if people knew what they were against wasn't what they think it is.

To the person who started this thread. Welcome to the political NS forums

In Sweden many perceive that they are paying a tax rate of 30%, but they are then disregarding the fact that there is also an added tax to their paycheck, directly paid by the employer, which exists to pay for pensions and social security. There is also a VAT of up to 25% paid on all goods purchased. All in all it adds up to over 50%.
We (Finnish that is) think the part our employers are forced to pay, is not a part of our wage. We don't count it. But we do receive when retiring. Nice.
Is VAT 25% on all products in Sweden? It's 22 in Finland but less on food etc.

Helio,

A VAT is still a tax and still consumes disposable income. Even if the income tax rate for Swedes is 10%, it can't be said that they do not have a tax rate that is high overall.

The entire world? At least the EU is moving towards right...as are most of the Asian nations. Are you maybe referring to Venezuela?
Dumbass, those Asian nations were communist, and therefore about as far liberal as you can get. Unfortunately communism does not work in practice, and so those governments are changing. However, the basic lean of the world is to the left.


EDIT: the idea that is is moving right is certainly valid. However, that is because the majority of people realize that we have become far too liberal, and have gone too far to the left.

L-

I beleive that many, if not most, revolutions are lead by the middle class. At least many of the S. American revolutions were started by the middle class.

Somehow the companies manage to find the money for their CEO's...
Yes, by outsourcing so that they can compete with the world market, and thus sell more goods.

Americanist Liberalism at work in Europe:


"Catholic" Spain declares plans for apostasy!
Spanish Apostasy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/25/wspain25.xml)

Sweden admits Mohammadans control its cities:
Swedish Multicult Mess (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php)

Good for Denmark, bad for Sweden:
Danish Multiculturalists Escape to Sweden (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/aloveas_refugee.php)

Austrians escape liberal homosexual-infested church:
Austrians Escape Homosexual Church (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1122942004)

Swedish pastor sent to prison for offending homosexuals:
"Free" Europe Silences Opposition Yet Again (http://www.eni.ch/highlights/news.shtml?2004/06)

"France and the Holy See are joined in the fight for a world which places Man at the centre of every enterprise."
Chirac and John Paul Are At It Again (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/14/france.pope/index.html)

Holland is truly a cesspit in more ways than one nowadays:
Hellish Holland (http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_FebMar/Hellish_Holland.htm)

Ireland no longer Catholic:
Church Faces Crisis in Ireland (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/02/15/story730395567.asp)

Nor Belgium:
Apostasy in Brussels (http://www.novusordowatch.org/story071804.htm)

Nor Italy:
Satanism on Rise in Italy (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=1554)

Things aren't much better in the U.K.:
"Catholic Priests Decline, More Liberalism At Work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/08/nrc08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/08/ixhome.html)

Dumbass, those Asian nations were communist, and therefore about as far liberal as you can get. Unfortunately communism does not work in practice, and so those governments are changing. However, the basic lean of the world is to the left.
Japan? Malesia? Singapore? South Korea?

L-Rouge,

Whatever excuses you make for it, fact is that whereever communism has been implemented it has resulted in oppression of people and mass killings. I am aware that this was not the intention, but it is the result.

Marx was wrong, and his two fundamental errors are the following:

1. It is not the working class in well off countries that feel the need to rise, it is that in poor countries with authoritarian rule where they feel they cannot better themselves. Hence the revolution isn't a step on an evolutionary ladder, rather an uprise agaist a form of oppression without a proper goal of what to come.

2. Equality, as in people being equal rather than having equal chances brings about a system where it is no point to do your best within the system, as there is no reward. Rather it rewards laziness and corruption.

Fools! Economics is a tool of the Jews to blind you of imminent destruction!

L-

I beleive that many, if not most, revolutions are lead by the middle class. At least many of the S. American revolutions were started by the middle class.

*Looks confused* Isn't that what I said? :confused:

We (Finnish that is) think the part our employers are forced to pay, is not a part of our wage. We don't count it.

You can count it or not count it best you like, it's still part of the cost of employment, therefor part of the wage.

*Looks confused* Isn't that what I said? :confused:


I think that's what you said about one particular instance of revolution. If I'm wrong, well blindfold me, give me a cigarette, and shoot me. :eek:

Japan? Malesia? Singapore? South Korea?
Well DONE! You just pointed out nations that are where they are only because of direct intervention by the US. And not only that, but in case you didn't know Japan and Singapore are definitely what I would term socialist. They have far too much government control.

L-Rouge,

Whatever excuses you make for it, fact is that whereever communism has been implemented it has resulted in oppression of people and mass killings. I am aware that this was not the intention, but it is the result.

Marx was wrong, and his two fundamental errors are the following:

1. It is not the working class in well off countries that feel the need to rise, it is that in poor countries with authoritarian rule where they feel they cannot better themselves. Hence the revolution isn't a step on an evolutionary ladder, rather an uprise agaist a form of oppression without a proper goal of what to come.

2. Equality, as in people being equal rather than having equal chances brings about a system where it is no point to do your best within the system, as there is no reward. Rather it rewards laziness and corruption.

Again, you don't speak of Communism in its true sense (see previous post)

1.In many 'well off countries' there is still authoritarian rule. Russia, for example, was extremely well off before the revolution, even if they were slightly backward in their economics. However this was not shared to the people as a whole. The Bolshevik revolution was led by the middle classes, but was preceeded by a smaller revolution by the working classes. However, it was the Bolsheviks who changed the course of the revolution to what people now see as Communism. The original goal was for the sharing of wealth between the peoples rather than their (then) Czarist leader.

2. Ever heard of Tetris? Invented by a Russian computer programmer. Moved later to the U.S. after the fall of the USSR not because he wanted great wealth but because the state would no longer be able to fund him. He now works in a lowly position in Microsoft being paid a pittence of his worth.

I think that's what you said about one particular instance of revolution. If I'm wrong, well blindfold me, give me a cigarette, and shoot me. :eek:

Fair enough. My bad. Many apologies! :)

L-Rouge,

Whatever excuses you make for it, fact is that whereever communism has been implemented it has resulted in oppression of people and mass killings. I am aware that this was not the intention, but it is the result.

Marx was wrong, and his two fundamental errors are the following:

1. It is not the working class in well off countries that feel the need to rise, it is that in poor countries with authoritarian rule where they feel they cannot better themselves. Hence the revolution isn't a step on an evolutionary ladder, rather an uprise agaist a form of oppression without a proper goal of what to come.

2. Equality, as in people being equal rather than having equal chances brings about a system where it is no point to do your best within the system, as there is no reward. Rather it rewards laziness and corruption.


Capitalism is doomed to fail because it requires gross inequalities. Look at some figures how much of what the world produces the US consumes, and compare that with the fact they have about 5% of the world's population.
When these poor countries start to become richer, as China and India are doing, what happens? They'll be able to afford more. They'll be able to afford a more equal share comparative to their population.
This is when changes will have to happen. We're seeing the beginning of this already with climbing oil prices. China is consuming more and more oil, so it's pushing prices up. The world can't produce enough for China and the US to consume the same amounts, so one of the countries is going to have to give.
With current growth projections, the US will be the nation that ends up giving in and suffering from a reduced import of oil.
This will later be reflected in other commodities, as the west finds itself feeding off the crumbs that the giants such as China and India leave behind.

When the nations are equal in wealth, capitalism fails. You have a system that relies on inequality suddenly having to cope with equality. Capitalism will fall, and socialism will be inevitable. People will have to make do with a share of the world's resources based on how much the world can produce, rather than how much they can afford.

Again, you don't speak of Communism in its true sense (see previous post)

1.In many 'well off countries' there is still authoritarian rule. Russia, for example, was extremely well off before the revolution, even if they were slightly backward in their economics. However this was not shared to the people as a whole. The Bolshevik revolution was led by the middle classes, but was preceeded by a smaller revolution by the working classes. However, it was the Bolsheviks who changed the course of the revolution to what people now see as Communism. The original goal was for the sharing of wealth between the peoples rather than their (then) Czarist leader.

Czarist-Russia was a poor agricultural country that fell to bits because it wasn't in a position to fund its war efforts in WWI. And it wasn't the Czarist regime that was thrown aside by the communists, that had already fallen to a democratic system. The communists revolted against the democracy as they saw that they would not gain power through it.

And I know I do not speak of communism in its 'true sense', but if you have missed that, my argument is that there will never be, can never be, communism in its 'true sense'. Human nature forbids it.

2. Ever heard of Tetris? Invented by a Russian computer programmer. Moved later to the U.S. after the fall of the USSR not because he wanted great wealth but because the state would no longer be able to fund him. He now works in a lowly position in Microsoft being paid a pittence of his worth.

Seriously, your claim that communism can spawn something useful is Tetris?

Capitalism is doomed to fail because it requires gross inequalities. Look at some figures how much of what the world produces the US consumes, and compare that with the fact they have about 5% of the world's population.
When these poor countries start to become richer, as China and India are doing, what happens? They'll be able to afford more. They'll be able to afford a more equal share comparative to their population.
This is when changes will have to happen. We're seeing the beginning of this already with climbing oil prices. China is consuming more and more oil, so it's pushing prices up. The world can't produce enough for China and the US to consume the same amounts, so one of the countries is going to have to give.
With current growth projections, the US will be the nation that ends up giving in and suffering from a reduced import of oil.
This will later be reflected in other commodities, as the west finds itself feeding off the crumbs that the giants such as China and India leave behind.

When the nations are equal in wealth, capitalism fails. You have a system that relies on inequality suddenly having to cope with equality. Capitalism will fall, and socialism will be inevitable. People will have to make do with a share of the world's resources based on how much the world can produce, rather than how much they can afford.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

It's inevitable. Capitalism relies on gross inequality. This inequality is disappearing. Capitalism will fall.

Once again, you may think so Myrth, but I wont believe it till I see it.

I would just like to add a few comments here.

First, I find it rather amusing when those on the economic right (as they have in this thread) discuss how low our (the US's) tax rates are in comparison to other nations, then turn around and complain about how we're all being gouged, and all our money is being taken away.

Second, on the subject of Communism. I don't support it myself, because I believe the methodology is flawed. However, the end result has never been seen on this planet. People need to realize that. What has been seen in the USSR, China, Cuba, and so forth is purified Socialism, which is supposed to be the transitory state between Capitalism and Communism. People tend to get stuck there, for the simple reason that the idea of giving up more-or-less absolute power sticks in most people's craw. Actual Communism, as it is laid out in the Communist Manifesto, is essentially anarchism. Anarchism I do support, although not at the present time (the idea being it will work sometime in the future, but the current situation will not allow it, so the idea these days is to work to change things so that it will be possible later on). The question comes up, what is to stop people just killing other people and taking their stuff? The answer is, of course, the same thing that stops them now, the likelyhood of getting caught and punished for their actions. Doesn't matter if the guy hitting you is wearing a badge or not, you're still getting hit. In any case, I'm done with that for now.

Next up, in this debate, people need to qualify and define their terms. What, in this case, is meant by "liberal?" What by "conservative?" "Left" and "right" are not only subjective, but fluid in their meaning, coming to mean different things at different times. I've found that many political arguments over ideologies such as these can be resolved (or at least conducted with greater civility) once terms are solidly defined.

Lastly, on the subject of those unable to pay medical bills due to their financial status. I have read studies (no sources available to me at moment, but I can try to find them again if people so request) that have found that, for the most part, those living below the poverty line are unable to rise above it without outside assistance. Not "unwilling," not "too lazy," or "too stupid," but unable. Lack of available decent-paying jobs plays largely into that. Extreme example: many people, upon seeing a homeless man, will not offer anything except the advice, "get a job." Now ask yourself, objectively: who would hire that bum, if he doesn't even have enough money to keep from looking the part? Certainly, there are lazy, shiftless people. However, that is, I believe, a grossly overestimated percentage of the poor.

Czarist-Russia was a poor agricultural country that fell to bits because it wasn't in a position to fund its war efforts in WWI. And it wasn't the Czarist regime that was thrown aside by the communists, that had already fallen to a democratic system. The communists revolted against the democracy as they saw that they would not gain power through it.

And I know I do not speak of communism in its 'true sense', but if you have missed that, my argument is that there will never be, can never be, communism in its 'true sense'. Human nature forbids it.



Seriously, your claim that communism can spawn something useful is Tetris?

It hadn't fallen to a democratic system as the Provisional Govt was setup by the Duma (undemocratic peoples representation to the Czar). This then became dual powered with the Petrograd Soviet, none of which included workers from the countryside (Russia's primary peasant class and area of industry). Also, the Provisional Govt was led by one Prince Lvov. Again, the whole government was made up of the middle classes and the upper classes of the old Duma. Bolshevik revolution didn't occur until October 17 after Kerensky (Second leader of Provisional Govt)had continued to launch offensives during the First World War.

Tetris was not a claim of something useful, it was a follow up to your argument that nothing productive could be produced. Is one of the largest computer games in the world a useless resource of a country that would produce nothing due to its people being oppressed or uninspired?

Capitalism is doomed to fail because it requires gross inequalities. Look at some figures how much of what the world produces the US consumes, and compare that with the fact they have about 5% of the world's population.
When these poor countries start to become richer, as China and India are doing, what happens? They'll be able to afford more. They'll be able to afford a more equal share comparative to their population.
This is when changes will have to happen. We're seeing the beginning of this already with climbing oil prices. China is consuming more and more oil, so it's pushing prices up. The world can't produce enough for China and the US to consume the same amounts, so one of the countries is going to have to give.
With current growth projections, the US will be the nation that ends up giving in and suffering from a reduced import of oil.
This will later be reflected in other commodities, as the west finds itself feeding off the crumbs that the giants such as China and India leave behind.

When the nations are equal in wealth, capitalism fails. You have a system that relies on inequality suddenly having to cope with equality. Capitalism will fall, and socialism will be inevitable. People will have to make do with a share of the world's resources based on how much the world can produce, rather than how much they can afford.


And there aren't gross inequalities in Chinese society? The only difference is the rich in China are high ranking government officials and those with ties to government offcials on the one hand, and the Western peasant farmer on the other. Furthermore, the oil will go to the nation that is most able to afford the price- inequalities amongst members of society are irrelevent. And there is nothing to suggest that China will be the most able to pay the price. Ever taken a gander at their banking system and how this infrastructure is being financed?

And there aren't gross inequalities in Chinese society? The only difference is the rich in China are high ranking government officials and those with ties to government offcials on the one hand, and the Western peasant farmer on the other. Furthermore, the oil will go to the nation that is most able to afford the price- inequalities amongst members of society are irrelevent. And there is nothing to suggest that China will be the most able to pay the price. Ever taken a gander at their banking system and how this infrastructure is being financed?

I never mentioned inequalities between social classes. I was talking about inequalities between nations, which is currently what Capitalism feeds off of.
China will be the most able to afford it, simply because of its size and population. Within 10 years its economy will easily rival that of the US. The demand for oil will simply outstrip supply, so the US will have to make do with less, as China will be able to afford at least an equal share.

It hadn't fallen to a democratic system as the Provisional Govt was setup by the Duma (undemocratic peoples representation to the Czar). This then became dual powered with the Petrograd Soviet, none of which included workers from the countryside (Russia's primary peasant class and area of industry). Also, the Provisional Govt was led by one Prince Lvov. Again, the whole government was made up of the middle classes and the upper classes of the old Duma. Bolshevik revolution didn't occur until October 17 after Kerensky (Second leader of Provisional Govt)had continued to launch offensives during the First World War.

OK, I admit that my terminology was lax, my point was only that the communist revolution didn't actually overthrow Czarist-Russia, that had more or less already been done, it was only a way to secure power.

Tetris was not a claim of something useful, it was a follow up to your argument that nothing productive could be produced. Is one of the largest computer games in the world a useless resource of a country that would produce nothing due to its people being oppressed or uninspired?

My claim wasn't that nothing useful or productive could be produced, rather that the system promotes attitudes of whatever one does within the system is of little importance. The fact that you say that the maker of one of the worlds most spread games hasn't made any money off it only proves that to me. As did the ammount of time spent on producing things for the black market by Soviet farmers.

On the matter of finite commodities such as oil. That has yet to be a problem for a capitalist society. The very esssence in capitalism makes people explore other options when something become too costly, or find better, more effective ways to use the commodity in question.

Doomsday profecies has yet to come true when it comes to the demise of capitalism.

OK, I admit that my terminology was lax, my point was only that the communist revolution didn't actually overthrow Czarist-Russia, that had more or less already been done, it was only a way to secure power.



My claim wasn't that nothing useful or productive could be produced, rather that the system promotes attitudes of whatever one does within the system is of little importance. The fact that you say that the maker of one of the worlds most spread games hasn't made any money off it only proves that to me. As did the ammount of time spent on producing things for the black market by Soviet farmers.

First point. Ok, we both come from differing angles but we both agree on the final outcome. Argument finished :)

The idea of him making no money from the production of the game really makes no odds whether he was in a 'communist' society or capitalist. In a true capitalist society (which is the point we are both arguing, though you may tell me if I've got this point wrong) he would still have made no money from the game as the corporation he worked for would not have increased his pay because he was merely doing his job. However he was given, albeit a small, percentage of the income that was made from his game. I apologise if I didn't make that clear.
The Soviet farmers producing produce for the black market...again they would do the same in the capitalist world if they believed they could supplement their income.

On the matter of finite commodities such as oil. That has yet to be a problem for a capitalist society. The very esssence in capitalism makes people explore other options when something become too costly, or find better, more effective ways to use the commodity in question.

Doomsday profecies has yet to come true when it comes to the demise of capitalism.

But the fact of the matter is that the US consumes vastly more resources than is fair.
For every person to live the lifestyle of the average american, there would need to be 8 planet Earths.
When the inequality is reduced, this won't be able to continue.

I never mentioned inequalities between social classes. I was talking about inequalities between nations, which is currently what Capitalism feeds off of.
China will be the most able to afford it, simply because of its size and population. Within 10 years its economy will easily rival that of the US. The demand for oil will simply outstrip supply, so the US will have to make do with less, as China will be able to afford at least an equal share.


Point taken. However, how do these inequalities lead to US capitalism's failure? How does capitalism feed off of inequalities? China's (geographical) size doesn't equate to much of an advantage, and the US population could grow by simply allowing more immigration- if indeed a high population is advanageous.

The idea of him making no money from the production of the game really makes no odds whether he was in a 'communist' society or capitalist. In a true capitalist society (which is the point we are both arguing, though you may tell me if I've got this point wrong) he would still have made no money from the game as the corporation he worked for would not have increased his pay because he was merely doing his job. However he was given, albeit a small, percentage of the income that was made from his game. I apologise if I didn't make that clear.

I agree that whether or not he made money from it is of no importance on the subject of if Communism works or not, but not for the same reasons as you. I'm quite sure he would have profited, in higher work place appreciation and salary, if nothing else, in a capitalist society. To say he wouldn't do that in a communist society would only judge it from a capitalist view, which sort of defeats the point. It was I who introduced that here though, so my bad, I'll cling to the fact that it was well past midnight here when I wrote it as an excuse.

The percentage that he was given as a Soviet citizen defies communism though, as it doesn't abide by the 'to each according to his needs' theory, so if you are right - something I don't know anything about, but assume you are - there was capitalist incitements for him.

In my view, and what I feel has been shown through extensive experiments, people need something back for their efforts, or they wont try as hard. The reason for communism not to work really is no harder than that.

The Soviet farmers producing produce for the black market...again they would do the same in the capitalist world if they believed they could supplement their income.

Agreed. My point is that they don't have to, as the capitalist system makes it profitable to use the white market and black market commerce would only rise if heavy restrictions on what and how someone is allowed to produce goods were in place; like the coca producers in Colombia for instance. (And I say this without claiming Colombia to be an extremely capitalist society, I don't expect it is, but the example highlightens the point.)

And if you say that they would act the same to supplement their income you really admit that return of investment - be the investment in money or labour - is a fundamental driving force for people.

But the fact of the matter is that the US consumes vastly more resources than is fair.
For every person to live the lifestyle of the average american, there would need to be 8 planet Earths.
When the inequality is reduced, this won't be able to continue.

Fair is a relative word. The US consumes as much as it can to a certain extent, that's capitalsm for you. And if the resources become more scarce for some reason capitalism will drive it to consume less. In what way will that be the end of capitalism? Your hopes of that happening seems to make you grab every straw you can find.

If we ever truly begin to run out of resources then Capitolism will drive a rapid increase in recycling technology. Then we, the good ol' USA, will lead the world (both again and still) in pushing that technology to new fronteers, just like we always have. At that future time unknown, our greatest and most abundant resource wil be located in our landfills. I'm not throwing it away, I'm saving it for future generations. As a proud American and headstrong capitolist, it is my civic resposibility to consume (and discard) as much as possible thereby accumulating future goods for America :D

First of all, thank you, all of you for showing such interest.

And now answers to a few questions:

Privatised Railway's: Errr frankly, it was the worst discision ever made in the 1990's in the UK. Train's used to run on time, and fair's were standadised. It might not have been traveling in luxury, but you got on at station A, at the quoted time, and barring, outbreak of Nuclear War, you'd arrive at station B at about the quoted time.

Some one else also told me that if I couldn't take insults on my view's here on the internet, then I am maybe too imature to be in politics. Well heres the truth, I can take and dish out insults with the foulest of them. However, at least here in the UK, it's just not the done thing, when discussing politics etc people are polite.

The NHS: Errr I love it! Anyone who complains about it, is a fool, who would soon shut up if he/she had to pay for let's say, the use of an ambulance.

Left Wing politic's discurages the intelligent and sucessful: No, it helps everybody, no matter there background. Poor people can asspire to more, to better themself's, because the Government is there to help. My own father came from a working class background in Scotland, and because of the system's of support, he was able to go to University, instead of having to work to support his family. He now proudly has DR infront of his name.


Once again thankyou

Alasdair

As someone said before Capitalism will thrive even if China consumes an equal amount of oil as the USA. Alot of US companies are leading the way in Alternatives to fossil fuels. When the oil prices become intolerable these alternatives will become cheaper and in demand...So let China and other nations consume more oil, it will only benefit capitalisism even more...

In Sweden many perceive that they are paying a tax rate of 30%, but they are then disregarding the fact that there is also an added tax to their paycheck, directly paid by the employer, which exists to pay for pensions and social security. There is also a VAT of up to 25% paid on all goods purchased. All in all it adds up to over 50%.

The VAT rate is not 25% on all goods purchased. Some goods such as food and books are subject to a lower rate.

Social insurance payments by the employer are not a tax to the employee's pay but to the employer.

I don't think we Swedes perceive we are paying at 30% rate of tax. We know it's a little more. However, we also know that this pays for a better more equal society and high-quality public services. Just go and look at the rate of child poverty in Sweden compared to the USA.

Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair

It's only in the late 1980's that they stopped teaching people that communists eat children.
That's almost 40 years worth of commie scare films and propaganda... And things like that don't go away so fast.
Anything on the left side of hitler is communism to them.

I'm not going to bother reading all the mudslinging.

Doncastonia, just don't listen to them. You know you're perfectly right :D

I'm not just scared of communists, I'm scared of all leftys. They think it's ok to steal money off people to give to other people so they can watch TV all day.

Edit: Hello this my first post

Nothing "wrong with it" per se. You have every right to believe as you will.
I don't believe in it, for one of the reasons you stated. The "Free" that isn't free. It basically breaks down for me pretty simply. Socialism is little more than compulsory charity, forcing people to surrender the fruits of their labor to bring others to their level. Working families being compelled to live at lower levels than their earnings would otherwise permit in order to pay for things they may not want, need or believe in by a powerful central government. People have the right to build a commune and pool their own resources to their heart's content. But to force that ideal on everyone and confiscate their wealth in order to make it happen is plainly wrong. It's not a free society if some people are forced to be the worker drones for other people's ideals. Consider it "enlightened" if it makes you feels better, but the theft of a person's potential and dreams in order to make everyone equally dependent is the antithesis of freedom. If putting chains on the feet of half of the people in order to ensure that they can't outrun the other half works for you, then embrace socialism, by all means. But realize that political freedom and socialism are opposing goals and that no greatness is achieved under socialism except perhaps the perfection of uniform mediocrity.

Nothing "wrong with it" per se. You have every right to believe as you will.
I don't believe in it, for one of the reasons you stated. The "Free" that isn't free. It basically breaks down for me pretty simply. Socialism is little more than compulsory charity, forcing people to surrender the fruits of their labor to bring others to their level. Working families being compelled to live at lower levels than their earnings would otherwise permit in order to pay for things they may not want, need or believe in by a powerful central government. People have the right to build a commune and pool their own resources to their heart's content. But to force that ideal on everyone and confiscate their wealth in order to make it happen is plainly wrong. It's not a free society if some people are forced to be the worker drones for other people's ideals. Consider it "enlightened" if it makes you feels better, but the theft of a person's potential and dreams in order to make everyone equally dependent is the antithesis of freedom. If putting chains on the feet of half of the people in order to ensure that they can't outrun the other half works for you, then embrace socialism, by all means. But realize that political freedom and socialism are opposing goals and that no greatness is achieved under socialism except perhaps the perfection of uniform mediocrity.

Sweden and Iceland have the highest standard of living in the world... The rest of the nordic countries are way up there too...
I think our communist-hippie-terrorist governments are doing a great job.

Nothing wrong with being left-wing , it works quite well in many countries. In fact the countries that have the highest standard of living in the world do tend to be further to the left then right.. Such as Norway which I believe for 2 years in a row now has held the highest standard of living then any country in the world. Canada a country that is pretty left by American standards held the highest standard of living in the world for 8 years and are still in the top five. Nothing wrong with being left of the spectrum.

The private sector has shown itself less effective at delievering drugs at a decent price, why do you think so many seniors get their prescriptions filled in Canada? Because medicines are substantially cheaper here.


Actually, thats because the American consumer is being forced to foot the entire R&D cost of medicines developed in the US. Exported medicine's prices reflect nearly none of these costs.
Those damn americans! Eating the development costs and shipping inexpensive medicines to the rest of the world. It shows how selfish they are?

... those Asian nations were communist, and therefore about as far liberal as you can get...
For some reason I can't stop laughing. :D

This is not what I was looking for but is interesting anyway.
301:1 The ratio between average CEO compensation and worker pay in the US in 2003, up from 282:1 two years ago
15.76$ What the federal minimum wage, now 5.15$ per hour, would be if it had grown at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990.
(Time 9/13/2004)

I've never understood these arguments.
With higher responsibility comes higher pay. A CEO is responsible for the running of a large company on all levels. Responsible to employees for their compensation, responsible to the feds for regulatory compliance, responsible to shareholders for the company's performance in the stock market, the list goes on and on. Yes, they are paid a lot. Who would do this job for poor pay?
Most CEO's compensation packages are largely company stock, intended to keep them honest by linking their compensation to the company's performance under their guidance. If they make a lot for themselves, it's because they've grown their company and increased the stock value, making far more money for others.
The sweat of the common worker is the grease upon which every country's economic engine depends. This has never changed and never will. But the common worker has practically no responsibility by comparison, and that is why he makes what he does, and continues to do so since the responsibility has changed little. When billion dollar transactions and international contracts hinge on your decision, you'll make that kind of money too.

Have there been abuses? Yes.
Should these abusers be hung by their gonads? Yes.
You want in on their "scam"?
Buy stocks!

Leftys come up with stupid ideas like these:
1. Stealing money off rich people because "they don't need it as much" and other stupid reasons. They tend to accuse richer people of being "evil thieves" even though they only have the money because the poorer people gave them it by buying their products .etc
2. Forcing employers to pay employees £4.50 an hour, if you employee someone it should be up to you how much you pay them.
3. Giving mothers 6 months maternity leave when it's there fault they're pregnant and allowing them to murder the baby if they like.

I hardly see any of this as enlightend.

Sweden and Iceland have the highest standard of living in the world... The rest of the nordic countries are way up there too...
I think our communist-hippie-terrorist governments are doing a great job.

I would characterize most of the countries you mention as being "state socialism," rather than "communist" or anything else.

I would characterize most of the countries you mention as being "state socialism," rather than "communist" or anything else.

What do you mean by "state socialism"?

Sweden and Iceland have the highest standard of living in the world... The rest of the nordic countries are way up there too...
I think our communist-hippie-terrorist governments are doing a great job.

If "standard of living" is your only criterion, then perhaps so. Does this mean that everyone in these countries happily agrees to 50% taxation and sees it as nescessary? I doubt that. The problem is, that 100% participation is nescessary to pay for these "enlightened reforms" when 100% willing participation is not possible. Say what you want, but many people are being forced to participate against their will. Hippies become yuppies when their standard of living is their major criteria.

"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the
intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means,
and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors
of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804

Or equally, and possibly more importantly, the power of the many to riot on the labors of the few. Democratic tyranny is tyranny nonetheless.

If "standard of living" is your only criterion, then perhaps so. Does this mean that everyone in these countries happily agrees to 50% taxation and sees it as nescessary? I doubt that. The problem is, that 100% participation is nescessary to pay for these "enlightened reforms" when 100% willing participation is not possible. Say what you want, but many people are being forced to participate against their will. Hippies become yuppies when their standard of living is their major criteria.

"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the
intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means,
and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors
of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804

Or equally, and possibly more importantly, the power of the many to riot on the labors of the few. Democratic tyranny is tyranny nonetheless.

In the last Riksdag election, the main conservative party ("The Moderates Party") advocated cutting taxes. It lost seats.

One could turn round your argument and say what about those Americans who want to live in a country that promotes equality etc, are they being discriminated against?

Sweden is a democracy, the method we choose to run our society is exactly that; our democractic choice. Just as your tax cutting for the rich and ensuring the state does little or nothing to help its poorest members is your choice.

If "standard of living" is your only criterion, then perhaps so. Does this mean that everyone in these countries happily agrees to 50% taxation and sees it as nescessary? I doubt that. The problem is, that 100% participation is nescessary to pay for these "enlightened reforms" when 100% willing participation is not possible. Say what you want, but many people are being forced to participate against their will. Hippies become yuppies when their standard of living is their major criteria.

"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the
intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means,
and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors
of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804

Or equally, and possibly more importantly, the power of the many to riot on the labors of the few. Democratic tyranny is tyranny nonetheless.

Well...They don't seem to get many complaints... I'm in Iceland, and things are run they same way here as in Sweden, and it works quite well.
100% agreement is not necessary, and to claim so is silly... Even more so when you're an american (I'm assuming you are, since you're quoting US presidents) since there doesn't seem to be 100% support for the current president and when less than half of the population shows up to vote.
Of course you never get a 100% agreement, but that's why we vote, isn't it? (mind you, voter participation here is around 80-90%)

If "standard of living" is your only criterion, then perhaps so. Does this mean that everyone in these countries happily agrees to 50% taxation and sees it as nescessary? I doubt that. The problem is, that 100% participation is nescessary to pay for these "enlightened reforms" when 100% willing participation is not possible. Say what you want, but many people are being forced to participate against their will. Hippies become yuppies when their standard of living is their major criteria.

"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the
intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means,
and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors
of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804

Or equally, and possibly more importantly, the power of the many to riot on the labors of the few. Democratic tyranny is tyranny nonetheless.
so what your saying because the majority of idiots think its a good idea to pay less taxes in exchange for around 0 government protections, the minority has no right to become a minority and say fuck that, raise my taxes and do your damn job as a government

Europeans more often have more flexible opinions. The US citizens in the forum tend to think more in black and white. (I don't mean to offend anyone but seems to be the case here). Europeans don't usually (I've never heard) call each other commies if they have leftist thoughts. You will notice that just being European makes you a commie... :(
Yeah, I think the US Republicans tend to see things in black and white. They also tend to view all of Europe as "socialists". They view anyone who disagrees with them as "socialist lefties", etc. you get the idea.

Yeah, I think the US Republicans tend to see things in black and white. They also tend to view all of Europe as "socialists". They view anyone who disagrees with them as "socialist lefties", etc. you get the idea.
But then the same thing can be said about US Democrats, as they all see people so disagree with them as "nazi's" etc.

Yeah, I think the US Republicans tend to see things in black and white. They also tend to view all of Europe as "socialists". They view anyone who disagrees with them as "socialist lefties", etc. you get the idea.
Europe is full of socialists unfortunately, that's why the EU just waste time with working time directive and other pointless stuff. That's also why they get our money to give to Spanish people :(.

But then the same thing can be said about US Democrats, as they all see people so disagree with them as "nazi's" etc.

The US democrats are still far on the right compared to Europe

I don't recall saying there should be no limits or standards... when I said standards will be maintained I thought that was fairly clear I would still want some basic standards in place to ensure companies do not lie and such. Once minimum standards are at the level where people will not get royally screwed, then the competition begins. They might have a selfish mentality, but that's the beauty of the right wing, self interest and helping others go hand in hand, since in helping others you will yourself become wealthy.

I believe what you said was that the companies would voluntarily hold to standards. I was just pointing out that this is not true. It is good to know that you are not advocating a completely unregulated health industry.

Why can't she get a job that doesn't provide health care and doesn't provide enough of a salary that she can afford medical bills? Or does she just suck at managing money? If she just sucks at managing money, then is it not her own fault? We must remember to look at the REASONS behind things that happen, and not just what's happening. For example:

What's happening: Woman can't pay for her health care
Reason: She blew all her money on gambling

See what I mean? If you only look at what's actually happening, of course you want to help her. When you see the reason behind it, you see she doesn't deserve to be helped.

You are making baseless assumptions. Suppose the woman was born into poverty. She was unable to finish high school because her mother pulled her out and sent her to work a job at the local fast-food restaraunt. In order to survive, she has to work long hours and spends the rest of her time helping to take care of her younger siblings that her mother died and left behind. Said woman doesn't really have the education to get a job that has a high enough salary to pay huge medical bills.

You must remember that not all people in poverty are there due to choices they personally made.

Well it's less so for more centrist views, but regardless of how you look at it, is a progressive tax rate not punishing people for working harder? (You work harder, more of your money is taken away)

I would say that a progressive tax rate (as long as the progression is not too large) encourages people to succeed. It kind of depends on how you look at it. If you look at it from the point of view of someone who is and has always been rich/upper middle class - they see it as a punishment. If you look at it from the point of view of someone who was born poor or lower middle class, the fact that half of their paycheck doesn't immediately go to the government demonstrates that they really can get more money by working harder.

I don't pick one side and stick to it on everything heh. I know I haven't really said so in this post, however I strongly support environmental protection and although I tend to dislike the idea of homosexuality, I am not opposed to allowing them civil marriage. I also do not believe in outlawing alcohol for everyone under the age of 21, I think the age of 14 is good enough. A few other things, but yeah.

Fine, these are all leftist views - so don't try and say that being leftist on everything is horrible.

I might not understand the reasoning behind what the left-wing thinks, but I sure know what it is. I live in a very liberal part of a liberal country (Canada), I am surrounded by leftists. Maybe left-wingers in your part of the world are different... but I know damn well what they think here.

You have chosen the parts you inherently disagree with and decided "my exaggerated view of what they must think is what they think." Meanwhile, you yourself hold certain leftist views, but you conveniently forget them when you are citing what you see as being "leftist."

Erm... if they are dishonorable, cheating, lying, stupid, weak, cowardly, etc. etc. then yes they are lesser people....

You are putting qualifiers on that weren't there. If someone is less smart/strong/beautiful than you, are they lesser people?

People should have what they earn, so long that they earn it through honorable means (for example, becoming rich by holding up a bank isn't respectable, and you should be punished heavily for doing so, but becoming rich through entrepeneruship (sp?) and good business practices is commendable)

Is becoming rich because your daddy had good business practices commendable? Because most of the rich got their money from their parents.

Japan and Singapore are definitely what I would term socialist. They have far too much government control.

You're kidding, right? Singapore is a virtual capitalist police state.

You're kidding, right? Singapore is a virtual capitalist police state.
Singapore is neither of that. Singapore is a Confucianists state. This chinese philosopher is the guiding principal of the Singaporean order. And it seems to work pretty well. Most Singaporese are Chinese anyway. And this philosophy is also used outside China - like Korea.
Though Japan is seperate to it. Japan is unique - culturally. Which is a problem for it since it makes it quite isolated. And it is still hated in Korea and China. And it has still disputes with Russia. Which only leaves the alliance with the US for Japanese foreign policy. It is acting quite rational in that respect.

In his most recent book, Garrison Keillor talks about what he finds to be the difference between liberals and conservatives (or Democrats and Republicans) and I must say that I agree completely.

Liberals believe that, on the most basic level, people should help one another. Companies should give their workers good salaries and benefits, if someone is sick they deserve health care no matter what; everyone should get the best education possible. Because, unfortuantely, people and companies and whatnot do not follow this ideal, liberals use the power of government to make it happen. Liberals use the government to help people and serve the common good.

Conseratives think that there should be no government in that sense; that each person is 100% on their own and should have to fight for everything in life. And if they lose that fight, or a part of it, that person screwed up and should get nothing. So conservatives use government to reduce barriers to ensure that the best people have little difficulty finding the maximum amount of success, even if that screws over the millions of "less successful" people.

Being a liberal is about compassion, about taking the most successful people and using their resources to help everyone else. Being a conservative is about hard-nosed competition for every resource, every position, every instant of your life, because there is no safety net. And maybe such conditions bring out the best in some people, but most cannot survive.

What's wrong with liberalism? Only that too many people believe that they could do better with no rules, no "interference," while never realizing just how much work the government does on their behalf.

Singapore is neither of that. Singapore is a Confucianists state. This chinese philosopher is the guiding principal of the Singaporean order. And it seems to work pretty well. Most Singaporese are Chinese anyway. And this philosophy is also used outside China - like Korea.
Though Japan is seperate to it. Japan is unique - culturally. Which is a problem for it since it makes it quite isolated. And it is still hated in Korea and China. And it has still disputes with Russia. Which only leaves the alliance with the US for Japanese foreign policy. It is acting quite rational in that respect.

In Singapore, you arrive at the airport and are confronted by soldiers with M-16's. You then catch a train, and you are reminded over the speaker that you are "a happy person". You are then told that coca-cola is wonderful.

Explain that as socialism. (A friends experience, i've never been there, and nor do I think I want to) Furthermore, the same political party has been in power almost uninterrupted since independence, i believe?

I do however know that it is a very unregulated economy.

As for Japan, I made no comment. I definitely would not regard them as "socialist" per se, however.

In Singapore, you arrive at the airport and are confronted by soldiers with M-16's. You then catch a train, and you are reminded over the speaker that you are "a happy person". You are then told that coca-cola is wonderful.

Explain that as socialism. (A friends experience, i've never been there, and nor do I think I want to) Furthermore, the same political party has been in power almost uninterrupted since independence, i believe?

I do however know that it is a very unregulated economy.

As for Japan, I made no comment. I definitely would not regard them as "socialist" per se, however.
In USA, you arrive at the airport and are confronted by people with guns. You catch a train and are reminded via advertisement that you should be a happy person and to drink cola. I agree with you that S'pore is far from socialist, and certainly not a liberal democracy. You are suspicious just because you chew gum... cos you can at any time spit it on the sidewalk.... which is against the law.
I just love poor examples.

Being both 17, British, interested in politics and right-wing, I hope that we may have many (clean) arguments in the years to come :-P

In USA, you arrive at the airport and are confronted by people with guns. You catch a train and are reminded via advertisement that you should be a happy person and to drink cola. I agree with you that S'pore is far from socialist, and certainly not a liberal democracy. You are suspicious just because you chew gum... cos you can at any time spit it on the sidewalk.... which is against the law.
I just love poor examples.

I don't spit gum on the footpath. Why are you arguing against me anyway? I said Singapore was a capitalist police state and not at all socialist. You backed me up very well :)

And by the way, the "happy person" advertisements in singapore are (apparently) not at all subtle like I would expect to find in any of the major western nations. They actually say "SMILE! You are a happy person!"

...can any Singaporeans confirm this?

Who is saying I'm arguing you Kanabia? Who is saing I'm arguing at all? I was just wondering why you mentioned m-16's in your post and I had time to spare to write my shitty post. Don't lose any sleep over it.

There's nothing wrong with being left, just like there's nothing wrong with being right.

It's never wrong to be right, as long as you aren't far right.

Who is saying I'm arguing you Kanabia? Who is saing I'm arguing at all? I was just wondering why you mentioned m-16's in your post and I had time to spare to write my shitty post. Don't lose any sleep over it.

I'm not losing any sleep believe me :p

I was just pointing out the fact that their police bear assault rifles (in non-extreme situations)- isn't that at least somewhat unusual in a "democratic" society?

Yes. Just assing aroung pal. :)
I don't know where you are from (I do now... melbourne, nice), but hell, have you been in an airport recently? In every big one there are police (or whatever) with asssault rifles or weapons of some sort visible.
You asked (isn't that at least somewhat unusual in a "democratic" society?), I'd answer yes....unusual in every western one. That's what we are stuck with though i guess.

Yes. Just assing aroung pal. :)
I don't know where you are from (I do now... melbourne, nice), but hell, have you been in an airport recently? In every big one there are police (or whatever) with asssault rifles or weapons of some sort visible.
You asked (isn't that at least somewhat unusual in a "democratic" society?), I'd answer yes....unusual in every western one. That's what we are stuck with though i guess.

I've never noticed assault weapons. Pistols, yes...but not anything larger than that. (Not publicly visible, anyhow)

I've never noticed assault weapons. Pistols, yes...but not anything larger than that. (Not publicly visible, anyhow)
At Rhain-Main international airport (Frankfurt) the federal border patrol is sometimes walking with machine pistols. That looks quite impressive. Hopefully it -and other measures - are deterring terrorists. Though I don´t think that there is absolute security. Not, to the slightest.

Oh. OK. Fly over to Europe or America. BTW... you being so close to S'pore, go over and check the club scene, it's amazing! If you can keep your gum inside your mouth that is. ;)

Oh. OK. Fly over to Europe or America. BTW... you being so close to S'pore, go over and check the club scene, it's amazing! If you can keep your gum inside your mouth that is. ;)

I'll keep it in mind. I'm saving up money for an overseas trip, so maybe I can stop over on the way to Japan or something :)

At Rhain-Main international airport (Frankfurt) the federal border patrol is sometimes walking with machine pistols. That looks quite impressive. Hopefully it -and other measures - are deterring terrorists. Though I don´t think that there is absolute security. Not, to the slightest.

Well, it makes me uncomfortable, so i'm sure it works on the terrorists :)

In Singapore, you arrive at the airport and are confronted by soldiers with M-16's. You then catch a train, and you are reminded over the speaker that you are "a happy person". You are then told that coca-cola is wonderful.
Explain that as socialism. (A friends experience, i've never been there, and nor do I think I want to) Furthermore, the same political party has been in power almost uninterrupted since independence, i believe?
I do however know that it is a very unregulated economy.
As for Japan, I made no comment. I definitely would not regard them as "socialist" per se, however.
None of them are socialists. It is actually a western concept, anyway. Russia used to be. And to some degree India was. Scandivia is pretty socialist - but less than in the 1980s.
Socialism is declining anyway. And it is good that way. Although the European left is in a sense-crisis because of that. The political left dominated Europe in the end of the 1990s (13 out of 15) countries. The four big countries Britain, France, Italy and Germany were ruled by left-wing governments. Today - Italy (2001) and France (2002) switched sides. Tony Blairs New Labour (which is very little socialists anyway) which reformed itself remained strong. The German SPD only survived thanks to the floods, Iraq and the higher personal popularity of Schröder compared to Stoiber (I think that factor is also playing for Bush versus Kerry - Bush is going to win).
And now also Labour is in a big crisis. It may win once more - since the conservatives don´t present a good alternative- but it is going to loose tremendously and it is going to get close (certainly not a two-third majority anymore).

Well, it makes me uncomfortable, so i'm sure it works on the terrorists :)
I don´t think that terrorists have the same sense as we do. When they are ready to kill themself they must be not afraid of death. That can really only be explained with religious reasons. "Normal" terrorists (like the RAF - Red Army fractions) which was causing problems in Germany in the 70s and 80s (especially during the autum of terror in 1977) never did such a thing.

When you look to government to solve problems like poverty, look first at the failures of communism and socialism before you decide that's a good thing. When you advocate aiming the government's guns at others to help redistribute people's wealth, that is just the beginning of such an awful disrespect that words cannot describe the horrors of big government gone berserk.
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" creates nations of liars, thieves and scoundrels. Let each be free to succeed without undue taxes and without governmental favors. The result is a society where decent people can coexist in an atmosphere of trust and compassion.

When you look to government to solve problems like poverty, look first at the failures of communism and socialism before you decide that's a good thing. When you advocate aiming the government's guns at others to help redistribute people's wealth, that is just the beginning of such an awful disrespect that words cannot describe the horrors of big government gone berserk.
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" creates nations of liars, thieves and scoundrels. Let each be free to succeed without undue taxes and without governmental favors. The result is a society where decent people can coexist in an atmosphere of trust and compassion.
hehe... nice. I really think compassion is needed when this utopia is examined further.
Oops 'undue taxes'... just saw that. Never mind then.

When you look to government to solve problems like poverty, look first at the failures of communism and socialism before you decide that's a good thing. When you advocate aiming the government's guns at others to help redistribute people's wealth, that is just the beginning of such an awful disrespect that words cannot describe the horrors of big government gone berserk.
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" creates nations of liars, thieves and scoundrels. Let each be free to succeed without undue taxes and without governmental favors. The result is a society where decent people can coexist in an atmosphere of trust and compassion.
Lay off the Rand. It is bad for you.

Being a liberal is about compassion, about taking the most successful people and using their resources to help everyone else. Being a conservative is about hard-nosed competition for every resource, every position, every instant of your life, because there is no safety net. And maybe such conditions bring out the best in some people, but most cannot survive.
Maybe pro-market, pro-freedom people feel that people are good enough to one another without the need of the government to do it. Maybe they don't feel people are that great, but they realise that if CEO's can be nasty selfish people, so can politicians. Maybe they feel that the forces driving the hand of CEO's to serve the public are stronger than those driving the hand of the government to serve the public. It's easy to label all people who believe in free markets as selfish bastards, but it's not necessarily correct.

Personally, I think we do have too much government at the moment. I feel all the government should provide (apart from, tentatively, services that the private sectors won't provide enough of) is the opportunity for people to be equal at the starting blocks. Then they can rise and fall on their own merits after that without complaining that they were disadvantaged.

I think governments should minimise their control over people's lives so that people can make the choices in their own best interests. That would include not illegalising things like homosexuality and probably abortion.

When you look to government to solve problems like poverty, look first at the failures of communism and socialism before you decide that's a good thing. When you advocate aiming the government's guns at others to help redistribute people's wealth, that is just the beginning of such an awful disrespect that words cannot describe the horrors of big government gone berserk.
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" creates nations of liars, thieves and scoundrels. Let each be free to succeed without undue taxes and without governmental favors. The result is a society where decent people can coexist in an atmosphere of trust and compassion.

Should the government control all industry, all the economy? Hell no. But without active government influence, Big Business will stomp all over humanity in a way Big Government could neither put into action or even imagine.

Conservatives take donations from the same companies who use our airwaves without paying for them, pollute our environment without even having to pay Superfund, and deliberately pay people as little as possible, give as few benefits as possible, such that the average employee has no prayer of being able to support themselves, so that a handful of people get richer.

You say "decent", but what you mean is "successful", and screw anyone who isn't. You talk about trust and compassion when companies never spend a penny on either, except for deliberate PR.

"Redistributing" wealth at least helps the economy, when said wealth gets spent instead of shipped to the Cayman Islands or Swiss bank accounts.

hehe... nice. I really think compassion is needed when this utopia is examined further.
Oops 'undue taxes'... just saw that. Never mind then.
I think we are suffering from an undue tax - and even more - mandatory social security premium burden - especially the employed people.
I think that due to the greater copetition due to globalisation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Also the reconstruction of East Germany (4% of the GDP) is an enormous burden. However in order to remain competitive Germany has to cut company takes and income taxes - which it did however not far enough- to remain competitive. No, cuts in the social security field are neede. If that is not happening the premiums are going to rise, the costs of labour is increasing and more jobs are moved to Eastern Europe.
Today 4 employed pay for one retired, in the future (2050) one is going to pay for one if nothing changes. I think we need to do many steps. Rising the retirment age, cutting pensions down to a minimum standard and make it voluntary or mandatory for people to go for private insurances. That is a better system since it allows more competition. The same should be done for the health sector (there are are since many decades private insurances for self-employed people, state service people and people with higher income, anyway). Just remove it from the income and say: Everyone (except children) should take a head premium - around 200 Euros a month. And people with low income may get a tax deducation or some support to pay for it. that is just and fair, and with the decrease costs for labour and the cut of the link between labour costs and insurance premium the costs of labour doens´t continue to rise anymore, the economy gets more competitive, and jobs can be created.
I don´t see that the scandinavian modell has a future. Norway only lives from oil and the other scandinavian countries also have natural resources. Aside of the fact that Sweden had to go for cuts in the welfare state as well during the 1990s. It is inevitable. And this process is going to continue and also Sweden and Finland have to follow it in the long-term in order to be competitive. Otherwise they are going to lose economic strength in the globalized economy to East Europe and East Asia.

Maybe pro-market, pro-freedom people feel that people are good enough to one another without the need of the government to do it. Maybe they don't feel people are that great, but they realise that if CEO's can be nasty selfish people, so can politicians. Maybe they feel that the forces driving the hand of CEO's to serve the public are stronger than those driving the hand of the government to serve the public. It's easy to label all people who believe in free markets as selfish bastards, but it's not necessarily correct.

Marx made the mistake of assuming that people were better than they turned out to believe. Unfortuantely I have trouble trusting pretty much anyone to do "the right thing" unless someone is twisting their arm. If you believe that CEO's are more inclined to help the people than politicians, than more capitalism, less government, works great. I don't personally agree with you there, but it makes sense.

I think that the government should intervene in favor of the people when it can help them (ie. municipal services which are much cheaper than free market) but back off elsewhere.

I think we are suffering from an undue tax - and even more - mandatory social security premium burden - especially the employed people. SNIPPETY
I'm not entirely clear why you had to quote my post when posting this... I was referring to one sentence in that dude's post, namely: "Let each be free to succeed without undue taxes and without governmental favors." I was only quoting that in my post because the word undue makes it interesting. Cos english isn't my native tongue I have to wonder wether he meant if the taxes were not approppriate, excessive or lacking justification. If you think of how the taxation is agreed on, it's kinda interesting... or then not. To be quite honest, I didn't read your post to the end... I can't be arsed really.... I pay taxes as much as the man wants me to.
EDIT: just trying to keep my fingers warm in here writing in this forum.... no need to reply (cos I didn't really say nuttin).

I'm not entirely clear why you had to quote my post when posting this... I was referring to one sentence in that dude's post, namely: "Let each be free to succeed without undue taxes and without governmental favors." I was only quoting that in my post because the word undue makes it interesting. Cos english isn't my native tongue I have to wonder wether he meant if the taxes were not approppriate, excessive or lacking justification. If you think of how the taxation is agreed on, it's kinda interesting... or then not. To be quite honest, I didn't read your post to the end... I can't be arsed really.... I pay taxes as much as the man wants me to.
EDIT: just trying to keep my fingers warm in here writing in this forum.... no need to reply (cos I didn't really say nuttin).
What is going on. Do you have to pay so much taxes that you can´t afford heating? hehe.
Well, I was refering to the end of the classic welfare state and the socialists modell of the political left.
And I was saying, that also Sweden and Finland will need to go for further cuts in it. The time of the welfare state is over.
It is time for "the opportunity society" as Blair puts it.
Europe has to change and the welfare state must be reduced to a minimum standard. Otherwise Old Europe is not competitive, neither on the international market, nor towards rising East Europe.

Ahh, ok. Let's do as you suggest.

Sorry, i don't see where a Liberal is a communist.
I've been accused of being liberal (and I don't consider it a bad word), but that's because the Republicans sold their party to the religious right and i won't have anybody's God shoved down my throat.
I do believe that it is in the best interests of a country to make available to each of it's citizens the best education it can. an educated electorate and skilled workforce are neccessities for a nation to thrive. if this was left to the free market alone, only the wealthy would get the abilities needed to take responsibility for themselves.
and life happens; young parents die; GM moves plants to get labor for 10 cents on the dollar: disabling accidents or diseases: what have you. is it not in the best interest of a society to help these people from ending up under a bridge.
If there were so many Compassionate Capitalists in the world there would be no hunger.
this is not to say that government is smart , efficient and as minimal as possible. But it does have to protect those that for some reason cannot take care of themselves, It is in the country's best interest.

Ahh, ok. Let's do as you suggest.
Well - I wanted to go into a debate here: What is wrong to be left-wing?
So, do you agree that the traditional concepts of the left (socialism,expanding the state) don´t work and the state needs to be cut back? And how is the development in Finland in that respect?
You don´t have to agree with me - I´m not going to invade you!

Well - I wanted to go into a debate here: What is wrong to be left-wing?
So, do you agree that the traditional concepts of the left (socialism,expanding the state) don´t work and the state needs to be cut back? And how is the development in Finland in that respect?
You don´t have to agree with me - I´m not going to invade you!
Don't worry mate, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, I like your manners. Unfortunately I'm way too tired now, that's why I typed that docile answer. Later, I hope...

In Sweden many perceive that they are paying a tax rate of 30%, but they are then disregarding the fact that there is also an added tax to their paycheck, directly paid by the employer, which exists to pay for pensions and social security. There is also a VAT of up to 25% paid on all goods purchased. All in all it adds up to over 50%.

The VAT rate is not 25% on all goods purchased. Some goods such as food and books are subject to a lower rate.

I've never said there is a flat VAT rate of 25%. Learn to read.

Social insurance payments by the employer are not a tax to the employee's pay but to the employer.

It's a tax on employment, thinking it makes any difference if it is nominally the employer or employee that pays it is plain silly.

I don't think we Swedes perceive we are paying at 30% rate of tax. We know it's a little more.

If you randomly ask people in Sweden how big a share of their wage they think is going to taxes I wager that 30% will be a far more common answer than 50%, or indeed anything else.

However, we also know that this pays for a better more equal society and high-quality public services. Just go and look at the rate of child poverty in Sweden compared to the USA.

I haven't been discussing what it gets you, only what it is.

If you randomly ask people in Sweden how big a share of their wage they think is going to taxes I wager that 30% will be a far more common answer than 50%, or indeed anything else.



I haven't been discussing what it gets you, only what it is.

As a Swede, I would say that most people here are aware that it is more than 30%.

Secondly, I'm afraid I have to say I think that's rather a rude put-down. I don't believe there are any regulations against expanding on the debate. It's hardly as if I went dramatically off the subject. I often enjoy debating contentious points on here, but only with people who are polite. Kybernetia and I are good examples; we hold completely different opinions to each other, but Kybernetia is always polite and debates them elloquently. What is the point of entering a debate if you are not prepared to even listen?

Sorry, didn't mean to put you down. Was really just saying that should I go into the value of what you get from your taxes I personally could have gone on for ages. Of course you may say and discuss whatever you like, I just didn't think it relevant for my argument.

Should the government control all industry, all the economy? Hell no. But without active government influence, Big Business will stomp all over humanity in a way Big Government could neither put into action or even imagine.
I agree. Both government and corporations have the capacity to create vast oppression in equal measure. It is necessary for government to prevent corporate tyranny by protecting workers and consumers. It is necessary for corporations to prevent government tyranny by maintaining the free market to prevent total government ownership and planning.

In this sense both hardcore socialists and hardcore conservatives/libertarians are wrong, IMO.

The US democrats are still far on the right compared to Europe
No, compared with Europe they are centrist.

But then the same thing can be said about US Democrats, as they all see people so disagree with them as "nazi's" etc.
Maybe a few of them, but I see a lot more accusations of "lefty" from Republicans (towards ppl who disagree with them) than I see accusations of "Nazi" from Democrats on this forum.

No, compared with Europe they are centrist.


Maybe a few of them, but I see a lot more accusations of "lefty" from Republicans (towards ppl who disagree with them) than I see accusations of "Nazi" from Democrats on this forum.
Only because "lefty" remarks affect you more. I see more accusations of "Nazi" or "Neo-con" or "Liberals are just more educated, accept that" than anything from the right.

Only because "lefty" remarks affect you more. I see more accusations of "Nazi" or "Neo-con" or "Liberals are just more educated, accept that" than anything from the right.
No, they don't really affect me more. I don't think such an "insult" has ever been directed at me. But they are stupid, and many reactionaries and conservatives on these forums spout them. The only person who calls Republicans "Nazis" is crazy MKULTRA.

I am going to vote for Bush because I'm pissed at the rest of the world for being pissed at the United States for not being socialist enough.

George W. Bush will win re-election, and then make it a point to kick your foreign ass! We don't need soft, weak, poor, terrorist harboring,left wing idiots telling us how to run our country or who to vote for. Why don't you go donate some more to bin-Laden, or kill some more school children in Russia, or bomb some more trains in Madrid, or behead some more innocent civillians in Iraq. We will take revenge for all of these atrocites, and I warn you, don't get in the way. "You'll be sorry that you messed with the US of A, cuz we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the AMERICAN WAY!!!!!!"
Translation: "I hate everyone"

Well said. The left has shown a penchant for wanting no killing, no violence, etc...but all to often has been willing to kill those opposed to them..ie leftist govts such as the former Soviet Union,present day PRC, DPRK,Cuba, etc.Translation: "Lefties are murderers"

And here we have the prime example of the left that I see usually..anyone who disagrees is stupid,ignorant,etc etc..rubbish
Translation: "Lefties are elitists"

Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot
Translation: "Lefties are elitists"

Spoken like a true leftist.
Translation: "Well, you're just another one of those lefty idiots"

No, it's not, and that is the biggest lie of the left. Oh sure, that's how it tries to sell its self, as you are doing now, but that hardly makes it true. The left is the party who think they are smarter than everybody else. They assume a man who gets up every day at 7am and goes to work to support his family, likes watching football on Sunday, and goes to church every week is ignorant. I can point out where the true ignorance in that perspective is for you.

So it is only independent thought if they agree with you? Haha, you gotta love the left in America. They are all about Free speech....as long as it is decenting speech. If you are the right, you are "following blindly," but if you are on the left, you are an "independent thinker." They accuse Bush supporters of being stupid.....but then they accuse Bush as being the politician of the rich.....if they are so stupid, well how did they get so rich? And if Democrats are such smart, independent thinkers, why aren't they all wealthy?

All these flames are just from the past week. Would you like some more, sir?

Helio,

Sweden has the Value Added Tax, or VAT tax. A good is taxed at every stage of production, and these taxes are rolled into the purchase price of the good. The consumer pays all the taxes when he or she purchases the good.

Sounds like a sales tax. Nothing special.

Sounds like a sales tax. Nothing special.

You're exactly correct. It is. Most European countries call it VAT (or local language versions). We call it mervärdesskatt in Swedish, or moms for short.

Of course, if you are a non-EU citizen visiting, you can claim most of it back on most purchases when you leave the EU countries...

I'm not just scared of communists, I'm scared of all leftys. They think it's ok to steal money off people to give to other people so they can watch TV all day.

Edit: Hello this my first post

It was your fourth post :p

Anyway, the opinion (or should I say propogandic rumour) that all lefties want to give your hard-earned money away to losers to lay about all day is horse nonsense. It's only human for people to go out and do things and be industrious. These programs help people out so they become better people.

Many (and I'm pretty sure 'ALL') countries with robust social programs have great innovative sectors and are generally safe in which to live. Government assistance hasn't hurt them one bit. You probably haven't noticed this because foreign companies just don't advertise that much on TV in America, and if they do they try to look as American as possible. Trust me, innovation abounds.

Ask around and you'll find that the majority of people from countries with national health care have few issues with it and are in better shape than Americans. Infant deaths are lower (much lower), the spread of disease is lower (people more likely to see a doctor if its free) and less work hours are lost due to illness (the economic benefits are actually more complex than just that).

Socialism can and does work fine with capitalism AND democracy as many countries can attest. It makes a great balance. Just like how right-wing whackjobs and left-wing nutbars balance each other out in NationStates :D

WELL FUNDED and PROPERLY ADMINISTRATED social programs keep society together and raise the standard of living, as well as providing peace of mind. Social programs are a joke in the US compared to many other wealthy countries because they are underfunded, don't go far enough or are improperly managed.

Without these programs a system of Social Darwinism results:

The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.
(personal addition: 'superiority' by any means, blood or economics, fits this definition. Often 'superiority' has been linked to wealth. Which of course, is bull. See ENRON.)

This is absolutely inhuman and only ensures that the middle class will wither away and that the rich and powerful will exploit the powerless poor (Do you watch Lou Dobbs on CNN? The middle class seems to be disappearing...).

Ironically, by comforting the middle and lower classes with socialist programs, it will prevent communism since no one will revolt against a government that has their best interests at heart. So fears of ensuing communism are silly. :)

There was a nice opinion article here (though not exactly 'official') on a comparison of the American and Canadian systems.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html

Lets see if I can find more details:

Health Canada runthrough (basic info and history):

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/about/about.html
http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/1957medicare.html

This is a decent strip down on the 'problems' of the Canadian system and how they are taken out of context in American media. Has some stats listed and everything with citations. It will answer some questions and correct some opinions posted in this thread too.

http://www.fair.org/activism/canada-health.html

And if you were worried about a difference of quality between the American and Canadian systems...guess again ;) (please take in mind that Canadians are also more critical towards their government. The Liberal Party doesn't throw a hissy when someone criticizes the Prime Minister so there's no deterrent to stop doing so; unlike in the US...)

http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040603-20.html

As a little add-on I would like to mention that treatment in Canada is based on TRAIGE. The more messed up you are the better. The younger the better. It's only fair for a twenty year-old to get a liver before an alcoholic 50+ year-old, but in the US...:

"David Crosby receives a liver transplant at Dumont-UCLA Liver Transplant Center in Los Angeles. Crosby's liver was deteriorated from extensive alcohol and drug abuse, as well as hepatitis-C. But he only had to wait 18 days for the transplant, whereas the average wait in 1994 was 142 days."

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/music/david-crosby/

I don't care if the bastard is famous. It ain't right.

It also brings the wealthy on the same level as the poor (accepting the fact that 'equity' doesn't mean 'quality' I will point to the usembassy link which shows how on-par Canada is to the US in regard to services available.)

http://www.canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=487

===

On a side note here's a website that picks apart Canadian statistics if anyone is interested. Just make sure you get the interpretations correct people :)

http://www.canstats.org/about_canstats.asp

BTW is there one that picks the statistics apart in YOUR country? Please post the link if you can find one. It will make NationStates a less ignorant place.

===

Anyway, saying slogans like 'personal responsibility' to put the extra responsibility on citizens is just a way to pass the buck, as it were. It is the job of a responsible government to care for its citizens, especially the poor, until they can take care of themselves. Saying that all poor people are criminal layabouts is a vicious stereotype exploited by those who don't want to give away free services and enjoyed by those who don't need these programs who want to feel better about themselves.

Sadly, the US government is much more on the side of industry, in this case Pharmaceutical and Insurance. 'Free' and 'fair' aren't words that are profitable to them.

It's sly how the US government has convinced everyone that if you die its your own fault and made words like 'government-run' a bad buzzword. A nice way to make sure production increases is to work everyone to death. They have to, because if they don't they can't support themselves, especially not in a crisis.

Not a pleasant thought.

This amount of indifference by a government is frightening. I've always believed that a government's attitude towards people is reflected in the attitude of the citizens. It's my opinion that's why there are so many 'emotional damage' garbage legal cases, road rage, political partisanship, violence, celebrity worship and self-aggrandising in the American public because no one wants to be responsible. People thinking way too much about themselves instead of others. These weak-willed individuals must think being responsible would make them lose money and status. If they blame others, stock prices stay up and they just might win that lawsuit.

Remember when the power went out in the US and they tried to pin it on Canada but the problem originated in Cleveland? Remember the Mad Cow scare? The cow may have come from Canada but who sent the meat to stores before the tests came back (in Canada, tested cows have their meat withheld until results are in, then they ship the meat to market). You'd never know from the noise the American Beef lobby made that Canadian standards were higher at the time than in America. Also interesting is how quiet the American Beef people are being on test results since they stepped up testing.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0112-07.htm

Finally...

Have you ever wondered why stem cell research is considered inhuman by the Christian Right (a division of the Republican party, remember) but somehow throwing them out in the trash is okay (where is where these embryoes end up anyway if not used for research)?

If stem cell research continued then there would be more illnesses cured and less pills sold. No need for insurance either. See the problem (well for the industries anyway)?

Nice rant I must say. I've been holding that back for awhile.

You are enlightened. Congratulations. Never waver and do not listen to those who question your righteous belief.
Do not be foolish enough to surround yourself withthose who mindlessly agree with you, that will lead to stagnation.
Always question your own thinking and logic first and foremost, you can not control the minds of others but you can control your own.
Just as the world chances constantly so to must our ways of thinking.
DO not let the mindless zealots of any Idea convince you to join their 'cow eyed' ranks.

"Left wing politics is the politics of the LOWER class people, not people in general. Left wing politics punishes people for being smart and hard working. Left wing politics ensures that there is no real incentive to do better."

Left wing politics does not punish people for being smart and hard-working. Left wing politics encourage such, just NOT at the expense of others well-being.

"Well our schools are pathetic, they teach a very limited and basic curriculum, dumbed down so that the idiots in the world can get by in it (I don't know if this is true where you are, but it is where I am). Our schools don't teach any values or ethics either... leading to a degeneration of society."

Values and ethics are such touchy issues, as there are so many different beliefs and defintions of morality, but I think if classes provided unbiased and non-judgemental discussions about current events, customs, language, and history of other countries, as well as our own, we would promote tolerance, respect, and and a better understanding of the world around us, even if we may disagree with their decisions.

>>>The entire world is moving towards the left... please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the world is becoming a more conservative place? The death penalty is being banned in more and more places, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable<<<

Very very true. What he is hearing is the diehards of the right wing howling at the top of their lungs, pouring all their resolve together, as they instinctively know their days are numbered.

Then again, that's just my humble opinion. *^^*

-Asylum Nova

[QUOTE=LordaeronII]

The entire world is moving towards the left... please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the world is becoming a more conservative place? The death penalty is being banned in more and more places, gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable (I tend to dislike gays, but hell even I'm slightly centrist on this, since I don't hate them or anything), more and more social welfare programs are popping into place, etc. etc.

QUOTE]

Yeah, but at the same time, who's getting elected more often? More and More conservative governments. Seeing as how you are a Canadian you should realize this. Just watch the federal libs. Right now, they are being led by the most conservative liberal since well King. And even before that, the libs were just holding on to the middle. In fact, if you look @ Europe, numerous conservatives are winning elections, Immigrants are being turned away, cutting taxes is the norm. Gay Marriage by the way,is really something that the courts have installed not the respected parliaments around the world.

bump

Thankyou all again: Some answers

1: I appologise for an offensive post that was put on one of the forums under my name. This was done by my right wing friend when we were both very drunk! (Yes I know I shouldn't be drinking only 17 etc, but this was in my own home!) It was funny for him at the time, I was not impressed, but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. So sorry if it has caused offence.


2. Where does everybody get this impression that the world is moving towards the left from? Since September the 11th. Governments (mostly right wing, but even the so called 'left wing' labour party here in the UK) have used national security as an excuse to take away civil liberty's

Alasdair

Thankyou all again: Some answers

1: I appologise for an offensive post that was put on one of the forums under my name. This was done by my right wing friend when we were both very drunk! (Yes I know I shouldn't be drinking only 17 etc, but this was in my own home!) It was funny for him at the time, I was not impressed, but couldn't be bothered to do anything about it. So sorry if it has caused offence.

2. Where does everybody get this impression that the world is moving towards the left from? Since September the 11th. Governments (mostly right wing, but even the so called 'left wing' labour party here in the UK) have used national security as an excuse to take away civil liberty's

Alasdair

I can't address the issue as far as GB is concerned, but here in the US I cannot for the life of me see any civil liberties being "taken away." Everyone can still vote. Everyone can still say what they damned well please, no matter how idiotic or foolish. Everyone can still worship as they please, insist on a writ of habeus corpus, publish whatever they like ... the list goes on. The Constitution still stands. The Bill of Rights has not been abolished or changed in any way. The court system still overrules the government on a regular basis.

So ... what the hell has changed???

Well here in good 'old Blighty, the goverment passed an act that allows, foreigner's suspected of terrorism, to be held in inprisonment, for an indefinate period of time, without being charged. That's goning against the Europe's human right's bill, which we signed up to!

Alasdair

2. Where does everybody get this impression that the world is moving towards the left from? Since September the 11th. Governments (mostly right wing, but even the so called 'left wing' labour party here in the UK) have used national security as an excuse to take away civil liberty's
I agree, it seems to me that left-wing governments reached a height in the 70's and the pendulum has been swinging back right more and more. Most generation Xers and the following generation seem to be more right wing than their baby-boomer parents.

that it destroys freedom.

All truly free societies are founded upon private property and private enterprise. The freedom to chose one's work and how best to allocate the the proceeds therefrom should inhere in the indivdual. It should not be directed by the whimsy of a collective that cannot ever properly take into account his concerns.

Government redistribution and control of the market destroys the liberty of the free individual to do as he chooses. His actions are, of necessity, directed by the government as it sees fit to further the goals of an amorphous creature called "society"; usally in the name of social justice or welfare.

I see no reason why the value of one man's labor should be taken from him and given up to some project he cares little about, nor knows anything of, simply at the behest of some scheming polititian who will use the money to buy more votes for himself.

If there are to be welfare programs they should be funded on a voluntary basis, otherwise they are little more than government stealing the sweat of an honest man to pay a dishonest one.

If people wish to set up a national health system, then by all means; but it should be voluntary and not co-erced. And to be fair, those who do not participate should be denied treatment by it. Callous perhaps, but more just than any other system. Similarly so should welfare programs be administered. The free market calls these plans insurance, and left to function alone they do quite well.

Unfortunately the US government has wrecked the free market for health care with its ridiculous medicare and medicaid programs. These twin evils of socialism have so distorted the nature of the healthcare market place that costs have spiraled unstopably. But by now, no politician has the moral courage to dismantle these programs that steal from the young to enrich the old and idle, and so we are left with a fiscal crisis approaching like a crazed juggernaut. When it hits, as it will, out of cowardice and pretended compassion doubtless the government will "rationlize" the whole industry; setting limits for what doctors can earn and how much drug companies can charge. Why then, should talented youths sacrifice so much of their time training to become medical practioners, when at the end of it all the government will inevitably steal the lion's share of their labor in the name of the "unfortunate."

And why, if we truly care about the underfed and impoverished, should society waste so much of its resources in higher education. How many historians and philosophers do we need? Better yet a government should put to work the majority at fourteen years of age when they have acquired all that is needed for honest labor. The government need only train the most gifted students beyond that when their talents and skills are actually needed for the collective betterment. To train a thousand history graduates when only four are needed is tantamount to taking food from the mouths of poor children. Money is wasted on educating people that will never use nor need it and so could be better spent elsewhere on those who are more disadvantaged - and there is always someone more disadvantaged. If our watchword is to be co-erced self-sacrifice in the name of the less fortunate, how dare we waste our time in idle pursuits when simple work could aleviate the suffering of the "poor"? Anything else would be selfish waste. After all, once you have accepted that you can take the lion's share of the more fortunate man's work to give to the less fortunate, is it not unjust to stop at that. Should not our goal be the continual betterment of society as a whole, with no consideration of the concerns of a few criminal individuals who conspire to keep the fruits of their talent and labor from the rest of us. Likewise, should we not insure that the workshy and indolent are also made to pull their share of the load instead of lollygagging at school indulging in unproductive pastimes. Consider this: if all university students across the country were forced to spend their time building houses instead of idling their time away in lecture halls and student unions, could not the homeless quickly be housed? Can you really declaim under the left wing rubric of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," that it is unjust to force these students to do so. Surely it is own fair that they be made to sacrifice their time thus. Or is socialism only just when the hypothetical rich's labor is being co-opted to this scheme? Furthermore, when the socialist government has stripped the rich of all their financial assets, as it surely will, is it not inevitable for the reason outlined above that they must turn to such schemes.

Presently we consider these things immoral and tantamount to slavery, but the bulwark that prevents such actions by government is our vested rights in our own property and fruits of our labor, not any idealism on that can be logically devined from the philosophy of left wing thought. Indeed these very things are the logical extension of socialism and which socialism in the final analysis demands. It is not enough to protest that I will only take a little from the rich to help the poor. The rich do not consent, so how dare we then draw an arbitrary line someplace that only their property and labor should be siezed? If a little can be taken from one to give to another, surely we must take a little more and a little more until all distinctions evaporate completely. Indeed, every time we make the rich a little less rich, we ourselves draw a little closer to those who society judges to have more than a fair share. Ultimately then, socialism demands that we all become poor and as slaves, our every action directed so that no-one may gain an advantage over others. And how then will we judge who is rich, to sacrifice for the common good as socialism demands? Who then shall we take from so that no-one shall be more fortunate or unjustly scheme to be better off than his fellow man? Is it the man who takes pleasure in his tasks, and so do we condemn him instead to toil at work he despises? Should the man who finds pleasure in where the government has allocated his housing be forced to move to a climate that he cannot abide simply to insure that he does not unfairly enjoy his dwelling more than others? Shall we thrust the concert pianist down the mine and make the history professor sweep the streets? Conversly shall we take the street sweeper and miner and place them in occupations for which the have no aptitude, yet prefer, simply to balance their years of menial servitude? Socialism demands that we sacrifice all freedom to the greater needs of society and that in turn society need grant us nothing except a notional equality. Unfortunately the only equality that can be guaranteed is equality of misery.

Captalism is inequtiable, and it is unfair, but it is also the least unjust of any form of society. Nobody will ever make the claim that the coal miners lot in life is enviable, or that his position is desirable. But at least it was arrived at through the actions of impersonal forces, not a the conspiracy of wicked socialist politicians, and he is as free to choose other occupations as his abilities best permit. Unfortunatley some still see capitalism as a dangerous tiger to be caged while others still see it as no more than a cow to be milked. Few see it for what it truly is, the cart that pulls the horse.


If the only opportunity is to be equal, then there is no opportunity.

Freedom is not a gift, it is a struggle.

Well here in good 'old Blighty, the goverment passed an act that allows, foreigner's suspected of terrorism, to be held in inprisonment, for an indefinate period of time, without being charged. That's goning against the Europe's human right's bill, which we signed up to!

Alasdair
:eek: we have

The problems with the left wing is that they can never agree with eachother....I suppose it is to be quite expected with liberalisms mammouth instance on the individual and individuality - everyone is unique so you are never gonna agree on things because your arrogance, individuality and self-rightousness (sp?) will never allow it.

The problem with "Leftism" is twofold. Easy to describe, but nearly impossible to do anything about.

The first problem is the inherrent subjectivity of the "left - right" political spectrum. What is "far right wing" in, say, Sweden, would be described as "pinko liberal" in the USA.
The second problem is that the vast majority of people who don't describe themselves as left wing have no idea what the left wing wants and what it stands for.

No sane self-respecting left wing person wants to make their country a new USSR or North Korea. Anyone comparing lefties to those countries is making just as big a mistake as a lefty comparing the USA to the world described in "Jennifer Government". Its just wrong. Even someone who is a "Communist" doesn't want the USSR or North Korea. The USSR wasn't Communist. China is not Communist. North Korea isn't Communist. Cuba isn't Communist. Not even close. A few of them (Cuba especially) were or are Socialist, but there is a world of difference between the two.

I was going to say "Lets start by defining some terms", but since this has already reached page 12, that seems silly. The fact is that Capitalism and Socialism have at least two meanings each, one subjective and one objective. I'll start with Capitalism and Socialism, and deal with Communism at the end.

Capitalism can be defined as "Private ownership of the means of production with an unregulated labour market and an unregulated goods market". In reality of course, neither the labour or the goods market is unregulated and no country is or has ever been a "True Capitalist economy". That doesn't stop us from using the word in places with few regulations.
Socialism, on the other hand can be defined as "Private ownership of the means of production with a regulated labour market". Socialism isn't very concerned with the goods market, though it too tends to be heavily regulated.

In that sense, all countries with a non-barter economy are socialist. I know, you want to say "Except for the countries with public ownership of the means of production", right?

You would be right, but still wrong. There are no countries like that. In fact, the country closest of all to having public ownership of the means of production is the USA.

State-owned does not mean publicly owned. Does anyone actually believe that the Chineese or North Korean government is holding the means of production for the citizens of those countries? In order for anything to be publicly owned, the people have to have the power to defend it and the right to chose what to do with it. If the people do not have that power, then the government is just another entity out to exploit them. Like we see in China and north Korea, like we saw in the USSR.

That is what Communism is, you see. Publically owned means of production. In order for a country to be Communist, it has to be a democracy. There simply is no around that. Most left-wing people understand that, at one level or another. Many only do it intuitivly, and even a lot of famous left wing political authors either don't understand it or don't mention it in their works.

I said above that the USA was the country closest of all to publically owned means of production. I stand by that statement even if I don't have the actual statistics available. But I think it is so, as I cannot imagine that there is any other country with more shares of companies in circulation than there is in the States.

You say that to be equal is to not have the chance to better oneself.

No, let me say that first of all I do not agree with every left wing policy, but as a whole, one would say that my thinking is left wing.

However, morally it is wrong to deny treatment to poorer individuals. The national health service is paid for by taxes, thus higher earners pay more, (as they should) where as the poor are taxed less. This tax goes towards funding the NHS, which in turn provides health care for all. What I can't see is how people can argue against it. Most people in our posistions, would be able to, if we had to aford health insurance, which would pay for operations if needed. However, not everybody is in that fortunate situation. How would you like it if you couldn't afford to spare money for a simple operation, such as tonsil removal, or dental work? What you are saying is that if at the time of this illness, someone's overall contribution to society is not worth, the operation. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO GIVE LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO SOCIETY WHO ARE NOT HIGH EARNERS. Think of the man who cleans public places, he works hard, he may not be the brightest man you've met, nut he does his job, to support himself, maybe a family as well. Without him, public place would become covered in refuse. Prehapse he also helps his community in some small way? Either way it is wrong to lessenthe value of his life.

Socialism does say that everyone is equal? No, it believe's that everyone should be born equal, and not have ANY avoidable hurdles on hte way to bettering themselfs. I.E. IT GIVES EVERYONE AN EQUAL CHANCE IN LIFE!

What pray is wrong with that.

As for the idea of only sending x people to University. That denies people the chance to improve themselfs!

Here's another example: Both my parents are Doctors working for the NHS. They could however work for private practises, earning more. But they don't, why? A little thing called the Hippocratic Oath. Look it up on the internet. But is there contribution to society any less, because they earn less? Well I'd like to see you're answer.

Alasdair

[Doncastonia #1]
Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair

The young will always find solace in the policies of the left. The left uses an interesting self-contradictory philosophy to attract them.

It is focused on "control" of markets (which the young always complain they have no influence over), while simultaneously offering "freedom" from any social constraint (which the young obviously appreciate!).

Now,.. I'm not talking about the "ideal" of communism or socialism. I'm talking about any group that actually tries to implement "leftism" in real life.

Your statement that "Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics" is interesting.

It shows the appeal of the left for the young. The young are fixated on "being part of the IN crowd [peer approval]", not being reliant on their elders, and practicing using their newly-found intellectual skills as hyperbolically as possible.

The left is the natural place for the young. That's one reason that the left will be the perenial place of ineffectiveness and experimentation.

People that I've seen grow up from being "diehard" leftists eventually get tired of:
*) living encased in "ickiness" (look around a leftists environment!)
*) not having money
*) being in a continual state of "war" with "the man"
*) political correctness
*) subservience to "the collective"
*) the unrelenting effort it takes to rationalize the "infinite shades of gray" between good and evil

The left now serves the function that inter-tribal warfare used to fill. It is a place for the young to experiment with youthful indiscretions and eventually ween themselves of their fantasies and return to the overall society more than willing to perform a useful function.

The left also behaves like fungus and insect infestation for it's containing society. It "prods" the greater society from it's complacencies, and points out those places where a good "scrubbing" and "poison application" needs to applied.

It also provides some good innovation via it's "brainstorming" behavior. :)

Enjoy your time in the playground. Learn as much as you can, and emerge a more enlightened and productive person for it.

See you on the other side, good one..!

Thankyou for you're insight. I hope to grow to prove you wrong.

Actually I find that in the current enviroment (as opposed to children of the 70's and 80's) my peer's tend to be quite right wing in there opinions.

However you are right in that it is my new found intelligence (where has it been all these years) that has led me to look at things in a certain way. Prehapse it is because I intend to take a career path in the sciences that has led me to believe in looking for more freedoms to present ideas.

And the final thing, althought this may suprise some, I am an extremely cinical person, maybe, in left wing idea's I see a chance at something better. (although I could be wrong)

Again thankyou to all who have replied.

Alasdair

And why, if we truly care about the underfed and impoverished, should society waste so much of its resources in higher education. How many historians and philosophers do we need? Better yet a government should put to work the majority at fourteen years of age when they have acquired all that is needed for honest labor. The government need only train the most gifted students beyond that when their talents and skills are actually needed for the collective betterment. To train a thousand history graduates when only four are needed is tantamount to taking food from the mouths of poor children. Money is wasted on educating people that will never use nor need it and so could be better spent elsewhere on those who are more disadvantaged - and there is always someone more disadvantaged. If our watchword is to be co-erced self-sacrifice in the name of the less fortunate, how dare we waste our time in idle pursuits when simple work could aleviate the suffering of the "poor"? Anything else would be selfish waste. After all, once you have accepted that you can take the lion's share of the more fortunate man's work to give to the less fortunate, is it not unjust to stop at that. Should not our goal be the continual betterment of society as a whole, with no consideration of the concerns of a few criminal individuals who conspire to keep the fruits of their talent and labor from the rest of us. Likewise, should we not insure that the workshy and indolent are also made to pull their share of the load instead of lollygagging at school indulging in unproductive pastimes. Consider this: if all university students across the country were forced to spend their time building houses instead of idling their time away in lecture halls and student unions, could not the homeless quickly be housed? Can you really declaim under the left wing rubric of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," that it is unjust to force these students to do so. Surely it is own fair that they be made to sacrifice their time thus. Or is socialism only just when the hypothetical rich's labor is being co-opted to this scheme? Furthermore, when the socialist government has stripped the rich of all their financial assets, as it surely will, is it not inevitable for the reason outlined above that they must turn to such schemes.

First of all, no US liberal is talking about socializing the economy or having the government take over the private sector, I assure you. Any ranting along those lines is more or less moot.

What astonished me is that you cannot see the contradictory nature of your own argument, especially in this gem of a paragraph. Basically you argue that, if the government forces people to do things, they will do them poorly/not want to do them/be deprived of their humanity and so on. But here you suggest having the government force people to do something they do not want to.

First of all, perhaps you should consider the correlation between the US higher education system, capitalism, and the US having the world's highest GDP, by far. Second, for being such a fan about capitalism you obviously know next to nothing about it. If the supermajority of people were put to work doing "honest labor," the value of "honest labor" would plumet to virtually nothing because the supply would be so humongous, and being right-wing you would not allow them to form unions to better their lot, I'm guessing.

Third, because of the nature of economic progression, the more advanced a country's capitalism becomes, the less blue-collar, "honest" work remains, because technology becomes more and more efficient and allows greater production with fewer people at lesser cost, causing most of the jobs to move to the service industries. So your program would also forcibly retard America's economic growth.

Fourth, I am a student at Georgia Tech, where there are ~12,000 engineering students. You want to tell me that the country is better off with 12,000 people building houses and roads, or designing new industrial processes, products, and learning how to better exploit our limited resources? Quite frankly, this country needs all the higher education it can get.

So according to you we need a tyrannical government which forces everyone to work for extremely low wages for most of their lives while only allowing the "elite" to strive for anything better than ditch-digging for the rest of their life. Strange friend doesn't that sound like how you would describe communism? Please think before you advocate such ridiculous ideas.

Americanist Liberalism at work in Europe:


"Catholic" Spain declares plans for apostasy!
Spanish Apostasy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/25/wspain25.xml)

Sweden admits Mohammadans control its cities:
Swedish Multicult Mess (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php)

Good for Denmark, bad for Sweden:
Danish Multiculturalists Escape to Sweden (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/aloveas_refugee.php)

Austrians escape liberal homosexual-infested church:
Austrians Escape Homosexual Church (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1122942004)

Swedish pastor sent to prison for offending homosexuals:
"Free" Europe Silences Opposition Yet Again (http://www.eni.ch/highlights/news.shtml?2004/06)

"France and the Holy See are joined in the fight for a world which places Man at the centre of every enterprise."
Chirac and John Paul Are At It Again (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/14/france.pope/index.html)

Holland is truly a cesspit in more ways than one nowadays:
Hellish Holland (http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_FebMar/Hellish_Holland.htm)

Ireland no longer Catholic:
Church Faces Crisis in Ireland (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/02/15/story730395567.asp)

Nor Belgium:
Apostasy in Brussels (http://www.novusordowatch.org/story071804.htm)

Nor Italy:
Satanism on Rise in Italy (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=1554)

Things aren't much better in the U.K.:
"Catholic Priests Decline, More Liberalism At Work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/08/nrc08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/08/ixhome.html)

And this is bad because...? The less religious bigotry in the world, the better.

The church has been pandered by governments for far too long. The funding cuts are a step in the correct direction.

First of all, no US liberal is talking about socializing the economy or having the government take over the private sector, I assure you. Any ranting along those lines is more or less moot.

What astonished me is that you cannot see the contradictory nature of your own argument, especially in this gem of a paragraph. Basically you argue that, if the government forces people to do things, they will do them poorly/not want to do them/be deprived of their humanity and so on. But here you suggest having the government force people to do something they do not want to.

It was a rhetorical device meant to illustrate that if we feel that we are morally able to take from the "more fortunate" against their will, then where is the logical limit. I thought the next paragraph made that clear, if it didn't then I'm sorry. My point was not that we should do that, but that is exactly the type of thing a socialist government at some point could consider. If you don't believe me look up directed engagments that the labor government proposed in the UK in the 1940's. Of course I don't think that we should do something like that, I'm a believer in the free market and the individual's right to spend their time as they wish, whether it is judged productive to society or not.

And as to you point about number of college grads = more prosperity, well that is true, because of the free market system I support and not because of any socialist claptrap economics .

All I was trying to point out is that if we believe that we should make the rich pay their "fair share" to help the poor, we'd better gat a pretty clear idea of what and who consitutes rich, and what we consider poor. We'd also better be damn sure that is doesn't change over time. You can be sure that there will always be some-one more left wing and compassionate out there than you who will push for ever greater sacrifice.

And consider this. There may be 12,000 engineering students at georgia tech (although that number seems awfully high, are you sure that's not total enrollment rather than the number of engineers - just asking), but how many of them will go on and actually use what they learned in the lecture halls? A small number no doubt! (In fact I meet many engineers who do not work in their field of study, a lot of them are in the evil world of finance and banking.)

Under my evil capitalist system we recgonize the intangible value of these graduates however, as they are free to negiotiate their own worth. From a purely socialist perspective however there value is not apparent as it depends upon free market valuations and "destructive competition." Moreover they, from a leftist perspective, able to earn so much only because the labor of the proletariat supports them. Why should eight hours of labor from a street sweeper be valued more than eight hours of labor by an engineer. Both men invest as much time. Also where in a rationialized economy is the justification for the engineer benefitting more from his work? Where is the need for engineers that have no engineering jobs.

You disagree of course, but I suggest you look at the miserable performance of leftist anti capatailist countries economically and see how their people fair. And in fact, I am sure if the US had not held firm to its capitalist ideals during the cold war, the rest of the world would be like the formoer warsaw countries now, at one point the UK almost managed.

And yes, the left does want to socialize the economy. It has since truman tried to nationalize the steel industry and is the stated aim of many democrats who are always trying to expand government into the private sector. In the North east for example many functions that should be run by market place, hospitals, garbage collection, sports stadia, health clubs, etc. are run by municiapalities, and there are always new initiatives to increase this pervasive influence.

If I wasn't clear I apologize. Nor was my example aimed at university students per se, it could just as easily have been aimed at marketing executives, fine artists or actors, it was just what came into my head at that time. I hope that clears my position up. I don't expect anyone to really agree because everyone believes in the community good above all else these days, but I just felt that mine was an unexpressed yet historically relevant viewpoint. (A lot of people used to feel this way).

Right it's time I got something off my chest.

Hear's the story. I'm a young British man of 17 who is just becoming interested in the political world. After much thought and consideration, I have found solace in the ideal's of left wing politics.

On this forum however, all I ever seem to see is post, which says thinks like, 'even you left wing idoit's can understand this' or 'The left is crazy, evil etc'

Why!?!

Is it because this forum is filled with American's who are still affraid of Communist's?

Why communism, or more to the point it's less extreme brother socialism, has done some of the greatest thing's in my country. Number one being the welfare state. Who on earth can argue the FREE (well practically the welfare state is paid for in tax's) HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.

Left wing politics is the politics of the people, not of big buisness, it's the thinking man's politics. For those who are brave enough to see that the sum of the whole is greater than it's parts. It tells us that together, no matter who we are we are better off.

So why if in our schools children are taught to co operate, and share with all, is the world, in my opinion, becoming a darker, more conservative place, where people are afraid to challenge, sometimes outdated, and offensive, norms?

Just my 2 pence, everyones entitled to their's

Alasdair

The reason why you get the impression that there is an abundance of left-wing haters is simply because they have the loudest mouths.
One thing you should know - you have a right to have your political beliefs, however other people also have a right to contest that and try to influence you. And vice versa. For example:
"Whaddaya mean free health care? Are you some kind of moron?" would be left-wing bashing and not very constructive. Ignore that.
"Health care is simply too expensive to run for free. Everyone exploits the system and go to see a doctor even if they only have a scratch. It is a tremendous waste of resources." or "Socialism is appealing to young people because the ideal is beautiful. However as you grow older you come to realise it is impossible, because humans are selfish by nature." would be constructive critisism and you must realise that this is acceptable and the way a healthy democracy works. It works both ways. You on the other hand have the right to say "Why concentrate so much on crime-fighting when it is obvious that in a society where everybody is content there would be practically no crime" and "Equal oppotunity implies that the government as a whole stimulates the individual. If we all must have a chance there is some sensibility in the strong helping the weak get stronger."
Equal oppotunity is really the scizm of western democracies. Everybody seems to agree upon it, but socialist concentrate on "equal" and liberals concentrate on "oppotunity".

Equal oppotunity is really the scizm of western democracies. Everybody seems to agree upon it, but socialist concentrate on "equal" and liberals concentrate on "oppotunity".

Liberals are socialists these days. Didn't used to be though.

Liberals are socialists these days. Didn't used to be though.

Liberals and Socialists are still two different things. However, the media and public perception of the two have become so warped that to most people they might as well be the same thing

Liberals and Socialists are still two different things. However, the media and public perception of the two have become so warped that to most people they might as well be the same thing

I demure. Please explain how they are different.

I demure. Please explain how they are different.

It all depends on what aspect you want the explanation for... and just in case yours was a rethorical frase sugesting there isn't any difference between the meaning of the two terms: How are they the same? :p

I demure. Please explain how they are different.

A Liberal looks for free trade and limited Governmental interference in social policies (Laissez-faire).
Socialists (as the term suggests) want Government to be involved in all social issues and support the nationalisation of public works to be used for the good of the populace.

Liberals and Socialists are still two different things. However, the media and public perception of the two have become so warped that to most people they might as well be the same thing

Going by the American posters on this board one would have to assume they are the same thing in the USA.

Here, liberal means something completely different to what would appear to be the American definition of the word. Liberals tend to be in the centre or centre-right of politics here.

[Doncastonia #181]
Thankyou for you're insight. I hope to grow to prove you wrong.

Actually I find that in the current enviroment (as opposed to children of the 70's and 80's) my peer's tend to be quite right wing in there opinions.

However you are right in that it is my new found intelligence (where has it been all these years) that has led me to look at things in a certain way. Prehapse it is because I intend to take a career path in the sciences that has led me to believe in looking for more freedoms to present ideas.

And the final thing, althought this may suprise some, I am an extremely cinical person, maybe, in left wing idea's I see a chance at something better. (although I could be wrong)

Again thankyou to all who have replied.

Alasdair

:)

Some people remain leftists throughout life, regardless of any "fatigue" that being a leftist may bring them. The same could be said of rightists.

It's interesting (to me anyway) that you say your peers tend toward the right. I'd like to know how they exhibit that. :) I was indeed a child of the 60's-70's and went through my "age-appropriate" political stages. From apolitical to:
*) "our-gang" right-leaning (think petty 8-12yrOld gang),
*) to "highschool clique" left-leaning (13-17yrOld "rock band"),
*) to college leftist (18-21yrOld newly minted "intellectual"),
*) to hardcore leftist (22-28yrOld anarchistic "why shouldn't I make the rules!" advocate),
*) to dejected leftist (29+ yrOld burned out overworker),
*) to apolitical (working stiff),
*) to mild rightist ("family person"),
*) to confirmed rightist ("business owner"),
*) to utter rightist capitalist (believer in the benign dictatorship of MONEY)

I still hold to the ideals portion of each of these "stages" that I went through; the camaraderie of the "youth gang", the communicativeness of the "intellectual", the striving for a better tomorrow of the "leftist", the realistic objectivism of the dejected, the intimacy of the family, and the freedoms and constraints of money.

May you hold onto the good, valuable parts of all things that you discover on your travels. :)

By the way, on the "intelligence" issue. I'm certainly not saying that you're newly "intellegent",.. I'm saying that at 15-21yrsOld or so, people tend to be taught (or simply discover) various techniques of "intellection". These newfound skills get practiced in clever ways, some of which seem inappropriate to "oldsters".

And of course, your intelligence and "intellection" of what you see around you leads to choices that you make regarding what you believe,.. at any particular time in your life. That's pretty obvious. :) And that's a VERY good thing, as you don't simply ACCEPT what others feed you uncritically.

The scientific method is one of the greatest discoveries (inventions?) of mankind. It prompts us to delve into actuallity, using eyes that we CONSCIOUSLY try to clear of the prejudices of the past, in search of something beautiful and useful.

I really don't like political "labels" much at all, in fact. I'd much rather have a conversational description of what it is that people believe, than an easy label,.. but people are too busy to expend the energy.

And labels shouldn't guide. They should be a starting point of discussion, not a "path of compulsion".

This is one reason I pester and prod the "leftist". They are largely the young, or "young at heart", and can (or should) tolerate more intrusive prodding than the old and more "stable" rightist.

The left, by their very nature, prods the right, so I see little need to assist in that exercise. :D

Some call me an asshole,.. which is very largely true,.. but I do try to contribute to the ongoing conversation.

Best to you, and may you help those who need it, and grow in every way to be more effective and powerful in your helping.

Whether I'm "wrong" in predicting your evolution is utterly inconsequential. By your words I see I'm right in seeing you as a noble person, and someone worth a good conversing with. :)

A Liberal looks for free trade and limited Governmental interference in social policies (Laissez-faire).

In the US that is the neo-liberal wing of the republican party, or the libetarian party, depending how far right you want to go.

Socialists (as the term suggests) want Government to be involved in all social issues and support the nationalisation of public works to be used for the good of the populace.

That is the view of many american liberals today.

As I've said in the past I'm well aware that liberal used to mean something different, and similar to how you described it.

It no longer does however, yet modern US liberals refuse to accept they are, in fact, socialists. Hasn't the liberal party in the UK also undergone a similar transition as well?

In the US that is the neo-liberal wing of the republican party, or the libetarian party, depending how far right you want to go.



That is the view of many american liberals today.

As I've said in the past I'm well aware that liberal used to mean something different, and similar to how you described it.

It no longer does however, yet modern US liberals refuse to accept they are, in fact, socialists. Hasn't the liberal party in the UK also undergone a similar transition as well?
Yes and no. The Liberal Party in the UK is now (mainly) defunct. It has been replaced in frontline politics by the Liberal Democrats, an amalgamation of the Liberals and the SDP (Social Democratic Party).
The only Liberal Party which still exists in the UK is the few memebers who disagreed with the union between the two, but they no longer have any form of power and are never heard of.

So just for clarification, I'm not being picky I'm realy interested, in the UK a liberal democrat would not identify themselves politically as a liberal but rather, presumably, a moderate socialist. And there still are a few true "liberals" in the UK but they have no political power.

Speaking of which, from the above definition of liberal, wasn't thatcher a bit of a liberal then. Also as I think about it, given that description of liberal, a lot of people in the US would identify with it.

Liberals are socialists these days. Didn't used to be though.

No it used to be simpler just like the society was. The political scene reflects the society it must govern.
80 years ago there were largely four groups of people. The worker would go to work in a big factory with 1000 others, labour for 10 hours and go home for a sturdy meal and some sleep. This fella would vote socialist - not out of solidarity, but because it is beneficial. The employer would wake up at 10, go to the office and do endless amounts of paperwork (no computer, no cell phone) for 8 hours and go to the club for a light meal then home for a kiss on the cheek and a good nights sleep. This fella would naturally vote conservative capitalistic simply because it will benefit him more. Then we have the farmer. He would work for 16 hours a day in work-intensive periods and 10 hours the remainder of the time. He is the forerunner of the self-employed. His buisness is not large and capital intensive enough to make him vote conservative and he is well aware that labour unions can screw his buisness over as he has to employ people on a need basis. This fella would vote liberal. Finally there is the wildcard. The accountants and similar. He would work more or less as much as the laborer, but earn a bit more making him feel slightly superior. He would not align with the worker and vote socialist as he feel the increase in worker salary will probably cut his. Nor does he have any reason to vote conservative. This fella will be drawn towards the more radical forms of liberalism and since he is also the typical small investor he will be seriously drawn towards national socialism when Wall Street cracks 5 years later.
Today we have a plethora of one-man buisness', consultants, temp agencies and generally more intellectuals offering us the freedom to vote according to something we call ideals.

Today we have a plethora of one-man buisness', consultants, temp agencies and generally more intellectuals offering us the freedom to vote according to something we call ideals.


Why are there fewer choices then?

Anyway I disagree, what posiible incentive could the farmen have to vote liberal? Surely protectionism benefits farmers more than capitalist, hence they would vote for the conservatives. Only if there were very few farmers with agri-business type operations would the farmer have an economic incentive to vote liberal, but by then they would be such a small percentage of the population they would not be enough to create a visible political movement which liberalism certainly was.

Also the accountants etc. Restriction of government interference makes it more likely not less that they would loose their professional crendentalism, and hence be at risk of being denuded of their protected status by a liberal administration. Wouldn't they benefit more from a conservative government>

The factory workers I understand, but surely the capatilists would benefit most from the free trade stance of the liberal party and therefore support that.

So my point remains? Where did the liberals go?

So just for clarification, I'm not being picky I'm realy interested, in the UK a liberal democrat would not identify themselves politically as a liberal but rather, presumably, a moderate socialist. And there still are a few true "liberals" in the UK but they have no political power.

Speaking of which, from the above definition of liberal, wasn't thatcher a bit of a liberal then. Also as I think about it, given that description of liberal, a lot of people in the US would identify with it.
The Lib-Dem position could be seen as that as they are in many ways more socialist than Labour (since they dropped clause 4) but if you follow most of Labours policies they are still moderate socialists. Lib-Dems would generally classify themselves as mederate socialists in social policy, though I will be honest and say I don't know all of their economic policies.
Thatcher was in no consideration of the world Liberal, though I do undersatnd that the idea of Laissez-Faire could lead to that assumption. Margaret Thatcher was as far right as you could go within the sphere of UK politics (except maybe the BNP, but they're a new party). She used the primary principle of monetarism and moved our fiscal policy closer to that of the US's. The limited Governmental interference that the Liberals wanted was taken to the extreme by Thatcher, except in areas that she felt was 'against the social good'. e.g. the miners strikes. Where a Liberal Laissez-Faire government would have left both the workers and the employers to sort out the wrangle she instead supported the employers, crushed the striking miners and, over time, led to the desimation of the coal mining industry in the UK. She was a hard-nosed Tory, and she herself would be very hurt by your description of her as being Liberal...so maybe we will brand her as such! lol!

K. Gotcha on lady T. She only paid lip service to laissez faire economic theory and would disregard it bu interfering when it suited it. So really it was never a philosophy of hers and she was in fact and authoritatian conservative (that's a redundancy).

So I have two follow ups though.

Why is monetarism incompatible with liberalism. I thought it was just an anti-inflationary policy. And wouldn't that suit a laissez faire state? Or do UK liberals advocate returning to a private bank system where national currency is replaced by private bank issue notes, as do the libertarians in the US? i.e., banks issue and back their own paper currency and the market is free to place its own respective value on each without government direction. (How the government would raise money for the treasury with this system is beyond me.)

Second, and correct me if I'm wrong. I thought that the coal industry was nationalized at the time and therefore wasn't thatcher therefore the de facto employer. Also it was my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that thatcher did not force the miners to return to work, but rather she prevented them from picketing so miners who chose to work could do so without being prevented by others. Isn't that laissez faire also?

Also doesn't the US have a traditional liberal economy ?

Still if calling her a liberal would piss her off, go for it.

Why are there fewer choices then?

Anyway I disagree, what posiible incentive could the farmen have to vote liberal? Surely protectionism benefits farmers more than capitalist, hence they would vote for the conservatives. Only if there were very few farmers with agri-business type operations would the farmer have an economic incentive to vote liberal, but by then they would be such a small percentage of the population they would not be enough to create a visible political movement which liberalism certainly was.

Also the accountants etc. Restriction of government interference makes it more likely not less that they would loose their professional crendentalism, and hence be at risk of being denuded of their protected status by a liberal administration. Wouldn't they benefit more from a conservative government>

The factory workers I understand, but surely the capatilists would benefit most from the free trade stance of the liberal party and therefore support that.

So my point remains? Where did the liberals go?

I was merely saying what people were voting 80 years ago and the reason why they were doing so. And no, neither farmer nor accountant gained much from pure conservative capitalism. The only ones who really did benefit from it were people with capital.

A farmer would most surely vote liberal. All the time. I think 80% of the farmers were voting for the Danish liberal party "Venstre" in the 20'es. Personal freedom and the right to run his buisness his way was his most important issue and he voted accordingly. The remaining 20% would perhaps vote predominantly conservative as there are/were genuine benefits for large scale "industrial" farms.

As for accountants I specifically said the more radical forms of liberalism. They come in many forms. Georgism and parties against goverment run armies to name a few from the era that springs to mind. As well as the more nationalistic liberal parties. In Denmark there were three such parties with influence in the 20'es - "Radikale Venstre", "Retsforbundet" and "Dansk Samling". Only the first exist in practise today. Accountants were called "white shirt proletarians" in the 20'es. They make a bundle today, but in these days they were making barely above existence level. The worker was earning existense level full stop.

I could also ask where the socialists went... In reality the socialists won (at least in Europe). Almost all workers have a very satisfactory job and a good life in general. There is no class struggle anymore. Hence socialist parties are leaning more and more towards the liberal issues to hold on to their traditional voters and the liberal parties are leaning to socialism to gain some of the new potential liberals. The end result is the socioliberalism we see introduced in more and more parties. A liberal politician may feel the minimal state is ideal, but you'll never get him to say so in public let alone try to introduce it.

I am deeply impressed at the reforms the socialists have introduced and appalled at their lacking ability to make sure these reforms have a "death clause" that makes it posible to remove them once they become redundant or directly contraproductive. There are countless ineffective laws and regulations in this country that have become obsolete ages ago and they are practically impossible to get rid off. Now that society is de facto liberal it is a long and enduring task to remove and destil this mess into a streamlined and effective minimum.

I am a member of the conservative party here in Denmark. I am an ardent Georgist and opposed to any form of income tax whatsoever.