NationStates Jolt Archive

As we know, the president has submitted his highly contraversial budget to Congress. While it keeps spending down, does it kill the least effective programs? How about the programs that allow the government to dominate certain sectors of the economy? I don't think so. Among them:

- NASA, the only science agency that has recieved more money, probably because Tom DeLay's district has the Johnson Space Center (a model socialist). As we know, private firms have been making inroads into space, most recently with Virgin Galatic. And yet, the socialist space legacy developed by Werner von Braun lives on: the government should hold the keys to space. Why did we let an SS comander head our space program, again?
Government dominance is rearing its head again, as nationalistic feelings will spur legislators on both sides of the aisle to compete with China and India's upstart space programs. If the socialist EU makes a serious entry into space, government dominance is assured for a long time to come. The government should sell NASA to the public, operating only what is necessary to build defensive systems in space. The government should get out of launching civilian sattelites, scientific probes, and costly projects like the ISS.

-The government dominance of the financial sector. Fannie Mae is the second biggest company in the financial sector. It's little sibling, Freddie Mac, gives these two the largest market share in the financial sector. While not actually owned by the government, they are tax-free, and subject to regular Congressional subsidies. Even with the recent accounting irregularities, they are given a free pass by Congress. Had they been fully out of the government's control, they would be destroyed the same way Enron was. This waste has got to stop.

-The government's role as the paymaster of the airline industry. Big, bloated airliners have been repeatedly lived past their time, thanks to a regular stream of Congressional bailouts. Americans wonder why their legacy carriers are in hot water, while Singapore, Qantas, Lufthansa, and others are succeeding. This is why: little government interference in the airline industry.
-Amtrak. President Bush has requested subsidies to be cut this year. A very good start. However, has it not occured to him that, if we privatize Amtrak and end its monopoly, then the rail industry may finally soar? It will be in the company's vested interest to make a profit, and thus, they will want to sell cheap tickets for their version of the TGV. I think it may be possible in ten years, but only if we start now.

-Farm subsidies. I can see the arguement that it applies to national security, but I think that only works for grain farmers, and even then, far less subsidies are needed to gurantee that the farmland doesn't become an office complex. In any case, our frivolous farm subsidies are an impediment to free trade. As we have seen, free trade makes all countries involved wealthier. Don't we want to engage the large bloc of third world nations in this free trade?

There are many, many others, from the welfare system to the interstate highway system, that I'd love to see cut. If Congress cares about cutting spending, and expanding the US economy, we need to end American socialism now!

Could you please paragraph that mass of text. It's almost unreadable in its current state.

I'm not certain, but I suspect 'pork' projects are a substantial part of spending. The better ideas is not to cut essential programs, but to eliminate the availability of cash for pork.

There is a fine line between socialist and social services. Just because something is public does not mean it is socialist. For example - privatizing all roads would mean a tollway everywhere. Privatizing currency would mean no national standard and currency chaos.

NASA will be an essential service until space is a profitable enterprise. Just as the European monarchy subsidized transatlantic exploration, so too must governments subsidize space until a profit is clear and attained. The gap is narrowing, but not gone. meanwhile beurocracy is preventing some of the most primary of private attempts into space (and air still too, see Moller)

Could you please paragraph that mass of text. It's almost unreadable in its current state.
That's a bit impossible. For some reason, this site doesn't allow use of the tab key. However, I am not trying to write a giant run-on paragraph.

I'm not certain, but I suspect 'pork' projects are a substantial part of spending. The better ideas is not to cut essential programs, but to eliminate the availability of cash for pork.

There is a fine line between socialist and social services. Just because something is public does not mean it is socialist. For example - privatizing all roads would mean a tollway everywhere. Privatizing currency would mean no national standard and currency chaos.

NASA will be an essential service until space is a profitable enterprise. Just as the European monarchy subsidized transatlantic exploration, so too must governments subsidize space until a profit is clear and attained. The gap is narrowing, but not gone. meanwhile beurocracy is preventing some of the most primary of private attempts into space (and air still too, see Moller)
Pork would be great to cut, but there is far too much of it to list. In any case, someone always sees pork as a necessity.

As for your other comment, I ask you this: why? European monarchs did play a crucial role in world exploration, but did it ever occur to them that this would happen naturally if they weren't such absolutists? NASA is in a similar situation: space would be profitable. But why did the government need to go up there in the fifties and sixties? It had more value for supplying propaganda than it did for science and technology. Besides, if the Russians never went up there, neither would anyone else. We only went up there to quench our dangerously nationalistic fire.

The complicated thing about it is that both major parties now have significant streaks of Socialism in them. People have adjusted to several concepts, and unless they are very compellingly and reasonably led away from government growth with a large campaign of telling facts, it is unlikely we will ever turn away from this trend...

1) Many people believe now that rights are assigned by government...The Federal Government.


That is, we live in a Democracy stationed in Washington D.C., and should that government decide that 49% of the population (or even 1% of the population) is no longer liked or welcome, that the rest of the population should have the right to discriminate against them or push them around with the force of the law.

2) Many people pay their taxes thinking they get their money's worth.

Somebody once told me "Hey, you've got clean water, and you're not dying, so pay your taxes and don't bitch." This is very dangerous thinking when the government has very many nasty things they can do with your money.

It is in fact, a failure of vigilance more than anything. I do not believe the average person is aware of how little of the money we put in government ever returns to the people in terms of services. It's a corrupt embarassment that would ruin any business, but we have placed government above these basic accountable limitations.

There again...

It is difficult to oppose these superfluous government functions and inefficient agencies and programs in the public realm by letting on that they are in fact socialist in nature, however. This alienates people who believe they are freedom-loving Capitalists, but are in fact, welfare queens in many ways. Everybody has a favorite program, and they don't realize sometimes how anti-market, anti-individual, anti-constitution or pro-government growth their flights of fancies become once they hand them to the government.

Most people in this country are too young to have been born into any time when the government was not the steward of a plethora of fuctions.

The Federal Income Tax has existed since 1913. Social Security, much of the same time. Gun Control started in the 60s. The Federal Department of Education has been breaking the 10th amendment since the Carter Administration.

The War on Poverty, since Johnson.
The War on Drugs, since Nixon.
And now the War on Terror by Bush.

All endless government wars that millions have grown up with, and have never known a world without. There are those of us who imagine an America with a Federal government less empowered, and a people more equipped to uphold their individual responsibilities in society. Where the charity infrastructure of America is liberated to do more good, where our poor neighbors are not arrested Elian Gonzalez style over a bag of pot, and where all Americans are recognized their rights to due process at all times, no matter the defense situation of our state.

But this will be a matter of much time and vigilance.

The complicated thing about it is that both major parties now have significant streaks of Socialism in them. People have adjusted to several concepts, and unless they are very compellingly and reasonably led away from government growth with a large campaign of telling facts, it is unlikely we will ever turn away from this trend...

1) Many people believe now that rights are assigned by government...The Federal Government.


That is, we live in a Democracy stationed in Washington D.C., and should that government decide that 49% of the population (or even 1% of the population) is no longer liked or welcome, that the rest of the population should have the right to discriminate against them or push them around with the force of the law.

2) Many people pay their taxes thinking they get their money's worth.

Somebody once told me "Hey, you've got clean water, and you're not dying, so pay your taxes and don't bitch." This is very dangerous thinking when the government has very many nasty things they can do with your money.

It is in fact, a failure of vigilance more than anything. I do not believe the average person is aware of how little of the money we put in government ever returns to the people in terms of services. It's a corrupt embarassment that would ruin any business, but we have placed government above these basic accountable limitations.

There again...

It is difficult to oppose these superfluous government functions and inefficient agencies and programs in the public realm by letting on that they are in fact socialist in nature, however. This alienates people who believe they are freedom-loving Capitalists, but are in fact, welfare queens in many ways. Everybody has a favorite program, and they don't realize sometimes how anti-market, anti-individual, anti-constitution or pro-government growth their flights of fancies become once they hand them to the government.

Most people in this country are too young to have been born into any time when the government was not the steward of a plethora of fuctions.

The Federal Income Tax has existed since 1913. Social Security, much of the same time. Gun Control started in the 60s. The Federal Department of Education has been breaking the 10th amendment since the Carter Administration.

The War on Poverty, since Johnson.
The War on Drugs, since Nixon.
And now the War on Terror by Bush.

All endless government wars that millions have grown up with, and have never known a world without. There are those of us who imagine an America with a Federal government less empowered, and a people more equipped to uphold their individual responsibilities in society. Where the charity infrastructure of America is liberated to do more good, where our poor neighbors are not arrested Elian Gonzalez style over a bag of pot, and where all Americans are recognized their rights to due process at all times, no matter the defense situation of our state.

But this will be a matter of much time and vigilance.

While I mostly agree with you, I just want to say that the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are necessary. Drugs are destroying us by keeping large segments of the population down. Terrorism is probably even worse. It a.) threatens national security, and b.) is the symptom of a sick world that, historically, does not know how to cure itself.

Vigilance which most Americans are purposely kept too busy and distracted from to ever care to make time for...

And the War on Drugs is an ineffective sham that was never truly intended to stop the increasing drug problem in the first place, but was more intended as an excuse for America to play World Police, just like the War on Terror, only less justifiable.

Should this thread not be called "Ending any compassion for the poor" or even better "Ending any semblance of equality in the USA"? Quite frankly, I think the rest of the world looks on US society and thinks you could do with a wee bit more socialism rather than less.

Of course you like the War on Drugs. Remember, everybody has a favorite program to fufill their need to see others controlled.

The fact is that the Drug War is a $40 Billion dollar a year investment that has never decreased drug abuse among the population.

It has empowered criminals, it has victimized the poor and minorities, it has bloated and overfilled our prisons, and has distracted our police to the point that they spend more time arresting non-violent people than looking after real cases of crime.

We make the assumption that controlling others because of their use of drugs (and of course, the government defines what is a drug, so don't between them and any of their "suitable" substances) will be a suitable solution to protect us, but that hasn't happened.

Our Drug Laws have failed to protect us from that which we will not reasonably analyze: what is the harm that we must guard from?

The answer is real, violent, victim-oriented crime. And that crime can happen whether you're high on drugs or religious fervor or just had your morning coffee.

As for the War on Terror, there's nothing wrong with a military dedicated to protecting this country. That makes all the sense in the world. But is that what they're really doing with bases in 135 countries? With the largest network of War Guarantees in history? Right now, we are militarilly endebtted to world, despite the fact that they are factually endebtted to us for defense.

The War on Terror immortalizes a concept that need only be policy for defense. Do you see Israel scaring its people in the same way our government tried? Their threat level is comparable to "red" every day, but instead of being enthralled in the concept of getting their citizens in a tizzy day in and day out, they have developed normal policies and protocols and gone on with their lives.

The War on Terror has become a banner for a series of International interventions, and they may continue for many years under this same justification.

Pork would be great to cut, but there is far too much of it to list. In any case, someone always sees pork as a necessity.

Read Senator Dr. Tom Coburn's book "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders". He tells how pork can be cut, and now that he is in the Senate, he can filibuster to stop it. The opposition criticized him during the campaign for turning down 25 million in pork for his district when he was in the house.

"Should this thread not be called "Ending any compassion for the poor" or even better "Ending any semblance of equality in the USA"? Quite frankly, I think the rest of the world looks on US society and thinks you could do with a wee bit more socialism rather than less."

No, it shouldn't be called that, and I'll tell you precisely why. The government does not have a monopoly on the common good. In fact, they have such a terrible foothold in the area of providing for the poor and downtrodden, that it is amazing they haven't sooner been dispatched of this role in many cases.

Did you know that you and I...regular people...through private means, provide over $240 BILLION dollars a year to charity? That's just in the U.S.
That's half of our defense budget. Do you think Washington does that? Do you think if Washington ever DID that they would be able to get such a sizable percentage to those actually in need?

Remember, somewhere between 50-75% of what we put into D.C. never comes out. This is because we've let them believe all along that they are entitled to our money. They believe they do carry this monopoly on concern for our friends and neighbors, and so they've set up a very difficult system of Federal Grants to hold money hostages from local communities and state governments.

They've set up a myriad of regulations to prevent private charities from competing with government social services, making it difficult for private homeless shelters and kitchens to be opened. They are in many ways, advocating an end to private charity to maximize their strangehold.

They are the true enemy of well-distributed wealth. They do not prefer that inidividual people stand up and be reliant upon themselves. It is bad for their essential business, which is to take advantage of us, since they can convince us that nobody else in the world would ever be willing to help us do anything.

Should this thread not be called "Ending any compassion for the poor" or even better "Ending any semblance of equality in the USA"? Quite frankly, I think the rest of the world looks on US society and thinks you could do with a wee bit more socialism rather than less.
The best way to end poverty is to give the poor freedom to pull themselves from it. There is no need to limit anyone elses freedom to achieve this. Compassion cannot be bought. Money does not solve all problems. Socialists seem to think otherwise.

F**king libertarian insanity strikes again. "American socialism"? Socialism? Do you have the slightest bit of a clue about the actual meaning of the word "socialism"? America is BY FAR the most right-wing and ridiculously capitalist country in the western world.

I suggest all libertarians should move to a tropical island and declare independence so that they can try out their twisted, inhumane ideas on themselves. Then, when the streets of Libertopia have been filled by the putrid stench of rotten corpses, when their forests have been destroyed by the acid rain caused by unregulated industries, when the life expectancy of their workers has been reduced to 30 years and when their population is being cut down by easily preventable diseases, we will be able to look on at the death and devastation brought by the Religion of Capitalism (as libertarianism should be properly named) and breathe a sigh of relief at the knowledge that these sick madmen aren't running our countries.

- NASA, the only science agency that has recieved more money, probably because Tom DeLay's district has the Johnson Space Center (a model socialist). As we know, private firms have been making inroads into space, most recently with Virgin Galatic. And yet, the socialist space legacy developed by Werner von Braun lives on: the government should hold the keys to space. Why did we let an SS comander head our space program, again?

How do you consider nazism and socialism to match? They are quite opposite political ideologies. Besides, von Braun actually wasn't in the SS. He even got arrested by the Gestapo for some comments he made.


Government dominance is rearing its head again, as nationalistic feelings will spur legislators on both sides of the aisle to compete with China and India's upstart space programs. If the socialist EU makes a serious entry into space, government dominance is assured for a long time to come. The government should sell NASA to the public, operating only what is necessary to build defensive systems in space. The government should get out of launching civilian sattelites, scientific probes, and costly projects like the ISS.

The EU isn't socialist. Most governments are actually conservative right, such as Italy, France, and Austria. The conservative parties have the largest amount of seats in the parliament.

-Farm subsidies. I can see the arguement that it applies to national security, but I think that only works for grain farmers, and even then, far less subsidies are needed to gurantee that the farmland doesn't become an office complex. In any case, our frivolous farm subsidies are an impediment to free trade. As we have seen, free trade makes all countries involved wealthier. Don't we want to engage the large bloc of third world nations in this free trade?

While the farm subsidies are an impediment to free trade, they guarantee that the US need not be wholly dependendent on food imports, which could be used as blackmail. That's the logic behind farm subsidies. You just can't live without food.

There are many, many others, from the welfare system to the interstate highway system, that I'd love to see cut. If Congress cares about cutting spending, and expanding the US economy, we need to end American socialism now!
US subsidy policy isn't "socialist". Subsidies are a way of keeping things unequal, which is quite the opposite of socialism.

They've set up a myriad of regulations to prevent private charities from competing with government social services, making it difficult for private homeless shelters and kitchens to be opened. They are in many ways, advocating an end to private charity to maximize their strangehold.
.
Too true. Try cooking and delivering warm meals for the poor from your home. See how fast you are shut down.

Did you know that you and I...regular people...through private means, provide over $240 BILLION dollars a year to charity?
First of all, I think you've just pulled that statistic out of your (or some other libertarian's) ass. Second of all, private charity has existed since the dawn of human civilization - for over 5000 years, in other words. And guess what? IT NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING.

Government welfare was invented less than 100 years ago. And in less than a century, it has done more good than private charity ever did in 4900 years.

I'm afraid you don't understand Libertarian policies. Instead of having a rational discussion with us or paying attention to basic facts, you're resorting to making up scare tactics that make little or no practical sense.

I have no problem with someone who disagrees with me, but it should be done much more gracefully if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.
There was a time when a Libertarian was treated like an anarchist, and Libertarians have worked hard to talk to people reasonbly on issues.

It is amazing that others can speak to us as children and be given the legitimacy of an authority on government or economy.

Remember that there is no upheaval that will turn any country into a utopia or a tyranny overnight. There are only small steps of reform that can make a country more or less free.

We've taken far too many steps toward empowering tyrants. Telling the government that it is better than us. That it has not just powers, limited by the rights of the people, but the right to inequitably limit the people with its powers. Truly, you would be fairminded to look into the liberality of the Libertarian movement, and the extent to which you might fundamentally disagree with the direction of government in General.

Is the government an institution that has provided a general welfare to all people? Or is it a source of greater power for more concentration of wealth, greater corruption of justice, and more empowerment for those who were already quite empowered to begin with?

The facts and actions of government show a pretty obvious story of who they look out for when it comes down to it.

F**king libertarian insanity strikes again. "American socialism"? Socialism? Do you have the slightest bit of a clue about the actual meaning of the word "socialism"? America is BY FAR the most right-wing and ridiculously capitalist country in the western world.

I suggest all libertarians should move to a tropical island and declare independence so that they can try out their twisted, inhumane ideas on themselves. Then, when the streets of Libertopia have been filled by the putrid stench of rotten corpses, when their forests have been destroyed by the acid rain caused by unregulated industries, when the life expectancy of their workers has been reduced to 30 years and when their population is being cut down by easily preventable diseases, we will be able to look on at the death and devastation brought by the Religion of Capitalism (as libertarianism should be properly named) and breathe a sigh of relief at the knowledge that these sick madmen aren't running our countries.

I think all socialists should move to a section of the world and bitch about people being stronger than them, make useless resolutions to try and stop them, and bitch about capitalist countries being better than them. That way, they're away from us so we can live our lives and prosper while they go on and turn to downfall.

Oh wait, already happened. It's called Europe. If you don't already live there, go there, it would be great for you.

Out of my ass? How's about out of the news?

http://www.aafrc.org/gusa/

Remember when other countries call our government stingy for not giving enough at first for the Tsunami? And then the government gave more?

And still, Presidents Clinton and Bush sr. had to come out and make appeals to the public, and they continued to do so on TV and at the Superbowl.
You know why? Because even when the government gave hundreds of millions, the American people were able to give even more.

It is a lie to suggest charity cannot be improved and empowered without government. It's ALREADY BETTER than the government provided services.

I would have to say that the primary concern for any good government should be the common man and underpriviledged, and would agree that this has rarely ever truly been the case in many governments, and that the American government is clearly in favor of those who need the government's help the least, IE, the already rich and powerful...

I think all socialists should move to a section of the world and bitch about people being stronger than them, make useless resolutions to try and stop them, and bitch about capitalist countries being better than them. That way, they're away from us so we can live our lives and prosper while they go on and turn to downfall.

Oh wait, already happened. It's called Europe. If you don't already live there, go there, it would be great for you.


Curiously, i also think that all the people with brains in the US should also come to Europe :D

Save an American: take him to Europe!

I think all socialists should move to a section of the world and bitch about people being stronger than them...
We socialists have a saying: "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains." A socialist never runs away from a fight - on the contrary, we wish to actively seek out and destroy capitalist tyranny.

...and bitch about capitalist countries being better than them.
Ha ha ha - the United States, "better" than other western countries? This has got to be the joke of the century. You should take a trip to Scandinavia; compared to Sweden or Denmark, the US looks like a third world country.

F**king libertarian insanity strikes again. "American socialism"? Socialism? Do you have the slightest bit of a clue about the actual meaning of the word "socialism"? America is BY FAR the most right-wing and ridiculously capitalist country in the western world.

I suggest all libertarians should move to a tropical island and declare independence so that they can try out their twisted, inhumane ideas on themselves. Then, when the streets of Libertopia have been filled by the putrid stench of rotten corpses, when their forests have been destroyed by the acid rain caused by unregulated industries, when the life expectancy of their workers has been reduced to 30 years and when their population is being cut down by easily preventable diseases, we will be able to look on at the death and devastation brought by the Religion of Capitalism (as libertarianism should be properly named) and breathe a sigh of relief at the knowledge that these sick madmen aren't running our countries.

I think you have been living in NS to long and have confused the game with real life.:)

First, it isn't just Libertarians who believe in Capitalism. Most Republicans believe in it as well. Secondly, although the Capitalist system is not perfect, it has served us well for over 200 years and built one of the strongest economies and country in the world.

Capitalists are not bad people as you suggest, we just want people to take responsibility for their actions. We believe in helping people improve their lives by providing them opportunities to live up to their potential.

The Capitalist system has allowed private industry to develop medicines that have extended life expectancy of life for people all over the world. The Capitalist system has greatly improved the quality of life for people.

Please answer one question. If the Capitalist system is so bad, why are there so many people trying to get into the US and so few trying to get out?

We socialists have a saying: "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."

I believe that is a quote from Carl Marx who was the founder of Communism. Ok, if you want to call it Socialism that's OK. The point is the Communist/Socialist ideology was a total failure. The proof, USSR. More proof, Cuba, North Korea, and even China is slowly moving toward Capitalism.

First, it isn't just Libertarians who believe in Capitalism. Most Republicans believe in it as well. Secondly, although the Capitalist system is not perfect, it has served us well for over 200 years and built one of the strongest economies and country in the world.
It is only libertarians, however, who can be called Free Market Fundamentalists. They adore Capitalism with the same fervor that Osama Bin Laden adores Islam.

As for Republicans, the problem with most of them is that they seem to have forgotten how ordinary people lived for the first 120 of those 200 years of capitalism - in other words, how people lived before the "evil liberals" invented the welfare state. There are plenty of books describing living conditions in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They should be required reading for anyone interested in politics.

Capitalists are not bad people as you suggest, we just want people to take responsibility for their actions.
I said libertarians, not capitalists. In other words, I referred to extreme capitalist ideologues - the High Priests of the Market.

The most extreme capitalists want people to take responsibility for anything that happens to them, which is patently absurd. You're not responsible if you get hit by a tsunami, or if a rock accidentaly falls on your head, or if you are born into a poor family. Human beings are not gods - they cannot and do not have control over each and every aspect of their lives.

We believe in helping people improve their lives by providing them opportunities to live up to their potential.
So do we socialists, actually. We believe in empowering the people by giving them full control over the means of production.

The Capitalist system has allowed private industry to develop medicines that have extended life expectancy of life for people all over the world.[/quote]
For those who can afford them, you mean. Not for the other 60% of humanity.

The Capitalist system has greatly improved the quality of life for people.[/quote]
However, quality of life has only improved in the 20th century, after laissez-faire capitalism became a thing of the past. In the first half of the 19th century, the average quality of life actually went down (something that had not happened since the Great Plague).

Please answer one question. If the Capitalist system is so bad, why are there so many people trying to get into the US and so few trying to get out?
You must be thinking in terms of a false dichotomy - that capitalism is either all good or all bad. Contrary to what you might think, socialists do not accuse capitalism of being wholly evil - indeed, not even communists do. The entire first chapter of the Communist Manifesto is dedicated to showing the good side of capitalism (while the subsequent chapters show its evil side). The point is that capitalism isn't all bad, but it does have some truly evil sides, and, in any case, we can do better.

Also, please note that, with the exception of Cuba, all countries from which the US receives immigrants are also capitalist countries.

I would have to say that the primary concern for any good government should be the common man and underpriviledged, and would agree that this has rarely ever truly been the case in many governments, and that the American government is clearly in favor of those who need the government's help the least, IE, the already rich and powerful...
You don't know the difference between a government and a charity. A government is accountable to all people regardless of financial status. An individual is responsible for providing for themself, not the government, and it is certainly not a governments role to provide for an individual. Dependance never breeds freedom.

Also, please note that, with the exception of Cuba, all countries from which the US receives immigrants are also capitalist countries.

Which part of your anantomy did you pull that stat from?

It bears mention that the most oppressive governments do not allow emigration, or else there would be considerably more (North Korea comes to mind) people lucky enough to escape those places aren't called immigrats, they are called refugees.

I believe that is a quote from Carl Marx who was the founder of Communism. Ok, if you want to call it Socialism that's OK.
The words "communism" and "socialism" can refer to two distinct types of concepts:

1. Ideologies (things such as liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc).
2. Socio-economic systems (things such as capitalism, feudalism, etc).

As an ideology, communism is one branch of the much larger tree of socialism. In other words, communists are one particular subset of socialists.
As socio-economic systems, on the other hand, socialism and communism are two distinct and separate things.

The point is the Communist/Socialist ideology was a total failure. The proof, USSR.
If a country has a choice between system A and system B, and system B has been proven to be much, much worse for that country than system A, then I don't think you can call system A a "failure", can you?

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the USSR, but it is a clear fact that the Russian people were far better off in the USSR than in present-day capitalist Russia. Living standards were higher, life expectancy was higher, buying power was higher, public health was better - even the country's GDP was much higher (the USSR was the world's second largest economy, after the United States).

Russia is trying capitalism, and it turns out that capitalism is much worse than what they had before (regardless of how you wish to call it). So if that was a "failure", what about capitalism?

More proof, Cuba...
According to the CIA World Factbook, living standards in Cuba are lower than in the United States but higher than in any other Central American country. I wouldn't call that a "failure". There's a reason why you never hear of Cubans fleeing to Mexico (although getting into Mexico would be much easier than getting into the US).

North Korea
Come on, North Korea has officially dropped all references to "Marxism" or "Leninism" from its Constitution in the 1970's...

...and even China is slowly moving toward Capitalism.
Actually, China is capitalist, and has been for the past 10 years.

New Anthrus said

-The government's role as the paymaster of the airline industry. Big, bloated airliners have been repeatedly lived past their time, thanks to a regular stream of Congressional bailouts. Americans wonder why their legacy carriers are in hot water, while Singapore, Qantas, Lufthansa, and others are succeeding. This is why: little government interference in the airline industry.

errrr you do realise that those airlines are National carriers and also recieve large amounts of funding from their respective governments as well.

Ha ha ha - the United States, "better" than other western countries? This has got to be the joke of the century. You should take a trip to Scandinavia; compared to Sweden or Denmark, the US looks like a third world country.
Which Scandinavia or Sweden are you talking about? They really don't seem all that much better, at least as far as my week-and-a-half of misadventures there showed...

We socialists have a saying: "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains." A socialist never runs away from a fight - on the contrary, we wish to actively seek out and destroy capitalist tyranny.
And all the innovations and developments that have sprung out of capitalism...

An individual is responsible for providing for themself, not the government, and it is certainly not a governments role to provide for an individual.
It is the government's job to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. That is the whole reason why (legitimate) governments were created in the first place - to do the things individual people can't do for themselves.

A legitimate government is the result of a social contract.

Dependance never breeds freedom.
"Freedom" is not an end in and of itself - it is a means to achieve happiness. If your version of "freedom" does not positively affect the happiness of the people, then I suggest you stick it where the sun don't shine.

In my book, dependance is better than death.

Besides, I fail to see how you can consider people on welfare to be "dependant", but not apply the same standard to people who are supposedly helped by your beloved private charity.

Well, hasn't this thread just got less interesting?

Like I told the originator of this thread earlier. Using the word "Socialism" alienates people from helping you to address the real problem. Even if your opponent may advocate Socialism, calling him such is sloppy tactic.

Notice that this whole thread has degenerated into a fight over "Capitalism and Socialism" as if that is at all the discussion being had in Washington D.C. with our rights and properties.

And all the innovations and developments that have sprung out of capitalism...
Are you suggesting that no innovations and developments took place during the 4700 years of human civilization before capitalism was invented? Or that the Soviet Union won World War 2 by using... what, magic? :rolleyes:

Like I told the originator of this thread earlier. Using the word "Socialism" alienates people from helping you to address the real problem. Even if your opponent may advocate Socialism, calling him such is sloppy tactic.
Yes, because it shows your total ignorance of politics and history.

Personally, I've never seen a libertarian using the word "socialist" to describe a real socialist...

Are you suggesting that no innovations and developments took place during the 4700 years of human civilization before capitalism was invented? Or that the Soviet Union won World War 2 by using... what, magic? :rolleyes:
Perhaps I might clarify. Capitalism, has in the last 250 years led us to more innovations than at any other point in human history. I'd say that's some big-time success.

The Soviet Union won the second world war by throwing its soldiers right at the Germans, often with no rifles. The Soviet Union won the second world war using munitions, supplies and technologies provided by the western allies. The Soviet Union didn't win the second world war on their own technology.

Quite frankly, dependance is not the way to determine whether we are getting where we need to go.

It's about results.

How have American minorities been served by the state recently?

Inequity in Federally-controlled schools hasn't helped them get a fair shot at education. Affirmative Action hasn't employed them in any greater numbers in quality work. Over regulation and overtaxation hasn't made the market any better for aspiring business owners of color.

Exactly what kind of service is Washington giving to those who need the help most, when the minority graduation, employment and ownership rates are so low, while the incarceration and impoverishment rates are so high?

Why in all this time, after all this money spent, has no mechanization of Federal power truly overcome these obstacles?

The answer is because results aren't what the government is looking for. The government looks to bide time with subsidy, from aid for the poor, right up to subsidy for Farmers and Corporate multinationals. They decide to buy unlimited amounts of time to hang life and death over the heads of the people, promising prosperity and reducing it to a mere government-printed check.

A check, even regularly administered, does not a community build.

We believe in helping people improve their lives by providing them opportunities to live up to their potential.
So do we socialists, actually. We believe in empowering the people by giving them full control over the means of production.

The words "communism" and "socialism" can refer to two distinct types of concepts:

1. Ideologies (things such as liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, etc).
2. Socio-economic systems (things such as capitalism, feudalism, etc).

I am confused. In one post you say Socialists want to "empower the people by giving them full control over the means of production." The way I understand Communism, the people (who are the State) own the means of production.

Then in the next post you say there are differences between Communist and Socialist Socio-economic systems.

Please explain. :confused:

Yes, because it shows your total ignorance of politics and history.

Personally, I've never seen a libertarian using the word "socialist" to describe a real socialist...
What is a real socialist? Hm, I'll check the dictionary to find out!

Socialist, n: An advocate of socialism.

Ok, that doesn't get us anywhere, so, let's see, how about we look up socialism.

Socialism, n: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

There, that helps. So, a socialist is an advocate of any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

I think I get what a socialist is.

Oh wait, already happened. It's called Europe. If you don't already live there, go there, it would be great for you.

I don't speak European languages and they hate me, anyway, so I can't go there.

Russia is trying capitalism, and it turns out that capitalism is much worse than what they had before (regardless of how you wish to call it). So if that was a "failure", what about capitalism?

Actually, China is capitalist, and has been for the past 10 years.

Both of the above are because Communism/Socialism failed. With the failure of one system, they must try another system. Why is China succeeding with Capitalism while Russia was failing? Could it be the greed and corruption of the political leaders, not the failure of Capitalism?

I don't speak European languages and they hate me, anyway, so I can't go there.
European languages are easy to learn! And why would they hate you?

European languages are easy to learn! And why would they hate you?

I'm American (legally at least, certainly not in values). The rest of the world hates me. Then again, many Americans hate me.

I'm American (legally at least, certainly not in values). The rest of the world hates me. Then again, many Americans hate me.
But...I'm an American and I didn't have any problems when I was in Europe this summer, except a drunk guy...and some Germans helped me deal with him...

With no more efforts to promote social equality, and as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, morality is vanishing.
The rich with no morals become corrupt while the poor with no morals and their lack of fortune become criminals.

And the planet is going to shit with deforestation and pollution and the resulting global warming and weather change (which is already being noticed throughout the world).

All hail capitalism.

With no more efforts to promote social equality, and as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, morality is vanishing.
The rich with no morals become corrupt while the poor with no morals and their lack of fortune become criminals.

And the planet is going to shit with deforestation and pollution and the resulting global warming and weather change (which is already being noticed throughout the world).

All hail capitalism.
Agitprop! Yay!

Oh wait, already happened. It's called Europe. If you don't already live there, go there, it would be great for you.
We have it pretty good in Europe. Arguably better than you have it in America.

We have it pretty good in Europe. Arguably better than you have it in America.
Not in my opinion, but hey, you're entitled to your own opinion!

I wonder. Since when is income equality a god-given right?

What is this about eating American Socialism. It is not a food, unlike French Fries. Let us eat French Fries and not American Socialism.

You don't know the difference between a government and a charity.
You lack comprehension skills.
A government is accountable to all people regardless of financial status.
IE, the common man, not the rich and powerful...
An individual is responsible for providing for themself, not the government, and it is certainly not a governments role to provide for an individual.
Then what is the role of the government, if not to govern a society of individuals and ensure their safety and prosperity?
Dependance never breeds freedom.
Then we should just leave babies to fend for themselve right outta the womb right? I don't quite see what's so wrong with helping people until they are able to make it on their own...

Then what is the role of the government, if not to govern a society of individuals and ensure their safety and prosperity?


National defense
Run the courts
Pass laws
Protect the civil liberties of the people

The role of government is a poppy seed role with extra butter.

The role of government is a poppy seed role with extra butter.

Ah, that's where the Germans went wrong, they used a Kaiser...

National defense
Run the courts
Pass laws
Protect the civil liberties of the people
And you mean to tell me this ISN'T in order to ensure the safety and prosperity of the individuals they govern?

And you mean to tell me this ISN'T in order to ensure the safety and prosperity of the individuals they govern?

And how do you define "ensuring the safety and prosperity of individuals"? I can easily state that censoring TV protects individuals. Elaborate on how giving out money to the individuals ensures their safety, in ways that they cannot do themselves.

The main role of the government is to ensure the growth of prosperity and to ensure the freedoms and safety of those it governs. But on the other hand, our government is not doing that due to NAFTA. That is the major problem why our economy is suffereing now. With free trade between Canada and Mexico, our companies are relocating there to avoid paying as high taxes and as much in minimum wage. Some economists say free trade is good, that it helps the economy. That is true to an extent, it helps the companies make more money, but in the same respect, when companies are shutting down and moving away, those people lose their jobs, sometimes it affects an entire town's economy, which is now completly ruined because they can no longer get companies to move into that area because of how many people are poor. So it is doomed to be a ghost town. Some other people say, yes but while it moves blue-collar jobs out of the country and brings white collar jobs into the country, that may be true, but the white collar jobs go to the richer cities, the cities that do not need it as much as others.
So the thing that is killing us is the NAFTA because it helps out the big companies, but it does not help out the people that drive this country and buy the products. That is our problem, we are too concerned with the companies and not the people. That is why we need to help those people that do not have a job, not just by giving them money, but by having the government help pay for new training and to be placed in a new job. Because a country is not measured by the richest people, but it is measured by the poorset people, and I know that we do not do enough to help those people out, we only can do more.

Why are people so lazy? Why don't YOU help these people instead of demanding others to do so? You get your friends together and help them out. Is that too difficult? There are plenty of people who would be willing to help out the unfortunate. I don't see why asking the government is needed, when the individual can help out his/her fellow man.

The main role of the government is to ensure the growth of prosperity and to ensure the freedoms and safety of those it governs. But on the other hand, our government is not doing that due to NAFTA. That is the major problem why our economy is suffereing now. With free trade between Canada and Mexico, our companies are relocating there to avoid paying as high taxes and as much in minimum wage. Some economists say free trade is good, that it helps the economy. That is true to an extent, it helps the companies make more money, but in the same respect, when companies are shutting down and moving away, those people lose their jobs, sometimes it affects an entire town's economy, which is now completly ruined because they can no longer get companies to move into that area because of how many people are poor. So it is doomed to be a ghost town. Some other people say, yes but while it moves blue-collar jobs out of the country and brings white collar jobs into the country, that may be true, but the white collar jobs go to the richer cities, the cities that do not need it as much as others.
So the thing that is killing us is the NAFTA because it helps out the big companies, but it does not help out the people that drive this country and buy the products. That is our problem, we are too concerned with the companies and not the people. That is why we need to help those people that do not have a job, not just by giving them money, but by having the government help pay for new training and to be placed in a new job. Because a country is not measured by the richest people, but it is measured by the poorset people, and I know that we do not do enough to help those people out, we only can do more.

Well put. Somone who attacks the issues and not the various factious parties. We must consider the costs of infrastructure that we take for granted. Clean water and waste management systems for example serve as an integral part of our public health infrastructure. This is something that we in the US and most western nations take for granted. Not so, for example, if you lived in a nation such as Mexico. Sure the major cities there have said public infrastructure (to an extent), but not so much in the rural areas.

Taxes that multinational corporations outsource, or offshore to avoid provided the very services taht our government takes for granted. And while this is beginning to digress rather significantly, I should posit, any free trade agreement that loosens borders, at the same time institutes protections for individuals to prevent abuse of workers in other countries that we enjoy here. It would be interesting to see a bill that mandates that products produced outside of a nation and imported must adhere to the same standards of labor practices (whether relating to workers or environmental degredation) as required by products produced within the nation. This would result in a far more equitable, and moral result of free trade practices.

okay enough blathering and back to my wage labor. :p

And you mean to tell me this ISN'T in order to ensure the safety and prosperity of the individuals they govern?
Yep.

And how do you define "ensuring the safety and prosperity of individuals"? I can easily state that censoring TV protects individuals. Elaborate on how giving out money to the individuals ensures their safety, in ways that they cannot do themselves.
You mean people are unable to turn off their television or change the channel and must be protected from physical and emotional harm caused by the viewing of certain content? And who said anything about giving out money? Personally, I think the government should help ensure everyone has food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education, health care, are able to find work, and are protected from being violated or exploited. No money has to be given to them to accomplish this because frankly, who's to say they're not going to spend it on something else like the classic example of the panhandler who spends all his money on booze? And this is the part about ensuring their prosperity, not their safety, so please, stop being stupid.
Why are people so lazy? Why don't YOU help these people instead of demanding others to do so? You get your friends together and help them out. Is that too difficult? There are plenty of people who would be willing to help out the unfortunate. I don't see why asking the government is needed, when the individual can help out his/her fellow man.
1. Not enough individuals care to work together and spend personal resources in benefiting others, and a significant enough amount strive to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

2. Government is by its nature a group of individuals agreeing to work together to the benefit of all because of point #1.

Unfortunately, government can also be corrupted by those who would strive to benefit themselves at the expense of others, such as here in America, especially when people at large do not care to take part in their government and just leave someone else to take care of it for them.

No one owes anyone a living. THat's really all I have to say in the matter, unless someone personally questions me.

And who said anything about giving out money? Personally, I think the government should help ensure everyone has food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education, health care, are able to find work, and are protected from being violated or exploited.

And people can't get this themselves? There are plenty of alternatives rather than government: food drives, Salvation Army, shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens, Goodwill, other charities and fundraisers, etc. If you're smart enough and paid attention in school, you should be able to find some type of work. And if by violated and exploited you mean fraud, then I would agree with you there.

Well, hasn't this thread just got less interesting?

Like I told the originator of this thread earlier. Using the word "Socialism" alienates people from helping you to address the real problem. Even if your opponent may advocate Socialism, calling him such is sloppy tactic.

Notice that this whole thread has degenerated into a fight over "Capitalism and Socialism" as if that is at all the discussion being had in Washington D.C. with our rights and properties.

OK, so what other economic and social systems do you suggest we consider? Shall we return to monarchies; true monarchies where the King/Queen is the absolute ruler? Shall we consider dictatorships where one person determines the economic and social direction of the country?

Most countries in the world today, other than dictatorships, have Capitalistic/Socialistic or Socialistic/Capitalistic economies. None are pure Capitalistic or pure Socialistic. Neither type of economic philosophy can exist without some constraint from the government. A pure Capitalistic economic system could exploit the workers. A pure Socialistic/Communist economy would stifle innovation production.

So, where does that leave this discussion? What are the alternatives, if any that you propose? A serious answer please.

Are you suggesting that no innovations and developments took place during the 4700 years of human civilization before capitalism was invented? Or that the Soviet Union won World War 2 by using... what, magic? :rolleyes:

The Soviet Union "won" WW II with the help of the capitalistic west. Specifically the United States of America. :headbang:

A check, even regularly administered, does not a community build.

I agree with your quote above.

I might get the following quote wrong, but I hope you get the point. "When you give a man a fish...but when you teach a man to fish."

I agree with your quote above.

I might get the following quote wrong, but I hope you get the point. "When you give a man a fish...but when you teach a man to fish."

Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.

or...

Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, if you teach a man a fish he'll get drunk then fall out of his boat and drown.

But I would go with the first one. :D

And people can't get this themselves? There are plenty of alternatives rather than government: food drives, Salvation Army, shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens, Goodwill, other charities and fundraisers, etc. If you're smart enough and paid attention in school, you should be able to find some type of work. And if by violated and exploited you mean fraud, then I would agree with you there.
And yet, homelessness, unemployment, and to a lesser extent starvation are still a problem even here in America, why is that?

And my point is, the government should help ensure everyone learns how to fish, while at the same time helping to ensure they're fed until they get it down.

I'm American (legally at least, certainly not in values). The rest of the world hates me. Then again, many Americans hate me.

I know, you are not paranoid it's just everyone is out to get you. See a doctor now. :(

And yet, homelessness, unemployment, and to a lesser extent starvation are still a problem even here in America, why is that?

And yet we even have welfare and how is that been helping? You can't completely eliminate these problems, sorry bud.

And yet, homelessness, unemployment, and to a lesser extent starvation are still a problem even here in America, why is that?
Well, with the homelessness part, it's not so much economic poverty, as mental condition, the vast bulk of homeless people have a serious mental disorder that is preventing them from working.

On the charge of unemployment: Unemployment is everywhere, it will never go away. Sometimes someone's jobskill is just not needed. And most unemployment is transient, temporary, not lasting much more than a few months.

Starvation is a problem simply because of resource distribution. So many of the poeple who lack food just don't know how to get somewhere to get someor where to get it. Hell, I volunteer at soup kitchens, and we always have groceeries that the people can take home left over, typically in large quantities.

[QUOTE=Tribal EcologyAnd the planet is going to shit with deforestation and pollution and the resulting global warming and weather change (which is already being noticed throughout the world).

All hail capitalism.[/QUOTE]

Don't blame Capitalism for "global warming." Did you ever hear of glaciall/peluvial periods? You know the earth cycle of cooling and warming. You understand how the dinosaurs became extinct by the "big chill." How about how lush forests of ancient times became deserts? If you don't understand this, I would suggest an ancient history course. :headbang:

We have it pretty good in Europe. Arguably better than you have it in America.

Good yes. Argualbly better depends on you prespective. I do like Europe though especially Spain, England, and Italy.

I wonder. Since when is income equality a god-given right?

It isn't if you are a Capitalist or Republican. :)

It isn't if you are a Capitalist or Republican. :)

What about Libertarian. Include it or I'll report you to the mods (not really). And yes, this post is needless.

IE, the common man, not the rich and powerful...

All citizens.

Then what is the role of the government, if not to govern a society of individuals and ensure their safety and prosperity?

Safety yes, prosperity is up to the individual. If the individuals cannot support themselves because of physical or mental disability then this becomes a safety issue. If the individuals cannot or will not support themselves for any other reason then it is not a safety issue.

Then we should just leave babies to fend for themselves right outta the womb right? I don't quite see what's so wrong with helping people until they are able to make it on their own...

Ridiculous. No one is proposing this in any society.

But on the other hand, our government is not doing that due to NAFTA. That is the major problem why our economy is suffereing now. With free trade between Canada and Mexico, our companies are relocating there to avoid paying as high taxes and as much in minimum wage.

Are you Canadian or American? The reason I ask is America is having this problem and I did realize Canada might be having it also. How narrow minded of me.

Why are people so lazy? Why don't YOU help these people instead of demanding others to do so? You get your friends together and help them out. Is that too difficult? There are plenty of people who would be willing to help out the unfortunate. I don't see why asking the government is needed, when the individual can help out his/her fellow man.

Amen brother or sister. I hope you will run for political office.

I definitely won't. :eek:

*stays 100 million feet away from political power*

Safety yes, prosperity is up to the individual. If the individuals cannot support themselves because of physical or mental disability then this becomes a safety issue. If the individuals cannot or will not support themselves for any other reason then it is not a safety issue.
If they will not support themselves, there is nothing to be done, but if they cannot support themselves, don't you think they deserve the chance to get themselves into a position where they can?
Ridiculous. No one is proposing this in any society.
Then at what age is it acceptable to completely cut off someone's dependance regardless of whether or not they are actually prepared to make it on their own?

Unfortunately, government can also be corrupted by those who would strive to benefit themselves at the expense of others, such as here in America,...

And as in the United Nations "Oil for Food" program?

And as in the United Nations "Oil for Food" program?
The UN is only as good as the nations who compose it...

If they will not support themselves, there is nothing to be done, but if they cannot support themselves, don't you think they deserve the chance to get themselves into a position where they can?
For some people, it is impossible to improve themselves, as they are suffering from a diesease (either mental or physical) that they cannot get around, but there are people who can help themselves who are in bad straits. And they can get help as well, my illustration of my work at the soup kitchen is an example, or temporary sacrifice. Go without television for a while. Go without expensive and special foods. Work an extra job. Stay away from the booze, drugs and cigarrettes. Get help from charities. The money saved from making temporary sacrifices can be used to educate oneself, at say, a community college. There a person can learn all sorts of technical job skills that are vital and needed in today's market.

Then at what age is it acceptable to completely cut off someone's dependance regardless of whether or not they are actually prepared to make it on their own?
Well, of course, that's a personal issue, for the person and their parents to make.

The UN is only as good as the nations who compose it...

A government is only as good as the individuals that compose it...

And yet, homelessness, unemployment, and to a lesser extent starvation are still a problem even here in America, why is that?

And my point is, the government should help ensure everyone learns how to fish, while at the same time helping to ensure they're fed until they get it down.

Did you know there is unemployment insurance in the US where people can collect unemployment until they find a job?

Did you know there is government sponsored retraining programs available to people who become unemployed?

Did you know there are many private and public programs that provide food the needy?

Did you know that some people (unfortunately) choose to be homeless?

Did you know that my niece was trained by a government program to become a hairdresser, but she didn't like hairdressing so she went back on welfare? Don't good hairdressers make a decent wage, or am I paying to much for my haircuts?

What about Libertarian. Include it or I'll report you to the mods (not really). And yes, this post is needless.

Oops! Sorry. I should have included you and all the others I left out. :fluffle:

If they will not support themselves, there is nothing to be done, but if they cannot support themselves, don't you think they deserve the chance to get themselves into a position where they can?

Then at what age is it acceptable to completely cut off someone's dependance regardless of whether or not they are actually prepared to make it on their own?

Read my post again. I said if they cannot support themselves because of mental or physical disability then the state should take care of them.

The age of majority. In the US the age is 18. If an individual reaches the age of majority and cannot take care of them self due to mental or physical defect, then it is up to the state to take care of them. If they won't take care of them self for any other reason, it is not the responsibility of the state.

By the way, it is the responsibility of the parents to take care of a minor until they reach the age of majority. In the absence of a parent, it is the responsibility of the state.

The UN is only as good as the nations who compose it...

Your point is....?

The money saved from making temporary sacrifices can be used to educate oneself, at say, a community college. There a person can learn all sorts of technical job skills that are vital and needed in today's market.

You sir/madam will do well. You have the attitude that more people need. I have a lot of respect for you.

In my book, dependance is better than death.



Funny you should mention that, in communists countries that is your only two choices.

Funny you should mention that, in communists countries that is your only two choices.

You have a point there.

It is the government's job to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. That is the whole reason why (legitimate) governments were created in the first place - to do the things individual people can't do for themselves.

A legitimate government is the result of a social contract.



I'd be interets in seeing where in the Constitution, Dec of Indep, Magna Carta or anything else where it mentions that. In fact these documents all LIMIT the power of government, not the individual. If you believe in empowering the government before the individual that is your perogative, but an improper one IMHO.

Those who are incapable of providing for themselves are either children or the infirmed. A government does not solely or even primarily exist for their benefit. It does not take a genius to figure that out. A government exists to govern, not to provide. There is a world of difference.

Those unwilling to provide for themselves deserve the fruits of their labor.

Perhaps I might clarify. Capitalism, has in the last 250 years led us to more innovations than at any other point in human history. I'd say that's some big-time success.

The Soviet Union won the second world war by throwing its soldiers right at the Germans, often with no rifles. The Soviet Union won the second world war using munitions, supplies and technologies provided by the western allies. The Soviet Union didn't win the second world war on their own technology.
The Soviet Union did not participate in WW2 dufus.

The Russians fought noble and hard. Their battlefront was the most feared by the Germans. I would not be quick to discredit their sacrafice.

Quite frankly, dependance is not the way to determine whether we are getting where we need to go.

It's about results.

How have American minorities been served by the state recently?

Inequity in Federally-controlled schools hasn't helped them get a fair shot at education. Affirmative Action hasn't employed them in any greater numbers in quality work. Over regulation and overtaxation hasn't made the market any better for aspiring business owners of color.

Exactly what kind of service is Washington giving to those who need the help most, when the minority graduation, employment and ownership rates are so low, while the incarceration and impoverishment rates are so high?

Why in all this time, after all this money spent, has no mechanization of Federal power truly overcome these obstacles?

The answer is because results aren't what the government is looking for. The government looks to bide time with subsidy, from aid for the poor, right up to subsidy for Farmers and Corporate multinationals. They decide to buy unlimited amounts of time to hang life and death over the heads of the people, promising prosperity and reducing it to a mere government-printed check.

A check, even regularly administered, does not a community build.
You have finally figured it out; less government is better.

Seeing a new conservative being born almost brings a tear to my eye. Welcome to the world youngster!

I don't speak European languages and they hate me, anyway, so I can't go there.
Ummm, you seem to have a fair grasp of English.


Besides, we hate you here too... :) (jk)

While I mostly agree with you, I just want to say that the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are necessary. Drugs are destroying us by keeping large segments of the population down. Terrorism is probably even worse. It a.) threatens national security, and b.) is the symptom of a sick world that, historically, does not know how to cure itself.

Wars, of any kind are unescessary, even the fictious "War on Drugs" and "Wr on Terror"...

What is needed is understanding that neither of these things can be personalized and "fought". Drugs have been around for longer than the country and as a societal issue, you must look a the best way of taking care of your population. Of course, this would mean a turn towards a Socialist-Free Enterprise system where Corporations, like the one you probably work for, will not be allowed to punish all of the "have nots", but thats the price you pay to ensure a fair and just society for all, not just rich people.

The war on Terror is just the most rediculous thing, what that translates into is "lets kill everyone who doesn't think like us". Thats everyone else. Not going to win that war, let me tell you.

A Sick world.... Actually sir, the world was doing just fine. Progress was being made and there was more hope. Now, less hope, more fear, but more money to be made off of the fearful, so, I guess, you must be happy about that.

In fact, if you are not able to muster the ability to speak with the rest of the worlds people and learn to mingle one society with another, rather than impose your society and values on them, they will likely hate you alot less.

Why are people so lazy? Why don't YOU help these people instead of demanding others to do so? You get your friends together and help them out. Is that too difficult? There are plenty of people who would be willing to help out the unfortunate. I don't see why asking the government is needed, when the individual can help out his/her fellow man.
It is clear that they do not understand the difference between charity and government.

Seeing a new conservative being born almost brings a tear to my eye. Welcome to the world youngster!

Seeing a new conservative being born reminds me how far we are away from different peoples being able to trust each other.
Those who fear change and shift deserve no place in the world afterwards.

And people can't get this themselves? There are plenty of alternatives rather than government: food drives, Salvation Army, shelters for the homeless, soup kitchens, Goodwill, other charities and fundraisers, etc. If you're smart enough and paid attention in school, you should be able to find some type of work. And if by violated and exploited you mean fraud, then I would agree with you there.


Gee you all like to underestimate people. Give someone the freedom to fail and the opportunity to succeed and let them live with the results. The US gives people twelve years of free education and the ability to choose any vocation they wish. If someone can't figure out how to make it after over a decade of free education then I would suggest the finger of blame is upon them.

I definitely won't. :eek:

*stays 100 million feet away from political power*
I have exactly one vote worth of political power, plus the money I give to worthy PACs and a few local reps campaigns.

The UN is only as good as the nations who compose it...
God help us all then.

You have finally figured it out; less government is better.

Seeing a new conservative being born almost brings a tear to my eye. Welcome to the world youngster!


Well, with the large government of Canada and higher taxes, we have less crime, less fear, less hate, less guns, safer environments, no ghettos, no real gangs and every citizen has free healthcare, free education and protection from unemployment and community based welfare.

Its just a preference. I prefer to live in a safe just and equal society free of discrimination lead by a governments who thinks of the people first and has laws to protect it against corporate influences.

Example of wonderful policies that are before the legislature of Canada:

1) Same Sex Marriage - Likely to pass with a clear majority in the house, this legislation will end over a century and a half of oppression and discrimination against homo-sexuals and treat there love for one another with as much respect as other human beings.

2) Decriminalization or Legalization of Marijuana - Likely to pass in one form over the next year, this will remove the stigma of marijuana as a gateway drug and will allow to to be purchased, perhaps even in convience stores. Studies clearly show it is less harmful that alcohol (a known poison/carcenogen) or tobacco (the most criminal product ever maufactured) and has almost no lasting health effects after cessation of use, nor does it cause nearly as much societial tragedy as users of alcohol tend to do (drinking and driving, drunken brawls, assults, family violence)

I think its pretty clear. I'll pay more in taxes if it will allow individuals to be free and equal and well taken care of.

Inequality, either financially or socially, (I have more money than you/I have more rights than you) is generally frowned upon and creates hardship for one group over another. Hardly what one wants, unless you are the rich people.

So if being conservative means putting down the little guy, I'm not one...

If they will not support themselves, there is nothing to be done, but if they cannot support themselves, don't you think they deserve the chance to get themselves into a position where they can?
They get twelve years of free education. That is their chance. If they squander it then shame on them.

Then at what age is it acceptable to completely cut off someone's dependance regardless of whether or not they are actually prepared to make it on their own?
After they complete their free education.

Well, with the large government of Canada and higher taxes, we have less crime, less fear, less hate, less guns, safer environments, no ghettos, no real gangs and every citizen has free healthcare, free education and protection from unemployment and community based welfare.

Its just a preference. I prefer to live in a safe just and equal society free of discrimination lead by a governments who thinks of the people first and has laws to protect it against corporate influences.

Example of wonderful policies that are before the legislature of Canada:

1) Same Sex Marriage - Likely to pass with a clear majority in the house, this legislation will end over a century and a half of oppression and discrimination against homo-sexuals and treat there love for one another with as much respect as other human beings.

2) Decriminalization or Legalization of Marijuana - Likely to pass in one form over the next year, this will remove the stigma of marijuana as a gateway drug and will allow to to be purchased, perhaps even in convience stores. Studies clearly show it is less harmful that alcohol (a known poison/carcenogen) or tobacco (the most criminal product ever maufactured) and has almost no lasting health effects after cessation of use, nor does it cause nearly as much societial tragedy as users of alcohol tend to do (drinking and driving, drunken brawls, assults, family violence)

I think its pretty clear. I'll pay more in taxes if it will allow individuals to be free and equal and well taken care of.

Inequality, either financially or socially, (I have more money than you/I have more rights than you) is generally frowned upon and creates hardship for one group over another. Hardly what one wants, unless you are the rich people.

So if being conservative means putting down the little guy, I'm not one...


I forget, how long ago was it that Quebec was talking of secession?

Seeing a new conservative being born reminds me how far we are away from different peoples being able to trust each other.
Those who fear change and shift deserve no place in the world afterwards.
Hey! That's another communist slogan! Did you once work for a firing squad or something?

Gee you all like to underestimate people. Give someone the freedom to fail and the opportunity to succeed and let them live with the results. The US gives people twelve years of free education and the ability to choose any vocation they wish. If someone can't figure out how to make it after over a decade of free education then I would suggest the finger of blame is upon them.


Over %30 of all books are furnished by corporations and contain corporate propoganda. That's not telling it like it is or giving you a good basis for what you might want to do with your life. It takes nearly another 12 years to remove the brianwashing so you can think freely again. Trust me, it took me 12 years to go from "Cowboys and Indians" to "The earlier settlers of North America, through cohersive trading practises and deliberate use of infectious disease wiped out the Native American tribes and by about 1890 had all but committed genocide against the Native Peoples."

It's a bit of a weight to bear to learn that your ancestors committed genocide, it's even more distrubing to read about it's celebration or casual disregard in a textbook.

The education your professing is disingenuous, and all it does it prepare you for a covetous life as a soul-dead member of corporate consumer culture.

Hey! That's another communist slogan! Did you once work for a firing squad or something?

Communist - community

Weren't you just espousing that communities should help themselves? Helping your fellow man? Perhaps you should read up a bit.

They get twelve years of free education. That is their chance. If they squander it then shame on them.

After they complete their free education.
Apparently you have little clue as to how severely lacking public education is in many places in America, especially inner city schools, but even my school which was actually considered to be one of the better ones was sorely lacking in honest education.

Education is being taught how to think. When you're mainly taught what to think, that's 12 years of free conditioning...

I forget, how long ago was it that Quebec was talking of secession?

They have been working at it since Rene Levesque. That's someone you can look up on the Canadian Archives at www.cbc.ca. Great man... I disagreed with almost everything he had to say... But a great man.


*takes his hat off out of respect *

Over %30 of all books are furnished by corporations and contain corporate propoganda. That's not telling it like it is or giving you a good basis for what you might want to do with your life. It takes nearly another 12 years to remove the brianwashing so you can think freely again. Trust me, it took me 12 years to go from "Cowboys and Indians" to "The earlier settlers of North America, through cohersive trading practises and deliberate use of infectious disease wiped out the Native American tribes and by about 1890 had all but committed genocide against the Native Peoples."

It's a bit of a weight to bear to learn that your ancestors committed genocide, it's even more distrubing to read about it's celebration or casual disregard in a textbook.

The education your professing is disingenuous, and all it does it prepare you for a covetous life as a soul-dead member of corporate consumer culture.

All books contain the loose definition of propaganda because noone is completely immune to it. The textbook people produce what people will buy. The governement buys textbooks with your aforementioned propaganda because that is what they want to teach.

The truth lies somewhere between your propaganda and the government's.
I say "your propaganda" because your statements make the condition seem entirely one-sided.

Over %30 of all books are furnished by corporations and contain corporate propoganda. That's not telling it like it is or giving you a good basis for what you might want to do with your life. It takes nearly another 12 years to remove the brianwashing so you can think freely again. Trust me, it took me 12 years to go from "Cowboys and Indians" to "The earlier settlers of North America, through cohersive trading practises and deliberate use of infectious disease wiped out the Native American tribes and by about 1890 had all but committed genocide against the Native Peoples."

It's a bit of a weight to bear to learn that your ancestors committed genocide, it's even more distrubing to read about it's celebration or casual disregard in a textbook.

The education your professing is disingenuous, and all it does it prepare you for a covetous life as a soul-dead member of corporate consumer culture.
Always nice meeting other Americans who are able to see through the bullshit they've been spoonfed all their lives...

Over %30 of all books are furnished by corporations and contain corporate propoganda. That's not telling it like it is or giving you a good basis for what you might want to do with your life.

Boo-hoo. Don't buy them. And where did you get this statistic? YOu know, because you can use statistics to prove anything. 91% of people know that.

It takes nearly another 12 years to remove the brianwashing so you can think freely again. Trust me, it took me 12 years to go from "Cowboys and Indians" to "The earlier settlers of North America, through cohersive trading practises and deliberate use of infectious disease wiped out the Native American tribes and by about 1890 had all but committed genocide against the Native Peoples."

Brainwashing or just youthful ignorance? Really, how many five-year-olds do you expect to know history by the back of their hand and the events that occurred back then? They haven't learned it yet because at that age world history isn't a main subject! Jesus christ, dude. SEriously, I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat.

Boo-hoo. Don't buy them. And where did you get this statistic? YOu know, because you can use statistics to prove anything. 91% of people know that.
... You do realize school bought text books is what was being referred to right?
Brainwashing or just youthful ignorance? Really, how many five-year-olds do you expect to know history by the back of their hand and the events that occurred back then? They haven't learned it yet because at that age world history isn't a main subject! Jesus christ, dude. SEriously, I think you need to take off the tinfoil hat.
Umm, considering it's a constant all the way up until you graduate high school, I doubt it's youthful ignorance all the way... And the proper term isn't brainwashing, it's social conditioning, you should study sociology sometime.

The UN is only as good as the nations who compose it...

Then all nations are corrupt? Not just the leadership of the UN?

Wars, of any kind are unescessary,

WW I, WW II, and the Korean War were unnecessary? Pleas tell that to the people of Europe and South Korea. :headbang:

Apparently you have little clue as to how severely lacking public education is in many places in America, especially inner city schools, but even my school which was actually considered to be one of the better ones was sorely lacking in honest education.

Education is being taught how to think. When you're mainly taught what to think, that's 12 years of free conditioning...

Aha! Someone finally admits they were taught what to think by the liberal education system? :D

New Anthrus said

-The government's role as the paymaster of the airline industry. Big, bloated airliners have been repeatedly lived past their time, thanks to a regular stream of Congressional bailouts. Americans wonder why their legacy carriers are in hot water, while Singapore, Qantas, Lufthansa, and others are succeeding. This is why: little government interference in the airline industry.

errrr you do realise that those airlines are National carriers and also recieve large amounts of funding from their respective governments as well.
But if they were inefficient, they would be cut, and not exactly kept supported. The only exception is Air France, but the French government loves holding on to its companies, even if they are inefficient.

Of course you like the War on Drugs. Remember, everybody has a favorite program to fufill their need to see others controlled.

The fact is that the Drug War is a $40 Billion dollar a year investment that has never decreased drug abuse among the population.

It has empowered criminals, it has victimized the poor and minorities, it has bloated and overfilled our prisons, and has distracted our police to the point that they spend more time arresting non-violent people than looking after real cases of crime.

We make the assumption that controlling others because of their use of drugs (and of course, the government defines what is a drug, so don't between them and any of their "suitable" substances) will be a suitable solution to protect us, but that hasn't happened.
I just don't see why they do need to be legalized. I oppose it mainly on health grounds, and feel that drugs are like a voluntary cancer. Why I can see why marijuana can be legalized, nothing else should be. I do not believe it is a method of controlling Americans. If anything, it is from good intentions. That's what most of the programs from a democracy are about, however inefficient. It's just that they excel at some things more than others, like law enforcement and the military.
As for the War on Terror, there's nothing wrong with a military dedicated to protecting this country. That makes all the sense in the world. But is that what they're really doing with bases in 135 countries? With the largest network of War Guarantees in history? Right now, we are militarilly endebtted to world, despite the fact that they are factually endebtted to us for defense.

The War on Terror immortalizes a concept that need only be policy for defense. Do you see Israel scaring its people in the same way our government tried? Their threat level is comparable to "red" every day, but instead of being enthralled in the concept of getting their citizens in a tizzy day in and day out, they have developed normal policies and protocols and gone on with their lives.

The War on Terror has become a banner for a series of International interventions, and they may continue for many years under this same justification.
As far as I see it, I feel that this is all justifiied. Being a strong believer in the liberal theory of history, I believe that a few, surgical US interventions now come back at us in a good way. It worked in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. And now that much of the world is embracing a form of liberal capitalist democracy, it is even easier. Besides, in the long run, it will win us the War on Terror, just like no German or Japanese feels the need to strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up in New York.

F**king libertarian insanity strikes again. "American socialism"? Socialism? Do you have the slightest bit of a clue about the actual meaning of the word "socialism"? America is BY FAR the most right-wing and ridiculously capitalist country in the western world.

I suggest all libertarians should move to a tropical island and declare independence so that they can try out their twisted, inhumane ideas on themselves. Then, when the streets of Libertopia have been filled by the putrid stench of rotten corpses, when their forests have been destroyed by the acid rain caused by unregulated industries, when the life expectancy of their workers has been reduced to 30 years and when their population is being cut down by easily preventable diseases, we will be able to look on at the death and devastation brought by the Religion of Capitalism (as libertarianism should be properly named) and breathe a sigh of relief at the knowledge that these sick madmen aren't running our countries.

I'm not really a liberatarian. But consider this: in the past three hundred years, more technological, cultural, and economic inovations have happened than at any time prior. They did not happen in Imperial China, nor tribal Africa, nor Fascist or Communist Europe. They happened first in Western Europe, then in the other countries that embraced liberal democracy under John Locke's ideas.

Maybe if the u.s. government sold nasa then nasa would be up to some actual scientific expeditions intead of this putting men on mars crap.

No, wait, I'm sure that the private owners would do just as many pointless ventures and ignore all scientific value in favour of a quick buck.

Now guys, to clear the air a bit, I do not consider the US a socialist country. Far from it. But I do feel that elements of socialism exist. It reached its height in the mid 1970s, and was slowly dismantled ever since. I'm mostly suggesting more ways that the US can clean their house.

Maybe if the u.s. government sold nasa then nasa would be up to some actual scientific expeditions intead of this putting men on mars crap.

No, wait, I'm sure that the private owners would do just as many pointless ventures and ignore all scientific value in favour of a quick buck.
They won't need to. All they need to do is to find cheaper ways to get into space, as it is in their interests. When it is cheap enough, more scientists can get into space than NASA can do today.

How do you consider nazism and socialism to match? They are quite opposite political ideologies. Besides, von Braun actually wasn't in the SS. He even got arrested by the Gestapo for some comments he made.
According to investigative reporter Eric Schlosser, von Braun worked with the SS on the V-2 project, were he got his degree of expertise in rocket science. And according to Popular Science, von Braun was also the intellectual leader of a movement that wanted to keep space in public hands. This contrasted with two other schools of thought: one that didn't want manned space exploration and settlement, and another that wanted an anarchic space. Needless to say, they were all a bit looney. Fortunatly, however, von Braun's main support comes mostly from military men and scientists working for the Russian space program.
The EU isn't socialist. Most governments are actually conservative right, such as Italy, France, and Austria. The conservative parties have the largest amount of seats in the parliament.
Pure socialism never can exist, so in that respect, you are right. But both France and Italy have half of their economy state owned. Of course, in France, the Communist party is considered main stream.
While the farm subsidies are an impediment to free trade, they guarantee that the US need not be wholly dependendent on food imports, which could be used as blackmail. That's the logic behind farm subsidies. You just can't live without food.
I see that working only with grain, which happens to be the bulk of US food production. But must we subsidize fruits, vegetables, and especially cotton? Can cotton even be eaten?
US subsidy policy isn't "socialist". Subsidies are a way of keeping things unequal, which is quite the opposite of socialism.
But it is public money. The underpinning of socialist theory is the public ownership of the means of production. Subsidies are socialist, in the effect that they are meant to work for the "common good" in the US.

-The government's role as the paymaster of the airline industry. Big, bloated airliners have been repeatedly lived past their time, thanks to a regular stream of Congressional bailouts. Americans wonder why their legacy carriers are in hot water, while Singapore, Qantas, Lufthansa, and others are succeeding. This is why: little government interference in the airline industry.

There are 12 pages, and I hope somewhere someone pointed out that these are in fact national carriers and they are kept profitable by lots of government intervention.

Australia, for example, is doing its best to beat off Singapore Airlines from flying the Sydney-US route because it is so profitable for Qantas. Likewise with the Kangaroo Route (London-Singapore-Australia), the Australian government limits SIA's landing rights in Australia so Qantas/British Airways have the edge there.

The problem that the US carriers face is a lot of low-cost competition and the fact that Americans fly internationally a lot less compared to other nationalities, and international routes are where the carriers make money (the US-Japan route especially has been good to United). So they don't make as much money on international compared to other airlines, and their domestic business is water in a leaky bucket as the competitors do it cheaper.

Qantas, Lufthansa, and SIA do have low-cost competition on their short-haul and domestic routes, but nowhere near as intense, and besides, they make most of their money on lucrative long-haul routes which low-costs can't compete on.

There are many, many others, from the welfare system to the interstate highway system, that I'd love to see cut. If Congress cares about cutting spending, and expanding the US economy, we need to end American socialism now!

Well, a guy like me would prefer American be more socialist, but that's all a matter of opinion, I guess. And why on earth would you want to cut down on the interstate highways? Transportation is vital to any country's economy. Admittedly there might be some things which I don't hear about or hear much about, given I don't actually live in the States, but cutting welfare and highways seem like very strange things to be doing with an economic situation like the USA has now.

There are 12 pages, and I hope somewhere someone pointed out that these are in fact national carriers and they are kept profitable by lots of government intervention.

Australia, for example, is doing its best to beat off Singapore Airlines from flying the Sydney-US route because it is so profitable for Qantas. Likewise with the Kangaroo Route (London-Singapore-Australia), the Australian government limits SIA's landing rights in Australia so Qantas/British Airways have the edge there.

The problem that the US carriers face is a lot of low-cost competition and the fact that Americans fly internationally a lot less compared to other nationalities, and international routes are where the carriers make money (the US-Japan route especially has been good to United). So they don't make as much money on international compared to other airlines, and their domestic business is water in a leaky bucket as the competitors do it cheaper.

Qantas, Lufthansa, and SIA do have low-cost competition on their short-haul and domestic routes, but nowhere near as intense, and besides, they make most of their money on lucrative long-haul routes which low-costs can't compete on.

They are actually productive because those flagship carriers have little intervention from the government. There are some very profitable airliners in the US, like JetBlue and Southwest. However, they are being held down becauss no one wants to see the legacy carriers die out.

Well, a guy like me would prefer American be more socialist, but that's all a matter of opinion, I guess. And why on earth would you want to cut down on the interstate highways? Transportation is vital to any country's economy. Admittedly there might be some things which I don't hear about or hear much about, given I don't actually live in the States, but cutting welfare and highways seem like very strange things to be doing with an economic situation like the USA has now.
Well, this is what I want to do: keep the designation system of the interstate highways at hand, and have the government reserve the right to excersise the right to move troops on the highways, which is why Eisenhower built them in the first place. However, either give control of the highways to the state, or lease them to the private sector, where they are responsible for tolls, maintainance, etc. I believe that this will work better, as these companies will have a vested interest in keeping traffic flowing smooth, keeping the roads repaired, and maximizing ridership. This is unlike the government, that has few worries on anything so long as the tax revenue keeps flowing in. Even when it doesn't, the government doesn't seemed to be worried.

They are actually productive because those flagship carriers have little intervention from the government. There are some very profitable airliners in the US, like JetBlue and Southwest. However, they are being held down becauss no one wants to see the legacy carriers die out.

What did I just say? The carriers you mention get a lot of government intervention, for their benefit! Singapore's government is trying to get Australia's government to allow fifth-freedoms so SIA can fly Australia-US, and in fact they work quite hard negoiating air rights for SIA's benefit. Likewise many other governments. I already pointed out Australia's protectionism of Qantas.

Unless you're more specific about how the low-costs are being "held down", I'm going to tell you that you're wrong there. In fact in the US the government's deregulation was what led to the existence of low-cost carriers in the first place. And the government's laws against predatory pricing allowed them to survive past the first few months. I'd say government intervention worked out well for the low-costs in this case.

This is just opinion, but the reason people don't want the "legacies" to die out is that they are huge employers. American is the world's biggest airline, United the second biggest. If they go down, over a hundred thousand jobs nationwide go with them. United employs 61,000 people, I couldn't find the number for American, but it's reasonable to assume that over 120,000 jobs would be disappearing. That doesn't even count in the other "legacies". Also, low-costs don't fly internationally.

I believe that this will work better, as these companies will have a vested interest in keeping traffic flowing smooth, keeping the roads repaired, and maximizing ridership.

On the other hand, I believe that privatising roads will not only make their quality worse, but you'll also pay more because now they are run for profit, thus they cut down on repairs and bring up tolls.

What did I just say? The carriers you mention get a lot of government intervention, for their benefit! Singapore's government is trying to get Australia's government to allow fifth-freedoms so SIA can fly Australia-US, and in fact they work quite hard negoiating air rights for SIA's benefit. Likewise many other governments. I already pointed out Australia's protectionism of Qantas.

Unless you're more specific about how the low-costs are being "held down", I'm going to tell you that you're wrong there. In fact in the US the government's deregulation was what led to the existence of low-cost carriers in the first place. And the government's laws against predatory pricing allowed them to survive past the first few months. I'd say government intervention worked out well for the low-costs in this case.
They are being held down because of the many, many government bailouts that United and AA have recieved. They are large employers, of course, but has it ever occured to you that smaller airliners may take their place? On top of that, JetBlue and Southwest are much more consumer friendly. JetBlue has added ammenities unheard of in legacies, such as in flight TVs, leather seats throughout the plane, and <gasp> legroom. Southwest, while being a no-frills air carrier, is known for its staff that spins out jokes to passengers, and it spins out a better bottom line. Logic dictates that these companies should be on their way to the top, much like what United did to Pan Am. It didn't.

And yes, the others are national carriers, and we can argue back and forth why they were kept good. But I can also tell you about quite a few of the state owned companies that have failed, are ineffient, or offer poor customer service, like Amtrak, the BBC, Gazprom, and Renault. Those little computers France made in the late eighties were also a giant flop.
Also, low-costs don't fly internationally.

Not anymore. Jet Blue recieved permission to fly to the Bahamas and the Dominican Republic.

On the other hand, I believe that privatising roads will not only make their quality worse, but you'll also pay more because now they are run for profit, thus they cut down on repairs and bring up tolls.
However, companies have a vested interest in making money by collecting tolls. To do this, they need to maximise ridership, and can't afford a road riddled with potholes. There are already a few private highways in California. They have cameras everywhere, checking for accidents, road conditions, even liscense plates (for collecting tolls). The maintainance is also decent. It is really indistinguishable from any highway, except that it might not be as much of a hassle to pay tolls as it may be at a state turnpike.

Now, I want to give a compliment to the US on one sector that the government hasn't controlled outright: defense. One may argue, with plenty of reason, that the defense sector is all about the government. But that is not entirely true. Why? Because private companies build the military, and do much of the research.
The DOD's main job is to decide on application, recruit and train the manpower, and then use it. But are their any government factories to make guns, tanks, planes, or bombs? No. They are all done by various companies. And unlike other sectors of the government that tend to favor business simply because of their size, the DOD hires businesses based on innovation and production capacity. Usually, the majors, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are the best at this, but not always. Upstart companies win big Defense contracts all the time.
Today, that is moreso the case. The military is outsourcing to private firms to do civilian jobs in combat zones, like cooks or janitors. They are also hiring private security firms for their contractors in Iraq and Central Asia, giving work to Special Forces that are otherwise too old to work for the military. I find them to be a great example of capitalist policies that other sectors of the government need to follow as a model.

They are being held down because of the many, many government bailouts that United and AA have recieved. They are large employers, of course, but has it ever occured to you that smaller airliners may take their place?

No, they can't, because with the big international routes, especially to Europe and Asia, there's a lot more business traffic, and these people want premium service. Airport lounges, nice meals, etc. Additionally, they'd need to buy planes which won't run out of fuel over Greenland or Alaska. They can only go as far as the planes they use can take them, and the 737s most of them use don't have enough range to replace legacies on transatlantic/pacific routes. You'd be at the mercy of the foreign carriers.

Additonally, the low-cost carriers only serve the big, juicy routes, partly because of the aforementioned equipment restriction, and partly to maximise profit. Small towns which have only legacy service will suffer.

Now, I'm not in favour of the airline bailouts as they happened, since in my opinion it's blatant corporate welfare, and as a lefty I don't like it. But with the number of jobs at stake, I'm not surprised they did it, and I suppose that it was in a way a lot more justified than some other instances of corporate welfare I could name.

On top of that, JetBlue and Southwest are much more consumer friendly. JetBlue has added ammenities unheard of in legacies, such as in flight TVs, leather seats throughout the plane, and <gasp> legroom. Southwest, while being a no-frills air carrier, is known for its staff that spins out jokes to passengers, and it spins out a better bottom line. Logic dictates that these companies should be on their way to the top, much like what United did to Pan Am. It didn't.

Arguably, since Southwest is the one of the fewconsistently profitable American airlines, it's already on top. I think I should also add that outside the US, the "unheard of" amenities aren't really all that unheard of. Air Canada is starting to put in personal TVs, which were already standard in economy class on SIA, Cathay, and British Airways, among others. The American legacies were pretty much lagging behind other internationals in terms of frills, even before the 11 September attacks, and the LCC competition made it worse.

the BBC

WHAT?? It's probably the best use of public funds I've ever encountered.


However, companies have a vested interest in making money by collecting tolls. To do this, they need to maximise ridership, and can't afford a road riddled with potholes... It is really indistinguishable from any highway, except that it might not be as much of a hassle to pay tolls as it may be at a state turnpike.

I will admit I have no experience of private roads because I don't live in America, and so perhaps your roads really are poorly maintained. But to me it just seems like a bad idea, especially if the entire highway system becomes privatised - it becomes a captive market, and then you have the "let's maximise profit" problem.

Gee you all like to underestimate people. Give someone the freedom to fail and the opportunity to succeed and let them live with the results. The US gives people twelve years of free education and the ability to choose any vocation they wish. If someone can't figure out how to make it after over a decade of free education then I would suggest the finger of blame is upon them.


In all fairness, the govt provided education is awful. The NEA and school boards apparantly believe giving less service(results) for more money is a workable solution.

Don't blame Capitalism for "global warming." Did you ever hear of glaciall/peluvial periods? You know the earth cycle of cooling and warming. You understand how the dinosaurs became extinct by the "big chill." How about how lush forests of ancient times became deserts? If you don't understand this, I would suggest an ancient history course. :headbang:

Maybe a biology course is better than that.

I know what you are talking about but what we are living isn't a glaciation or anything like it. The natural cooling and warming is slower than you think.

The crazy weather we are living now, the lack of rain in some countries where it was supposed to rain (like Portugal) and the major floods and such, is caused by human action. Even your government has admitted that human action is at least involved in global warming.

If you doubt me, do some actual research. just quoting from certain sites and taking their word for granted won't be enough.

Are you kidding me? The privatization of NASA is out of the question. I suggest you read "Deception Point" by Don Brown. The book is modern-day fiction; ableit the points made on the privatization of NASA are strong and clear.

Secondly, the US is not socialist, unfortunately, in the slightest bit. Socialism isn't bad. Look at Canada and Scandinavia for example. You remind me of the same people who cried out "Creeping Socialism" when the government opened power plants to provide cheap electricity to undeveloped communities. Boohoo if private power plants suffered; they were denying millions of people power with unreasonable prices.

If anyone is interested in socialism, send me a telegram at Yannainia.

I agree with Tribal Ecology. The Earth obviously goes through many changes. Cycles of heating and cooling, magnetic shifts, precession. Yet humans are speeding up the process on a grand scale. Just recently scientists warned nations that if they don't do something soon, the accumulating affect caused by pollution in the atmosphere will cause a severe climate shift within the next few decades or sooner.

snippedfor brevity .....


On the other hand, I believe that privatising roads will not only make their quality worse, but you'll also pay more because now they are run for profit, thus they cut down on repairs and bring up tolls.

They aretrying this experiment in Virginia right now. The government didn'twantto widen the road so vacationerscould drive easily out of state to the North Carolina Outer Banks. They wanted the traffic to goto Virginia Beach instead.

A private company built a nice road to the North Carolina border, where the NC state government improved the road inside that state. Noone takes the governement road any longer, despite the tolls.

If the road becomes decrepit or the tolls too high, the selective consumer will just go back to taking the free road.

Capitalism in action. A demand for a product. An business willing to satisfy the demand. Between the consumer and the business, a reasonable fee is set.

It's interesting what the budget doesn't mention. The super-effective program controlling Iraq for example.

Well, with the large government of Canada and higher taxes, we have...free education and protection from unemployment and community based welfare.

You said it yourself, 'We pay higher taxes." So it isn't free, you are paying for it. Thank God we in the lower 48 don't have "free" medical care. I've lived under a socialized medical system and it was very bad. :(

When you're mainly taught what to think, that's 12 years of free conditioning...

Nope, there are many people in college paying good money for this type of conditioning. :sniper:

A private company built a nice road to the North Carolina border, where the NC state government improved the road inside that state. Noone takes the governement road any longer, despite the tolls.

If the road becomes decrepit or the tolls too high, the selective consumer will just go back to taking the free road.

What I am worried about is the potential of a captive market if a nation's highway system is completely or mostly privatised. I'm looking at utility deregulation as a warning here. Power and water companies had captive markets, so they pushed prices up and cut corners to maximise their profit. Pretty soon they were creating artificial power shortages so they could charge through-the-roof rates.

Additionally, I want to know where my money's going when I pay the toll. I am fine with paying tolls for using the public roads, because the government is not-for-profit. I know the toll I pay is recouping the money spent building and paying for the cost of maintaining the road. With a private company I don't know what they're doing with my money. I don't know that they're using the money for the road itself, they might be using it to buy themselves private jets or something, after all, they're doing it for profit, not because they want to provide the service.

Of course, the government might do that too, but frankly, a government is a lot more trustworthy than any company, and besides, you can hold the government accountable the next election. You can't do that with a company. Oh sure, you can boycott the road... and drive an extra few hours to use another road... yeap, people who are not happy with the road sure are going to do that.

Capitalism in action. A demand for a product. An business willing to satisfy the demand. Between the consumer and the business, a reasonable fee is set.

I think I've already shown how it's not that simple, and how you won't necessarily get a reasonable fee where private companies and capitalism's profit motive are involved.

In all fairness, the govt provided education is awful. The NEA and school boards apparantly believe giving less service(results) for more money is a workable solution.
The education system varies dramatically from place to place but the cost to students is the same. All attempts at reform and standardization have been met with fierce resistance by the teachers union. It is shameful. Even in it's worst quarters it is still better than nothing.

The education system varies dramatically from place to place but the cost to students is the same. All attempts at reform and standardization have been met with fierce resistance by the teachers union. It is shameful. Even in it's worst quarters it is still better than nothing.

We need vouchers. It will stimulate the competition and force the public education system to improve or wither on the vine.

Additionally, I want to know where my money's going when I pay the toll. I am fine with paying tolls for using the public roads, because the government is not-for-profit. I know the toll I pay is recouping the money spent building and paying for the cost of maintaining the road.

You poor naive soul. Whom do you think they borrowed the money from? Why don't you have the same diligence with your tax dollars (which should be what pays for public roads in the first place)


Of course, the government might do that too, but frankly, a government is a lot more trustworthy than any company,
ROFLMAO!!!!! If you weren't serious that wouldn't have been nearly as funny!



and besides, you can hold the government accountable the next election.

Yes, like you did with Bush! LOL!

We need vouchers. It will stimulate the competition and force the public education system to improve or wither on the vine.
don't forget it will also equalize the money spent per student regardles of region or neighborhood.

But if they were inefficient, they would be cut, and not exactly kept supported. The only exception is Air France, but the French government loves holding on to its companies, even if they are inefficient.
oooh, a lecture about governments cutting ineficient programs. This ougta be good. make sure to include public education, war on drugs, $500 military hammers, pork, PBS, UN membership, Endowment for the Arts, Farm Subsidies, and all those other magnificently efficient programs that have not yet been cut.

You said it yourself, 'We pay higher taxes." So it isn't free, you are paying for it. Thank God we in the lower 48 don't have "free" medical care. I've lived under a socialized medical system and it was very bad. :(

If socialized medical systems don't work it's because it isn't well made. There can be no corruption in the system, nor greedy workers, like doctors, etc. Or they'll do shitty jobs.

It's obvious that socialism wouldn't work in america instantly if things changed today. Most of the people aren't used to justice and fairness. They are just trying to earn money as quick as possible.
That's what your "culture" teaches people. "Get rich or you're screwed". And in the process of trying to get rich, people lose their scruples, their morals, and do stupid, destructive things, either to people or nature or whatever. And the richer, the worse.

Gimme, gimme gimme
Mooooore
Don't ask what
Foooor
Don't ask what
Foooor

If you don't understand what I mean, you're a moron. But I can explain and make drawings if needed.

If socialized medical systems don't work it's because it isn't well made. There can be no corruption in the system, nor greedy workers, like doctors, etc. Or they'll do shitty jobs.
Hello! We are talking about people here! There's corruption inherent in everything that people do. Socialized medicine cannot be corruption free.


It's obvious that socialism wouldn't work in america instantly if things changed today. Most of the people aren't used to justice and fairness. They are just trying to earn money as quick as possible.
Ahhhhhh, justice, so nice a word, with so many meanings! And fairness same goes for that. I think Americans are perfectly used to justice and fairness. I mean, hell our doctors go to college for eight years, and invest loads of their own time and money in themselves. It's only just and fair that they get sufficient recompense for doing so! :D


That's what your "culture" teaches people. "Get rich or you're screwed". And in the process of trying to get rich, people lose their scruples, their morals, and do stupid, destructive things, either to people or nature or whatever. And the richer, the worse.
I really haven't seen any evidence of this...so I'll just take it as you propagandizing.

Gimme, gimme gimme
Mooooore
I thought that this is what advocates of socialism say...

If you don't understand what I mean, you're a moron. But I can explain and make drawings if needed.
Asshattery. This is why people call leftists elitist.

I do understand it, and I still don't like it!

No, they can't, because with the big international routes, especially to Europe and Asia, there's a lot more business traffic, and these people want premium service. Airport lounges, nice meals, etc. Additionally, they'd need to buy planes which won't run out of fuel over Greenland or Alaska. They can only go as far as the planes they use can take them, and the 737s most of them use don't have enough range to replace legacies on transatlantic/pacific routes. You'd be at the mercy of the foreign carriers.
But they have the money, just not the ability to gain the market share. Besides, once some of these companies liquidate, the smaller airliners can buy their planes. Bailouts prevent this. However, US Airways is expected to liquidate sometime this year. It probably won't get a bailout, as it isn't as big as United or Continental, but it has several high preformance planes, including the 747.
Additonally, the low-cost carriers only serve the big, juicy routes, partly because of the aforementioned equipment restriction, and partly to maximise profit. Small towns which have only legacy service will suffer.

Perhaps your definition of small town is 6,000 people with a runway strip, in which case they have booming air service from much smaller firms, like the increasingly popular air taxis. But mid sized cities will do fine. I live in your average rust belt city: population 250,000, a not so great economy, etc. JetBlue has five flights to New York, and is considering a sixth one.

Arguably, since Southwest is the one of the fewconsistently profitable American airlines, it's already on top. I think I should also add that outside the US, the "unheard of" amenities aren't really all that unheard of. Air Canada is starting to put in personal TVs, which were already standard in economy class on SIA, Cathay, and British Airways, among others. The American legacies were pretty much lagging behind other internationals in terms of frills, even before the 11 September attacks, and the LCC competition made it worse.
My apologies. I meant US legacy carriers, even though there really are no legacies here. Nearly all the airliners rose after deregulation, when Pan Am and TWA started to fall apart.

I will admit I have no experience of private roads because I don't live in America, and so perhaps your roads really are poorly maintained. But to me it just seems like a bad idea, especially if the entire highway system becomes privatised - it becomes a captive market, and then you have the "let's maximise profit" problem.
Private roads aren't really prolific in the US as well, unless you count driveways and parking lots. But I am 99% sure that they will be better than public roads. Private bathrooms, for example, are all over Europe. They cost a few cents to use, but they are very clean. This is in contrast to the US's love of public bathrooms, which are decrepid, dirty, and just plain gross.

oooh, a lecture about governments cutting ineficient programs. This ougta be good. make sure to include public education, war on drugs, $500 military hammers, pork, PBS, UN membership, Endowment for the Arts, Farm Subsidies, and all those other magnificently efficient programs that have not yet been cut.
Only PBS, Endowment for the Arts, Pork, and the Farm Subsidies should go. UN membership can work to our advantage, as we are only one of five nations to have a veto over the Security Concil. In addition, as we are the UN's biggest single source of funding, we can withhold it if the UN is too naughty. Since they created the ICC, I think that now would be as good a time as any to withhold all the funds for a few years. They may even disband the ICC, but that is a pipe dream.
Oh, and if we really get pissed at them, we can always seize the Meatpacking district of Manhattan, which is "international territory" used by the UN as a HQ.

Hello! We are talking about people here! There's corruption inherent in everything that people do. Socialized medicine cannot be corruption free.


In america it obviously works worse than in other countries. I doubt that scandinavians are unhappy with their system. They do have a very aged population. Do you understand what that means?

Ahhhhhh, justice, so nice a word, with so many meanings! And fairness same goes for that. I think Americans are perfectly used to justice and fairness. I mean, hell our doctors go to college for eight years, and invest loads of their own time and money in themselves. It's only just and fair that they get sufficient recompense for doing so! :D

Are you sure that 8 years are needed? We have very good doctors here in Portugal. And in public colleges (tuition IS there but it's like 850 euros a year now. It was less than half before the current right-leaning government came in.) courses are about 6 years.
People only go to private colleges when they don't have the (high) grades to enter public ones. Which makes the public system have very competent and intelligent doctors, not just rich people.

Understand?


I really haven't seen any evidence of this...so I'll just take it as you propagandizing.


Umm. It's everywhere around us? Corrupt companies that do anything for money. They use the cheapest resources possible, even if they are harmful to the environment and people, and they make prices that barely match quality.
It isn't price/quality anymore, it's cost/profit.
For example, many of the leather apparel from major french-based stylists is made in Portugal. The maker sells it here in Portugal for half the price. The stylists just add their tag.
How is that fair?


I thought that this is what advocates of socialism say...

That's actually more. I knew you were a moron.

Asshattery. This is why people call leftists elitist.
I do understand it, and I still don't like it!

Ha! Elitists... Just because I think that people that claim capitalism is a wonder of nature are morons, it doesn't make leftists elitist.

That's actually more. I knew you were a moron.
I knew I'd ignore you.

By replying you obviously didn't.

And not answering properly just shows you have nothing to say in defense of greed.

By replying you obviously didn't.

And not answering properly just shows you have nothing to say in defense of greed.
patience...I've got to be somewhere shortly, so I'll try to get something up, but, I cannot do it right now.

Oh so you do defend greed. How amusing.

Oh so you do defend greed. How amusing.
What's so bad about that?

Only PBS, Endowment for the Arts, Pork, and the Farm Subsidies should go. .

I have a hammer I'd like to sell to you.

I have a hammer I'd like to sell to you.
Hey, the military could use that. They need their equipment to be top-knotch, and any price for it is neccessary. Some of the same critics of this, ironically, also critisize the US for not supplying enough armored humvees. How ironic.

Oh so you do defend greed. How amusing.
I have no idea who you are talking to or what about.

Most of the people aren't used to justice and fairness. They are just trying to earn money as quick as possible.
.
Actually, it is just the lawyers who are like that.

What many people don't know is that there already is free healthcare for the poor in America. The chance to expand the role of government is too seductive for most liberals to see this.

Oh so you do defend greed. How amusing.
Of course I defend self-interest. It's the driving energy of the economy.

You see, if everyone seeks their own individual self interest, what you propagandistically label greed, then the sum of their seekings will be that which is good for all. Madison called the political version of this the "Public Weal" I'd call this the economic weal.

Of course I defend self-interest. It's the driving energy of the economy.

You see, if everyone seeks their own individual self interest, what you propagandistically label greed, then the sum of their seekings will be that which is good for all. Madison called the political version of this the "Public Weal" I'd call this the economic weal.
Darn, you preempted me. But, you basically said what I would say, only more poignantly.

Socialism has it's good intentions, but the MIND isn't subserviant to an ideal. No man can force creativity out of another, it must have it's incentives. All forward movement must have it's incentives,...granted...

A Socialist society could work IF every single person was willing to exist within the precarious conditions of ignorant control. If they were willing to give their best, and men were willing to let people do their best for only the 'best' of the people. That to me, is the only conceivable way a fully socialist society can function 'well'.

There's so many numbers involved in the economy, that is very hard for anyone unspecialized and uncompetitive to keep up with them. The market as a whole has million or billions of variables, and it's nearly impossible for me to conceive of a fully socialist society in fair comparison of a freer-economy. The nature and breakdown of both, are mathematically opposing; and on all general standards of life,...the data points to a freer economy.

Of course I defend self-interest. It's the driving energy of the economy.

You see, if everyone seeks their own individual self interest, what you propagandistically label greed, then the sum of their seekings will be that which is good for all. Madison called the political version of this the "Public Weal" I'd call this the economic weal.

I called it greed as in greed. I didn't "propagandistically label it greed". Good for all? Except those that start with a disadvantage and nature of course. Everyone is just caring about themselves and their lifetime, so why should they care if they pollute or do any other shit that can cause trouble in the next generations?


Anyway, I'm also defending my self interest as a human by concerning for the shit capitalism is doing to our world. I actually don't want to live to see this human-caused apocalypse. I do want to live though.

If you people had some scientific insight and thought about the future instead of short term income you would agree.

Yeah, call me doomsayer or whatever. We'll see what happens if we keep doing things like overfishing, cutting down forests for profit and keep emitting pollution to reduce short term costs instead of spending some money on safer energy forms.

Open your eyes.

I called it greed as in greed. I didn't "propagandistically label it greed". Good for all? Except those that start with a disadvantage and nature of course. Everyone is just caring about themselves and their lifetime, so why should they care if they pollute or do any other shit that can cause trouble in the next generations?


Anyway, I'm also defending my self interest as a human by concerning for the shit capitalism is doing to our world. I actually don't want to live to see this human-caused apocalypse. I do want to live though.

If you people had some scientific insight and thought about the future instead of short term income you would agree.

Yeah, call me doomsayer or whatever. We'll see what happens if we keep doing things like overfishing, cutting down forests for profit and keep emitting pollution to reduce short term costs instead of spending some money on safer energy forms.

Open your eyes.

I can't predict the future, but I can tell you about the past. Under systems with capitalism, more social, technological, and cultural innovation has happened in 300 years than it has under the warlords and monarchs of the previous millenia. Even in your country, not much progress was made under Antonio Salazaar. Now, Portugal is infinitely better in most every aspect.

Umm, Salazar was a fascist...

And then our government became socialist.

Your point is?

What about your government? Science is going to suffer I heard.

And why has so many energy related research been hidden?

Hmmmmm....

*clipped for length*
you know what i really want to know? whatever happened to the conservative pledge for smaller government? when did the Republican party go from being the party of fiscal responsibility and reduced federal powers to the spendthrift Orwellian mutant that it is today?

Everyone is just caring about themselves and their lifetime, .
Right. That is why abortion is so popular. Somehow some of the little buggers still slip through though. Maybe you libs can get post-birth abortion legalized too. Then we can REALLY stick it to the next generation!

You poor naive soul. Whom do you think they borrowed the money from? Why don't you have the same diligence with your tax dollars (which should be what pays for public roads in the first place)

For expensive projects, it simply isn't fair to completely fund it with taxpayer money, because then people who don't use it pay a significant amount for something expensive they don't use. There are many examples of projects which used or are using tolls to recoup some of the cost. The Sydney Harbour Bridge, for instance, or Malaysia's North-South Highway. One I personally have used would be BC Highway 5, the Coquihalla Tollway, which is a mountain road and thus expensive to build and maintain. Collecting money from people who use it is only reasonable.

And tolls are also used to discourage use of cars - London's congestion charge, for instance.

ROFLMAO!!!!! If you weren't serious that wouldn't have been nearly as funny!

Actually, it's not funny, it's sad, because that is a fact - no matter how bad the government is (even the "uhm... we, uh, lied about there being... you know... chemical weapons in Iraq..." American government), private corporations are always worse. Would you like me to rattle off a list of corporate misdemeanours? And go on a rant about how damaging they are to the environment, people's lives, and the long-term economy? I can do that if you want.

Yes, like you did with Bush! LOL!

I'm not an American, and where roads are concerned you're usually talking municipal-level government. Yes, democracy has its failings, but basically like I said earlier, it's a lesser of two evils thing, because as hard as it may be to hold a government accountable, it's harder to do that with a private company. You can vote out a politician, the best you can do with a businessman is sue him and hope you win.

Right. That is why abortion is so popular. Somehow some of the little buggers still slip through though. Maybe you libs can get post-birth abortion legalized too. Then we can REALLY stick it to the next generation!

I'm not fully against abortion. I think it should be a last option, and as early as possible.

But I understand why women abort. It isn't that unnatural, in the evolutionary sense. If people want to wait for better conditions or better mates in order to have offspring, they are probably not gonna accept the child. It's better to lose that child and wait for better conditions, like enough money to take care of the baby, maybe a good father, etc, than to bring a child to the world so both mother and child suffer.
Many animals do similar things in order to improve conditions, like some turtles that conserve the male's sperm and only fertilize when the conditions are ok. Unfortunately, humans can't do that.

But I believe that prevention is the best way. Using condoms and taking the pill and all. And that's where the hypocrisy in conservative ideologies start. So, abstinence is the best way? People are going to have sex, wether you like it or not, it's the most natural thing in the world. And if you don't let them use contraception, they are going to get pregnant and then possibly abort.

Capisce? Don't be ignorant people, if you want to be against abortion, promote means of contraception so people won't have to abort.

you know what i really want to know? whatever happened to the conservative pledge for smaller government? when did the Republican party go from being the party of fiscal responsibility and reduced federal powers to the spendthrift Orwellian mutant that it is today?
Name some programs for me.

bump

bump

Wow! I completely agree with you, New Anthrus.

Yeah, what a nightmare the highway system is. And the railways. That stuff is pure pork.

You ever think that the US wouldn't be the economic powerhouse it is without govt. involvement in infrastructure such as transport and post?

Yeah, what a nightmare the highway system is. And the railways. That stuff is pure pork.

You ever think that the US wouldn't be the economic powerhouse it is without govt. involvement in infrastructure such as transport and post?
I never did. At sometime or another, the private sector would've built the transportation infrastructure we see today. Most railways are privately owned, anyhow.

bump

I never did. At sometime or another, the private sector would've built the transportation infrastructure we see today.

That is purely hypothetical, and besides, the reason the American government was the one to build the Interstate highways and the railways is that the private sector didn't. And if they did, you'd have to pay to use them. To the best of my knowledge, you don't have to pay to use a majority of the roads and highways in the States. Would the private sector ever do the same? Put out such a huge capital outlay and charge the public nothing to use its product?

That is purely hypothetical, and besides, the reason the American government was the one to build the Interstate highways and the railways is that the private sector didn't. And if they did, you'd have to pay to use them. To the best of my knowledge, you don't have to pay to use a majority of the roads and highways in the States. Would the private sector ever do the same? Put out such a huge capital outlay and charge the public nothing to use its product?
LOL!

Who do you think paid more than half of the taxes that funded the highways?

Who do you think lobbied to have the open to the public and not just military?

Who do you think the government contrated to build them?

The government learned that building the infrastructure would result in more commerce and higher tax revenues. Making them public access was paramount to facilitating commerce and the free market, hence public ownership.

Oh, and you may want to check your facts, the railways were built, owned and run privately.

LOL!

Yes, keep up that optimistic attitude...

Who do you think paid more than half of the taxes that funded the highways?

Who do you think lobbied to have the open to the public and not just military?

Who do you think the government contrated to build them?

You don't pay per use, do you? And you didn't choose to pay for the Interstates, did you? Yes, they used your money to build it. But if they'd given you the tax you paid that would've helped to build the highways and said "here, do whatever you want with this cash", you probably wouldn't have put it into building a national highway system.

(substitute "they" for "you" if Sam isn't your Uncle.)

The government learned that building the infrastructure would result in more commerce and higher tax revenues. Making them public access was paramount to facilitating commerce

That is the point. No private company would have spent or would spend the money with that public interest in mind. Private companies are concerned with their own profit. That is the essence of capitalism; self-interest, or, "Why the hell should I spend millions on building a national highway system when I can't directly profit from it?"

Remember, in a complete free market, public and merit goods are underprovided or not provided at all, and external benefits are ignored. If their government hadn't built it, Americans probably wouldn't have the Interstate highways.

Railways were built by the government in most nations. I was under the impression it was the same in the States. I'll take your word for it.