NationStates Jolt Archive

Looking over recent Constitutional amendments proposed by our Congress, it's clear that there are a fair number of wackos in our Congress. Let's take a look at several Constitutional amendments proposed in Congress.

The House's Socialism:
H.J. Res. 13: Limiting the amount of money that political candidates may use, of their own funds, for their own campaigns.
H.J. Res. 29: All citizens are entitled to a public education of "equal high-quality."
H.J. Res. 30: All citizens are entitled to healthcare of "equal high-quality."
H.J. Res. 32: All people (even non-citizens) have the right to "decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing."
H.J. Res. 33: All people (even non-citizens) have the right to a "clean, safe, and sustainable environment."
H.J. Res. 34: Progressive taxation (rich are taxed more than the poor).
H.J. Res. 35: Everyone has the right to have a decent job (full employment).
H.J. Res. 40: Everyone has a right to own a home.

The House's Fascism:
H.J. Res. 4: Defining "life", legally, as unborn babies.
H.J. Res. 5: Making flag desecration illegal.
H.J. Res. 9: Repeal the 22nd amendment and remove the two-term limit on the President.
H.J. Res. 14: The U.S. government shall be not be involved in any competition with outside businesses (anti-Socialism, this would even eliminate public education).
H.J. Res. 16: Repeal the sixteenth amendment (eliminate all taxes).
H.J. Res. 39: Marriage is only for heterosexuals.

The House's Outright STUPIDITY:
H.J. Res. 6: Making an amendment to the Constitution requiring a "balanced budget", and greater accountability for tax legislation.
H.J. Res. 43: English is the official language of the United States.

These people are fucking morons. GTFO my government!

Oh and also... H. J. RES. 47 (not a Constitutional amendment, but still referred to the H.J. committee) suggested that they increase the cap on the national debt from $6.4 trillion to almost $9 trillion. It was passed and is currently law. Before, Congress could never allow the debt to get larger than $6.4 trillion, but now they raised that to $9 trillion. Good going, guys. It's gonna suck when we owe China 100 years' worth of tax-revenue, and they demand that we pay up.

Also, the Terri Schiavo bill was fucking retarded. They made a bill, using our tax-dollars, for ONE specific person. Fucking idiotic. I could understand the media centering on one person, but the government? A 99% incumbency rate totally sucks. It's not democracy. It's self-propagating idiocy.

Well, having everyone live in a decent home really isn't socialism, it's more like a human right in my opinion.

Well, having everyone live in a decent home really isn't socialism, it's more like a human right in my opinion.
Having healthcare, an education, and a home without working for it is Socialism. The only thing more they'd need to survive is food and the government already provides that at homeless shelters.

Raising the debt ceiling is the worst decision Congress can make. No, scratch that; I'm sure they can make even worse decisions. You're right, I shudder to think of the day when we have to repay all the debts and we'll be broke and the world population will be over 500 trillion. We'll need to stack cities on top of each other. Like the "things that are vertical that shouldn't be" part in America: The Book. This seems to be the recurring trend throughout history, or at least the latter part of 1900s and will continue as far as my eyes can see: Republicans spend, spend and spend, creating a huge debt that it takes a Democrat to pay off. How do they do that? The only way possible: raising taxes. So then the Republican goes like "elect me, I won't raise your taxes like those evil Democrats will."

Having healthcare, an education, and a home without working for it is Socialism. The only thing more they'd need to survive is food and the government already provides that at homeless shelters.
Maybe closer to what we in Germany call "Social Market Economy" and which until Globalisation picked up, was probably the most successful economic model in the second half of the 20th century.
Socialism is when the workers revolt and overthrow the capitalist, abolish all private property, and then work towards achieving a money-free, class-free society called Communism.

Get it right. Your American insults are worth nothing to someone who lives outside your little sphere.

The House's Outright STUPIDITY:
H.J. Res. 6: Making an amendment to the Constitution requiring a "balanced budget", and greater accountability for tax legislation.

These people are fucking morons. GTFO my government!

Oh and also... H. J. RES. 47 (not a Constitutional amendment, but still referred to the H.J. committee) suggested that they increase the cap on the national debt from $6.4 trillion to almost $9 trillion. It was passed and is currently law. Before, Congress could never allow the debt to get larger than $6.4 trillion, but now they raised that to $9 trillion. Good going, guys. It's gonna suck when we owe China 100 years' worth of tax-revenue, and they demand that we pay up.so make up your mind. Do you want a federal budget deficit or not?

Good thing they need two thirds of both houses to officially propose an amendment, and then they need three fourths of the state legislature’s to approve. Don't you love the US constitution. :D

H.J. Res. 43: English is the official language of the United States.

What exactly is stupid about that?

What exactly is stupid about that?
Because it already is. And it would fuck up our Chinatowns and Little Italys and so on. Many small towns like that don't use much English signing. It's basically requiring that everyone in America know how to speak English, which is retarded.

It would be like France, requiring you to speak French. And they even have an organization which dictates what words are even in the language.

Because it already is. And it would fuck up our Chinatowns and Little Italys and so on. Many small towns like that don't use much English signing. It's basically requiring that everyone in America know how to speak English, which is retarded.

It would be like France, requiring you to speak French. And they even have an organization which dictates what words are even in the language.

Got it. All I saw when I read that was “more government money and intervention”. That is reprehensible to me, so thanks for clearing that up. :D

The House's Socialism:
H.J. Res. 13: Limiting the amount of money that political candidates may use, of their own funds, for their own campaigns.
H.J. Res. 29: All citizens are entitled to a public education of "equal high-quality."
H.J. Res. 30: All citizens are entitled to healthcare of "equal high-quality."
H.J. Res. 32: All people (even non-citizens) have the right to "decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing."
H.J. Res. 33: All people (even non-citizens) have the right to a "clean, safe, and sustainable environment."
H.J. Res. 34: Progressive taxation (rich are taxed more than the poor).
H.J. Res. 35: Everyone has the right to have a decent job (full employment).
H.J. Res. 40: Everyone has a right to own a home.

Now THIS is what I'm talking about. I agree with every last one of these.

The House's Fascism:
H.J. Res. 4: Defining "life", legally, as unborn babies.
H.J. Res. 5: Making flag desecration illegal.
H.J. Res. 9: Repeal the 22nd amendment and remove the two-term limit on the President.
H.J. Res. 14: The U.S. government shall be not be involved in any competition with outside businesses (anti-Socialism, this would even eliminate public education).
H.J. Res. 16: Repeal the sixteenth amendment (eliminate all taxes).
H.J. Res. 39: Marriage is only for heterosexuals.

Deutschland Uber Alles!!

The House's Outright STUPIDITY:
H.J. Res. 6: Making an amendment to the Constitution requiring a "balanced budget", and greater accountability for tax legislation.
H.J. Res. 43: English is the official language of the United States.

Ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

Socialism is when the workers revolt and overthrow the capitalist, abolish all private property, and then work towards achieving a money-free, class-free society called Communism.

Get your facts straight, socialism doesn't come from overthrowing capitalism. It can be voted for in most countries you know, so by your definition we have to revolt to vote.....

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. NOT to overthrow Capitalism.

-snip-
That depends on who you ask. If you look at Marx (who may have been the first person to use the term - I'm not sure) then what I said constitutes Socialism.
It's a stupid word to use though, cuz it has so many different meanings these days.

I still say though that in the US, the word is primarily used as an insult and a tool to discredit an opponent. If people think Socialism is a bad thing out of principle, then they need to get themselves a good book.

Maybe closer to what we in Germany call "Social Market Economy" and which until Globalisation picked up, was probably the most successful economic model in the second half of the 20th century.


Let's see the numbers on that, Leo. Last I checked you guys were having some major economic issues. Then there's the unemployment. Deutschland is far from an exemplary economic model.


Get it right. Your American insults are worth nothing to someone who lives outside your little sphere.

There was no insult in his statement--there certainly was in yours, however.

That depends on who you ask. If you look at Marx (who may have been the first person to use the term - I'm not sure) then what I said constitutes Socialism.
It's a stupid word to use though, cuz it has so many different meanings these days.

I still say though that in the US, the word is primarily used as an insult and a tool to discredit an opponent. If people think Socialism is a bad thing out of principle, then they need to get themselves a good book.

It IS a bad thing out of principle. It says that no matter what effort you put into your job, society, whatever, you get the same as everyone else--no more, no less. So why work for anything? You can just sit back and do nothing, while everyone else supports you.

Here in the US, the word socialism means: You'll take my hard earned money to give to someone else that didn't earn it. If I choose to give to charities (which I do) that's my decision. Having the government take from my check to provide charity--that's theft. Big difference.

Why should I kick out for someone who can afford an apartment, but wants a house they can't afford? Why should I pay for someone else's health insurance? Just because they exist? Not enough reason. They have a brain, they can learn to use it to survive.

I've been poor myself, but I learned and I worked, and now I'm pretty comfortable. I'm not a superman. I'm average. Anyone can indeed do what I've done.

Let's see the numbers on that, Leo. Last I checked you guys were having some major economic issues. Then there's the unemployment. Deutschland is far from an exemplary economic model.

Yes, last time you checked, which means after Globalization picked up, which was his point that it isn't anymore...

Originally Posted by Leonstein
Maybe closer to what we in Germany call "Social Market Economy" and which until Globalisation picked up, was probably the most successful economic model in the second half of the 20th century.

Here in the US, the word socialism means: You'll take my hard earned money to give to someone else that didn't earn it. If I choose to give to charities (which I do) that's my decision. Having the government take from my check to provide charity--that's theft. Big difference.

Here in Europe Socialism means that the poor guy that does all the work gets some of the money the rich guy that plays golf all day long gets for doing just that.
I suppose it stems from not having the nobility tell us the lie that if we worked hard enough, we could join them why socialism is more likely to appeal to Europeans.

The House's Socialism:
H.J. Res. 13: Limiting the amount of money that political candidates may use, of their own funds, for their own campaigns.
H.J. Res. 29: All citizens are entitled to a public education of "equal high-quality."
H.J. Res. 30: All citizens are entitled to healthcare of "equal high-quality."
H.J. Res. 32: All people (even non-citizens) have the right to "decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing."
H.J. Res. 33: All people (even non-citizens) have the right to a "clean, safe, and sustainable environment."
H.J. Res. 34: Progressive taxation (rich are taxed more than the poor).
H.J. Res. 35: Everyone has the right to have a decent job (full employment).
H.J. Res. 40: Everyone has a right to own a home.


I don't understand how any country can claim to be civilised without these in force.

Focusing on healthcare, I live in the UK where we have the NHS and I'm glad we do.

Healthcare can be a matter of life and death, by depriving the poor of healthcare you are condemning them to a harder life and in all likelyhood an earlier death. Everyone has a right to live and anyone who thinks you can judge a persons right to life or death by the size of their wallet is a fool.

Yes, last time you checked, which means after Globalization picked up, which was his point that it isn't anymore...

Which would mean that it might actually still be the SECOND--but Germany's state now definitely decries any such statement (maybe their plan set them up for this kind of fall--it couldn't withstand several influences--globalization and unification are just two big ones).

I'd like to see the numbers that it was the best at ANY point (years please).

I'd like to see the numbers that it was the best at ANY point (years please).
Tell me what you call "best" and I'll try. I will tell you now though that my definition of "best" also entails things like equality, quality of health care, education and aged pensions.
So we may differ on that one.

Here in Europe Socialism means that the poor guy that does all the work gets some of the money the rich guy that plays golf all day long gets for doing just that.
I suppose it stems from not having the nobility tell us the lie that if we worked hard enough, we could join them why socialism is more likely to appeal to Europeans.

So there was no mobility? There was no way to better oneself, and actually make jumps career-wise and class-wise? You couldn't improve yourself so you'd make some of that money?

Maybe if people watched out for what was happening in their own lives, instead of watching others and wanting to have what others have, they could concentrate on attaining the goals that would allow themselves to have the lifestyle they wanted.

It can happen. It does happen. I'm proof. After I dropped out of college, I made all of $9k a year. But, I trained myself how to use computers. I eventually became certified in several platforms, and in networking. I furthered myself by learning aspects of Information Security, and am in the upper end of the five figure range. I still have no degree, but a whole lot of energy and ambition to better myself.

If there are blockades to actual mobility, you have a problem. I'd concentrate on removing those roadblocks, instead of forcing everyone to pay for the drawbacks of very invasive governments and economic plans that have no room for future growth.

Tell me what you call "best" and I'll try. I will tell you now though that my definition of "best" also entails things like equality, quality of health care, education and aged pensions.
So we may differ on that one.

You could always look up that stuff for you and your utopian buddies, as well as information favored by us sane realists. These would include GDP, trade deficit/surplus, unemployment rate, average income tax rate and per capita income. You know, stuff actually having to do with an “economic model”.

Tell me what you call "best" and I'll try. I will tell you now though that my definition of "best" also entails things like equality, quality of health care, education and aged pensions.
So we may differ on that one.

"Maybe closer to what we in Germany call "Social Market Economy" and which until Globalisation picked up, was probably the most successful economic model in the second half of the 20th century."

Successful implies growth--at least as far as economics are concerned. Economic growth. GDP increases.

Show me that. Show how it was providing economic growth better than all the plans around the globe at any one place in time as "the most successful econonmic model in the second half of the 20th century" implies.

Actually, I just want to see how Germany fared from 1950 to 2000 (compared to the rest of Europe and the US, please)--I already know that by 2001, they had fallen a great deal.

Don't get me wrong, the US is not the end-all-be-all of economics, either, but we've been averaging pretty strong over the last century.

It IS a bad thing out of principle. It says that no matter what effort you put into your job, society, whatever, you get the same as everyone else--no more, no less. So why work for anything? You can just sit back and do nothing, while everyone else supports you. No, that is Communism. Believe it or not, Communism and Socialism are two different things - for one, there has never been a true Communist nation. And dole payments (in Europe at least, which is more socialist than the US) are miniscule and very few people actually live on them, given a choice (of course, Thatcher sort of took the choice away).

You could always look up that stuff for you and your utopian buddies, as well as information favored by us sane realists. These would include GDP, trade deficit/surplus, unemployment rate, average income tax rate and per capita income. You know, stuff actually having to do with an “economic model”.
Trade:
1945-1949: The occupation government reverses Nazi policies of economic self-sufficiency, but the ruined infrastructure and halting economy throughout Europe limit opportunities for trade. The Marshall Plan helps reintegrate Germany into the slowly reviving European economy.

1950-1956: Germany joins the European Coal and Steel Community, a free-trade arrangement that will develop into the European Union. Increasingly open trade in Europe and the world helps Germany's rapidly growing export economy. A long period of consistent trade surpluses begins.

1957-1970: Germany helps found the European Economic Community through the Treaty of Rome in 1957, boosting Germany's export economy. Germany's famed engineering prowess allows production of high-quality manufactured exports that drive the economic miracle. Exports rise from 17 percent of GDP to 24 percent in 1970; trade surpluses will persist until 1990.

1971-1980: Exports rise slightly to 27 percent in 1980. But the oil shocks strain the balance of payments through the effect of oil imports and negative impacts on domestic industry such as steel. The first signs that some of Germany's traditional sectors such as machinery and chemicals may be losing competitiveness are met with subsidies.

1981-1990: Germany enjoys big trade surpluses during the second half of the decade, briefly becoming the world's largest exporter. The economy is increasingly tilted towards services, but Germany's manufacturing industry remains important.

Unemployment was pretty much at about 1% for most of the time, in the 80s there was a Recession and then things got ugly.

GDP and so on you can easily find somewhere on the web. Suffice to say that we are on something like 3rd spot on the "world's largest economies" list, after coming from zero hour in 1945.

Taxes may have been a little higher than in the US (somewhere around 50%, give or take, always seemed to be it). Not sure. I know that now they've been cutting taxes so much the corporate tax is actually less in Germany than in the US.

And all that while at the same time being "socialist"

No, that is Communism. Believe it or not, Communism and Socialism are two different things - for one, there has never been a true Communist nation. And dole payments (in Europe at least, which is more socialist than the US) are miniscule and very few people actually live on them, given a choice (of course, Thatcher sort of took the choice away).

Funny, Denmark has close to 20% of the population on some sort of welfare.

Funny, Denmark has close to 20% of the population on some sort of welfare.
What kind of welfare?

Trade:
Unemployment was pretty much at about 1% for most of the time, in the 80s there was a Recession and then things got ugly.


Yup, until (as several governments are discovering) the socialist economy petered out. You have to have competition within and without to make money.


GDP and so on you can easily find somewhere on the web. Suffice to say that we are on something like 3rd spot on the "world's largest economies" list, after coming from zero hour in 1945.


There's one reason Germany made it out of there--the allies didn't grind Germany for reparaitions.

What kind of welfare?

This is the quote:
"One Dane out of every eight is tax-financed rather than market-financed, and well over one-fifth of people of working age are on welfare."

They quoted "The Danes Are Feeling Bleak," Economist, March 7 1998.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pdinter/march98n.html

That means wage supplement of some sort. This is what happens when the government runs too much, and "helps" the people. It eats itself from the inside.

Yup, until (as several governments are discovering) the socialist economy petered out. You have to have competition within and without to make money.
It's globalisation. Once things have stabilised again, we'll be able to get the social market economy working again.


There's one reason Germany made it out of there--the allies didn't grind Germany for reparaitions.
Why thank you.
But the fact that my grandfather did not take a day off for 15 years when he worked in a factory, and later as an electrician, that there were no weekends in the 50s, that good economic management was there too, all that didn't matter a bit, did it?
Sure you could've destroyed all the hard work easily. How that proves our system can't work is questionable though.


That means wage supplement of some sort. This is what happens when the government runs too much, and "helps" the people. It eats itself from the inside.
Well, they may be on Benefits for families with kids. I don't know whether the US does it, but in many countries families with children get some extra money from the state. May be different too. I didn't think the unemployment figures for Denmark were that high though.
And where does it say it "eats the state"? I mean, I'm an Economics Student and I never read the Economist, because it's basically a right-wing propaganda piece, but do you see Denmark disintegrating into a state ruin because it dared hand out some of its' money to the people?

Why thank you.
But the fact that my grandfather did not take a day off for 15 years when he worked in a factory, and later as an electrician, that there were no weekends in the 50s, that good economic management was there too, all that didn't matter a bit, did it?
Sure you could've destroyed all the hard work easily. How that proves our system can't work is questionable though.


Actually all I was trying to say was that though it was an accomplishment, the grand sacrificial spin you put on it (IE starting from nothing--which also wasn't true) shouldn't be a crutch for pity. Germany had/has a great techno base from which to draw from. Germany started from a very strong point because there were no reparaitions like in WWI.


Well, they may be on Benefits for families with kids. I don't know whether the US does it, but in many countries families with children get some extra money from the state. May be different too.


What happens is families with children get tax breaks. Okay, in the name of equality and fairness, answer this one: Why should a couple that DECIDES to have children (note this a free decision) have to pay less to (or get help from) the government for that free choice, while those that do not have children still have to pay for someone else's choice? How is that fair?

The point is, why does a government (supposedly run by the people here) get to "order" someone to pay for something they'll never use or never get benefit from?


I didn't think the unemployment figures for Denmark were that high though.
And where does it say it "eats the state"? I mean, I'm an Economics Student and I never read the Economist, because it's basically a right-wing propaganda piece, but do you see Denmark disintegrating into a state ruin because it dared hand out some of its' money to the people?

Its economy is stagnant. It cannot grow. It will eventually fall in a world that runs on money. Government can't create money (resources, whatever)--only private enterprise can do that. But when the government regulates the private enterprise and takes all the profits in taxes to further the growth of the parasitic government (and those that feed from it), there is no growth and the government will start to canabalize itself--it's just a matter of time. An extreme example is what happened in the former USSR. Yes, I know that was a screwed up version of communism, but socialistic economic policies follow some similar paths.

I say pass HJ Res 16 and then implement the Fair Tax system

www.fairtax.org

Actually all I was trying to say was that though it was an accomplishment, the grand sacrificial spin you put on it (IE starting from nothing--which also wasn't true) shouldn't be a crutch for pity. Germany had/has a great techno base from which to draw from. Germany started from a very strong point because there were no reparaitions like in WWI.
I'm sure you could find a great picture of Hamburg in May 1945. That's where my family lived. No techno base there, and it doesn't look like an economic strong point.
http://www.medienzentrum-siegen.de/heupel/krieg/war/2ww/bombenkrieg/b600/90a_hamburg_1945.jpg
If you don't believe that picture, feel free to find a different one. No exceptions, all of Germany was destroyed.
The only other nation ever to have experienced such devastation is Japan. London in 1940/41? It pales in comparison.


Why should a couple that DECIDES to have children (note this a free decision) have to pay less to (or get help from) the government for that free choice, while those that do not have children still have to pay for someone else's choice? How is that fair?
Well, here is the deal: A child costs somewhere around 200,000 Aussie Dollars. If Parents have a child, they will be that much worse off. Yet they do this, in a fairly selfless act, and therefore help society as a whole.
Those that don't have children usually do so because they don't want to sacrifice their work (ie their wealth) for that.
My understanding of fairness is that those that don't actually do this for society at least should help others who do take that though step.

As for your last point, I won't bother. Suffice to say that a Government can invest just as well as the private sector can, if certain conditions are met as well as that not all profits are taken as tax.
The Social Market Economy has worked well over the years, even though some in the US would've called it socialist.

And now I'm tired and must sleep.

This is the quote:
"One Dane out of every eight is tax-financed rather than market-financed, and well over one-fifth of people of working age are on welfare."

They quoted "The Danes Are Feeling Bleak," Economist, March 7 1998.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pdinter/march98n.html

That means wage supplement of some sort. This is what happens when the government runs too much, and "helps" the people. It eats itself from the inside. Firstly: working for the government would mean that you're tax-financed.
Secondly: are you trying to say that people actually voluntarily stay on welfare rather than look for a job?

I'm sure you could find a great picture of Hamburg in May 1945. That's where my family lived. No techno base there, and it doesn't look like an economic strong point.
http://www.medienzentrum-siegen.de/heupel/krieg/war/2ww/bombenkrieg/b600/90a_hamburg_1945.jpg
If you don't believe that picture, feel free to find a different one. No exceptions, all of Germany was destroyed.
The only other nation ever to have experienced such devastation is Japan. London in 1940/41? It pales in comparison.


I've been there (exchange student back in '87). Yes, the country was shredded. The intelligence wasn't, though. The allies helped rebuild what they had destroyed in the process of that war. Look--Germany didn't start from nothing. You had help. That's all I'm saying. So get off the we-started-from-blasted-rubble-and-did-it-on-our-own position you're going by. Germany accomplished much, but get off the pity trip.


Well, here is the deal: A child costs somewhere around 200,000 Aussie Dollars. If Parents have a child, they will be that much worse off. Yet they do this, in a fairly selfless act, and therefore help society as a whole.
Those that don't have children usually do so because they don't want to sacrifice their work (ie their wealth) for that.
My understanding of fairness is that those that don't actually do this for society at least should help others who do take that though step.


That's not fair--that's theft from those that didn't decide to have the child.

What would be fair is to allow the party that decided to have the child take responsibility for their actions instead of looking to everyone else to finance their decision.


As for your last point, I won't bother. Suffice to say that a Government can invest just as well as the private sector can, if certain conditions are met as well as that not all profits are taken as tax.
The Social Market Economy has worked well over the years, even though some in the US would've called it socialist.


If that's so, why has the market always proven to make a profit, when the government cannot?


And now I'm tired and must sleep.

G'night.

Firstly: working for the government would mean that you're tax-financed.
Secondly: are you trying to say that people actually voluntarily stay on welfare rather than look for a job?

I've seen it happen.

That's not fair--that's theft from those that didn't decide to have the child.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference here, that we cannot hope to overcome.
You see "society" as basically a bunch of individuals making choices.
I think society is more than that (dare I say it..."synergy"). Having a child might be nice for you personally, but it is primarily what keeps humanity going. There used to be a time when people would have kids so they could help with work, or just because they made the parents feel good. These days, there are people that (out of what is basically selfishness) don't do that service to society.
If it is all about incentives, then that is the incentive for paying $200,000 for having a kid, while someone else can buy a nice Benz for that money.


If that's so, why has the market always proven to make a profit, when the government cannot?
I have no idea what you mean by "the market" or "make a profit" right now. Since I study Economics, I can explain much of it to you, but you'll need to specify.
Government owned firms can make profits. They often do, all it takes is good management.
The fundamental difference is that the market mechanisms can get everyone in the economy what they want at the price they want to pay. Most of the time - market failures are common.
A planned Economy will find it almost impossible to achieve the same outcome, since there is just too many things to plan and to happen.
And even if it could, Hayek (although he is a right-wing crackpot) has proven that it would be at a higher cost than when a free market does it. But I'm not advocating a planned economy, and West Germany never was.

There is a fundamental philosophical difference here, that we cannot hope to overcome.

Yup. You seem (just going by what I'm reading) to want the individual to be overrun by the group. That was phrased in a rather negative fashion, I suppose--then again, I see that behavior as wrong.

None of us asked to be here--it was decided by our parents. The problem occurs when free will is overridden by a larger group or state. Why do we have to obey rules and regulations that may never apply to us? Who are we to tell someone else how to go about their lives, when they didn't ask to be here in the first place--thrust into the situation? Why do we get to force anyone to do anything, using the excuse of "society" or worse yet the "betterment of society"?

The answer: we don't have the right to do that. No one has the right to tell me how to use the resources that are mine. No one has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body. No one has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my life. I don't have the right to do that to others, until they interfere with me--and vice-versa.

All large government and large pools of laws accomplish is to control populations with very few people pulling the strings--and eventually abusing those powers (they always do--the Founding Fathers knew this, said it, and it is now true across the globe). Power corrupts, period. The larger the government, the larger the corruption.

I'm not saying get rid of all government. I'm saying severly limit the government to basics--protection of the populace from internal and foreign incursions. Not limit speech, not limit the right to self defense, not stop the basics of living (food, shelter--note not a HOUSE, but shelter--and clothing), not stop people from being responsible for themselves (including what they do to and put in their bodies). Everything else--not the government's job. It's up to the free individual to rise or fall based on their own merits.