NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I am just asking as I was reading this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_angry_crowds

And this particular quote struck me:

When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country,"

Okay is this an irrational fear? Because I know there are coutries in Europe that run a socalistic model and it seems to be working for the most part for them. I am just wondering, as a curious person and wanting to learn more about poltical systems, as it seems to me that the free market and captalist system appears to be tanking really bad. And no I am not condoning socialism, I am just curious as to what all the fuss is about.

Americans have been indoctrinated to equivocate socialism with Stalinist dictatorships, rampant welfare cheats, Hugo Chavez, the government taking all your money away, etc. etc.

Nothing's wrong with socialism. I don't think they knew what they were talking about. This quote struck me as hilarious , through: I don't trust Obama. I have read about him. He's an Arab.

Americans have been indoctrinated to equivocate socialism with Stalinist dictatorships, rampant welfare cheats, Hugo Chavez, the government taking all your money away, etc. etc.

Intresting....

No wonder a lot of Repubs call Hillary a Communist. *laughs and shakes head*

"Social Studies" in the American grade school amounts to 'here's basically how America works, Communism is bad.'

Intresting....

No wonder a lot of Repubs call Hillary a Communist. *laughs and shakes head*

But the funniest thing is watching it from England. You have all these retards called Democrats socialists and the like, when they're centre right by our standards and even further compared to the Swedes, Dutch etc.

Socialism is a dirty word in the US. The government is the ebil unless its something you like, say social security and medicare(really big social expenditures). The idea of universal healthcare is becoming more and more popular in the US. Socialized medicine, whatever that means, on the other hand is of the devil.

It's evil. Like everything that isn't straight, white and capitalist.

Okay, I am just asking as I was reading this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_angry_crowds

And this particular quote struck me:



Okay is this an irrational fear? Because I know there are coutries in Europe that run a socalistic model and it seems to be working for the most part for them. I am just wondering, as a curious person and wanting to learn more about poltical systems, as it seems to me that the free market and captalist system appears to be tanking really bad. And no I am not condoning socialism, I am just curious as to what all the fuss is about.

It's an irrational fear, because the US democratic party are not socialists. Having debated with many of the type that come out with that kind of thing, I can honestly say that trying to speak sense to them is virtually pointless.

This is from today or yesterday..Message 62..my reply is below it somewhere
It's sickening and disheartening that those who support Barack Obama because he promises the moon and organizes the working poor to tear down the American economic system! GOD please help us!
Linky (http://groups.msn.com/fundiesvsatheists/moderatedboard.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=263300&LastModified=4675693581835810425&all_topics=1)

That dude is entirely serious. Nor is he alone.

Everything.

But the funniest thing is watching it from England. You have all these retards called Democrats socialists and the like, when they're centre right by our standards and even further compared to the Swedes, Dutch etc.

Centre right? Okay.... And just curious what are 'your/our' standards? I'd like to know.

Fucking thing didn't work.

Okay, The Democrats are at about 4.3 and the Republicans at 9.2. Out of UK parties, Labour is at about 3.8, the Tories/Conservatives at about 8.6, the BNP at about 12.5, the Liberal Democrats at -1.8 and the Greens at about -3.5

Not wanting to rescue Adunbar or anything, but Britain has National Health, Comprehensive education, roads that aren't tollways, etc that are taxpayer-funded. These "socialist" measures have survived even the most foaming-at-the -mouth "free market" assaults from politicians like Margaret Thatcher.

Hopefully, if and when Obama gets in, Americans will have a better health care system where all Americans get adequate health care.
For some reason, Americans have tolerated a "user pays" system that appears to be inefficient and militates against poor people.

Okay, so here's some UK parties compared to the American 2, from our point of view.

Democrats Republicans
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Greens Lib Dems Labour Tories UKIP BNP

Hahahaha.

Not wanting to rescue Adunbar or anything, but Britain has National Health, Comprehensive education, roads that aren't tollways, etc that are taxpayer-funded. These "socialist" measures have survived even the most foaming-at-the -mouth "free market" assaults from politicians like Margaret Thatcher.

Hopefully, if and when Obama gets in, Americans will have a better health care system where all Americans get adequate health care.
For some reason, Americans have tolerated a "user pays" system that appears to be inefficient and militates against poor people.

That's because Americans have also been indoctrinated to believe poverty is a sure sign of laziness in an individual. Thus, welfare and socialism smacks of taking money from hard-working people and giving it to the lazy slobs who do nothing to earn their place in society.

Hopefully, if and when Obama gets in, Americans will have a better health care system where all Americans get adequate health care.
For some reason, Americans have tolerated a "user pays" system that appears to be inefficient and militates against poor people.


Yea, I know. And my Dad, who ended up being a civil servant for the government, he worked at one of the US AFB as a civilian worker, has the same insurance plan being premoted and touted by Obama. It's the plan that the senators and congressmen/women have. I was covered by it till I turned 22 and got kicked to the curb by it because my folks couldn't afford to cover me by it. So I am uninsured and it suxs big time.

It's one of those secrets that McCain doesn't want to mention to the rest of America.

Hahahaha.

It didn't work, so that's not how we think of the parties.

If I had to pick one thing, it would be that we view it as unfair. But all you have to do is really look into how well off European countries are to say why we don't want a socialist economy. Higher unemployment and lower per capita GDP.

What's wrong with Socialism?

The issue is that it isn't my responsibility to support the lower tiers of society. As long as I'm being forced to do so, the lower tiers will never have to work for themselves, and the nation will never progress in any large part. That's the ultra-simplified version of, "why capitalism kicks ass."

If I had to pick one thing, it would be that we view it as unfair. But all you have to do is really look into how well off European countries are to say why we don't want a socialist economy.

Loads of European countries have good economies, and some that aren't socialist don't.

Its understandable that socialism is made a bigscaryevil word in America given that socialism goes against almost every value of the United States' political culture...individualism, free markets, patriotism/nationalism, religion.

What's wrong with Socialism?
It's un-American. The ideas of limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.

Loads of European countries have good economies, and some that aren't socialist don't.

I didn't say their economies weren't bad, but unless they're some sort of tax haven then they aren't going to be as good as the US's. The only non-socialist ones I know of would be in Eastern Europe and considering the history we'd have to give them a break there.

Its understandable that socialism is made a bigscaryevil word in America given that socialism goes against almost every value of the United States' political culture...individualism, free markets, patriotism/nationalism, religion.
Indeed.

I think good old Mother Russia has shown us [us meaning those who dont choose to live blind to other nations' activities] that socialism works on certain levels

Socialism brings free health care, free education [including text books and school uniforms] and many other things paid for by the state [as in paid for using the tax money you pay]

why go for democracy that makes you pay tax, then pay more for simple things, while the government spends your tax dollars on BS

much as current-day americans are too self-obsessed to ever go for full socialism, there is still the hope of introducing it piece by piece until one day in the deep dark future, maybe the USA will have the "my countrymen are my brothers" feeling that Russians have

It didn't work, so that's not how we think of the parties.

I was laughing both at the fact it didn't work, and that Dems and Republicans are more like 8.3 and 8.5, respectively.

The issue is that it isn't my responsibility to support the lower tiers of society. As long as I'm being forced to do so, the lower tiers will never have to work for themselves, and the nation will never progress in any large part. That's the ultra-simplified version of, "why capitalism kicks ass."

bullshit. That the American indoctrinated version but in actual fact? canada, Britain, most of the EU . . .all socialist (or at least more socialist than the states) all working very well as countries as well.

It's un-American. The ideas of limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.

They barely exist in America though, so the change is slight.

I didn't say their economies weren't bad, but unless they're some sort of tax haven then they aren't going to be as good as the US's. The only non-socialist ones I know of would be in Eastern Europe and considering the history we'd have to give them a break there.

The UK? Spain? France? Ireland? Most European countries aren't that Socialist.

It's un-American. The ideas of limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.
no its un-consevative which for some reason seams to mean the same thing to you. And of all of those four that you listed all exist under socialism save limited government. btw. Socialism=/= Communism

The issue is that it isn't my responsibility to support the lower tiers of society. As long as I'm being forced to do so, the lower tiers will never have to work for themselves, and the nation will never progress in any large part. That's the ultra-simplified version of, "why capitalism kicks ass."

Because people without money are better off dead, really.

I think good old Mother Russia has shown us [us meaning those who dont choose to live blind to other nations' activities] that socialism works on certain levels

Socialism brings free health care, free education [including text books and school uniforms] and many other things paid for by the state [as in paid for using the tax money you pay]

why go for democracy that makes you pay tax, then pay more for simple things, while the government spends your tax dollars on BS

much as current-day americans are too self-obsessed to ever go for full socialism, there is still the hope of introducing it piece by piece until one day in the deep dark future, maybe the USA will have the "my countrymen are my brothers" feeling that Russians have

I actually agree. I think there are a lot of socalistic programs that could work in the US. But...it would mean the US would probably have to forgo some of their military spending. The US has probably some of the largest military spending in the world. I really liked debate number one, when Obama mentioned about the fact that you can't support both, at least not very well.

I wouldn't want full socialism anyway....but some of those programs I know would help a lot of Americans out.

Because people without money are better off dead, really.

this

It's un-American. The ideas of limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.

That's ok, they don't exist in America either.

The UK? Spain? France? Ireland? Most European countries aren't that Socialist.

All those are more socialist than here, to my knowledge, except Ireland which I don't know much about, though they're the only one that surpasses us in per capita GDP.

All those are more socialist than here More Socialist than the US =/= actually Socialist

except Ireland which I don't know much about, though they're the only one that surpasses us in per capita GDP.
Not for much longer, they're in recession.

More Socialist than the US =/= actually Socialist


Not for much longer, they're in recession.

It's the world finacial crises that's making things worse. Brought on by everyone's favorite country the US. :p

Socialism takes away the freedom of the individual.

It's the world finacial crises that's making things worse. Brought on by everyone's favorite country the US. :p

Not forgetting the BBC.

Socialism takes away the freedom of the individual.


That sounds more like communism or a more extreme model of socialism.

Socialism takes away the freedom of the individual.

You obviously haven't visited Sweden/the Netherlands.

Socialism takes away the freedom of the individual.

How?

But the funniest thing is watching it from England. You have all these retards called Democrats socialists and the like, when they're centre right by our standards and even further compared to the Swedes, Dutch etc.

It's un-American to know anything about other countries.

That sounds more like communism or a more extreme model of socialism.

I think he means economic freedom

More Socialist than the US =/= actually Socialist


Not for much longer, they're in recession.

well everything is relative, if I wanted to point out really socialist economies we could go look at Africa. My only point was that they're generally more socialist and have weaker economies. For example: France owns several sectors of its economy, like telecommunications, rail, electricity, aircraft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Economy), they also have high unemployment, based on high minimum wages. UK I know has socialized medicine, though we seem to be headed that way as well its not the current state of affairs.

I think he means economic freedom

What is "economic freedom"?

Socialism advocates the democratic participation of all in determining their economic lives... that sounds like freedom as applied to the economy to me.

It's un-American to know anything about other countries.

No, its un-American for someone to not support themselves and use other people's money for themselves.

That's what's wrong with socialism.

What is "economic freedom"?

Socialism advocates the democratic participation of all in determining their economic lives... that sounds like freedom as applied to the economy to me.

By economic freedom they mean "The right to maximize profit and minimize all forms of expenditure possible". It's the kind of "economic freedom" that translates to "Outsourced Overseas to a Third World Sweatshop".

It's un-American. The ideas of limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.

So do you also oppose minimum wages? Because thats a "socialist" idea.


Any time the government creates a law that effects the market, thats socialism folks. The US has been technically "socialist" since we had a public education system.

I think he means economic freedom

Even then, there is quite a lot of economic freedom in Denmark, for example. Denmark is clearly more socialist than France, in many ways, yet France is the one that has to deal with problems related to job security, where the Danish workforce can easily move from job to job. It's easy to get fired, it's easy to get a new job and the unions are useful because they actually deal with problems related to abuse (not getting the pay you were supposed to get based on your contract, getting fired for bad reasons, making sure the nurses' pay actually follows inflation rather than earning less and less every year etc...).

Not to mention that in some ways, it gives more economic freedom. Personally, as a student, I will have zero debt when I go out of school. I will have to pay that back in taxes, but rather than having to pay an additional amount that will forever haunt me, I can make sure that the next generation also gets their education, with no interest.

Any time the government creates a law that effects the market, thats socialism folks. The US has been technically "socialist" since we had a public education system.

Rather, it's been more of a corporate welfare state. Privatized Profits, Socialized Losses.

So do you also oppose minimum wages? Because thats a "socialist" idea.


Any time the government creates a law that effects the market, thats socialism folks. The US has been technically "socialist" since we had a public education system.

Yup, not all socialist policies are bad, just most of them.

That's what's wrong with socialism.

How does socialism involve anyone not supporting his or herself?

Yup, not all socialist policies are bad, just most of them.

Like what? Pensions? Free Healthcare? Money for the unemployed?

Yup, not all socialist policies are bad, just most of them.

Not all capitalist/fascist/communist/green/blue/pink policies are bad, just most of them.

See how easy that was?

Now how about actually making it clear what you're talking about.

The big bogeyman myth in America about socialism is that it's a stagnant system that encourages laziness and welfare leeching in the masses by "punishing" hard-working and affluent members of the society to benefit the incorrigibly slothful.

How does socialism involve anyone not supporting his or herself?

uh...


Like what? Pensions? Free Healthcare? Money for the unemployed?

yes, some short term money for unemployed people is a good idea though, in order to tide them over until they can get another job.

Centre right? Okay.... And just curious what are 'your/our' standards? I'd like to know.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

that site has a bunch of comparisons between different governments and political parties.

That's ok, they don't exist in America either.

(I totally beat Neo Art to that. :D)

So do you also oppose minimum wages? Because thats a "socialist" idea.


Any time the government creates a law that effects the market, thats socialism folks. The US has been technically "socialist" since we had a public education system.
I'm not some kind of minarchist/anarchist capitalist, advocating a pure-capitalist utopian society. I understand that for a Capitalist system to work without revolution of the lower class, you have to provide some benefits for them.

Having said that, having a Capitalist market society with a few social programs does not equal "socialism", so the point is sort of moot.

That's ok, they don't exist in America either.
I strongly, strongly disagree, and know many people who's personal lives would also have them disagree. If your life has not been fortunate enough to encounter it, hopefully it does in the future.

They barely exist in America though, so the change is slight.
Disagree, see above.
no its un-consevative which for some reason seams to mean the same thing to you. And of all of those four that you listed all exist under socialism save limited government. btw. Socialism=/= Communism
What? Those thrive under a free-market system and are suppressed under socialism or communism.

limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.

Limited Government: You already conceded.

Individualism: Socialism is all about the community and social-harmony/equality. Individualism in the sense of doing your own thing, not being an exact part of "the community" is made difficult, financially, under socialism.

Self-Responsbility: A no-brainer. All ideas of self-responsbility are gone once you dicate, yes dicate, that the community most support everyone.

Self-Made-Men: This idea thrives under Capitalism and is repressed under Socialism. The idea that you can see a demand for something (or create it), go, yourself, without the government, yet taking all the risks since you'll have to put your own money into the idea, and supply to it, then profit and become rich is the very essence of what makes America the land of opportunity.

However, it create competition, progress, innovation, inequality, success and failure and thus is proposed to be extinguished under Socialism, under which Socialists are looking to create that "social harmony/equality" that they are (and forever will be) looking for.

No, its un-American for someone to not support themselves and use other people's money for themselves.

That's what's wrong with socialism.

How, exactly, does that relate to socialism? I'm pretty sure your thinking communism . . .and its STILL not anti-American . . .its anti-conservative (or republican w/e)

Socialism takes away the freedom of the individual.

Citation needed.

The UK? Spain? France? Ireland? Most European countries aren't that Socialist.

Some people on the other side of the Big Drink like to think our European countries are socialist because, despite our Americanization, we still do things differently. The fact that Europe hasn't morphed into an obedient clone of the States apparently can be interpreted as a socialist move. It takes a rather 'special' mindset to think that way.

*Atty-snip*

*shrug* All your money comes from someone else anyways, it's that whole 'economy' thing. The trouble is, only the lucky few become 'self-made men'. Not the hardworking few, not the important few, not the righteous few, and certainly not the -good- few. Just the ones here and there that get lucky. Most could go through the same thing and get jack squat at best, or lose everything. Bet ey, like I said, without money, they're better off dead, aye?

Yup, not all socialist policies are bad, just most of them.

public education, public health care, welfare support (for those who need it . . .single mothers, people below the poverty line etc.), higher taxation for people with More Money, inheritance taxes, Rehabilitation for those who need and want it, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, opposed to racism, opposed to sexism. . . how many of these are bad exactly?

public education, public health care, welfare support (for those who need it . . .single mothers, people below the poverty line etc.), higher taxation for people with More Money, inheritance taxes, Rehabilitation for those who need and want it, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, opposed to racism, opposed to sexism. . . how many of these are bad exactly?

1 is.

uh...

Well? Do you have an answer?

You could make the case for welfare, maybe, but for public ownership of the means of production? People still support themselves; they just work for institutions in which they democratically participate.

A socialist society is not the same as a welfare state.

The issue is that it isn't my responsibility to support the lower tiers of society. As long as I'm being forced to do so, the lower tiers will never have to work for themselves, and the nation will never progress in any large part. That's the ultra-simplified version of, "why capitalism kicks ass."

Much of the social spending is just intergenerational transfers. Working age adults metaphorically "pay back" money spent on them as children and "pay forward" resources that will be spent on them in their old age. The rest is generally spent on poor children, the disabled, or social insurance based upon contributions.

No, its un-American for someone to not support themselves and use other people's money for themselves.

That's what's wrong with socialism.

And it's inhumane to expect everyone to be completely self-sufficient while rigging the system against them, and then claiming that they didn't succeed because they're lazy.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

public education, public health care, welfare support (for those who need it . . .single mothers, people below the poverty line etc.), higher taxation for people with More Money, inheritance taxes, Rehabilitation for those who need and want it,

Public education is fine, although it doesn't work well everywhere. Public health care is wrong as I shoudln't be paying for people's bad habits. I alreday explained my view on welfare. Higher tax rates is wrong, you're already taking more money if they make more, that's the definition of a percentage. Inheritance taxes, frankly isn't a big issue to me, I don't see why it should be allowed morally, but it isn't really depriving people of anything either. I see no reason why rehab needs to be state run, which is in general a bad idea- for the government to run businesses.

freedom of religion, freedom of speech, opposed to racism, opposed to sexism. . . how many of these are bad exactly?

While socialist, these ideas are in no way confined to socialism. Of course you could take it to the next level and start opposing conceived occurrences or trends with programs like as affirmative action, which would be bad.

Well? Do you have an answer?

You could make the case for welfare, maybe, but for public ownership of the means of production? People still support themselves; they just work for institutions in which they democratically participate.

A socialist society is not the same as a welfare state.

my response was the other posters quote, I just needed to reply to him too. it was Pensions, Free Healthcare, Money for the unemployed. Public ownership isn't one but its still a shitty way to run most things.

And it's inhumane to expect everyone to be completely self-sufficient while rigging the system against them, and then claiming that they didn't succeed because they're lazy.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Of course people aren't completely self sufficient- they have support from friends and family, and charity occasionally, but they shouldn't get much help from the government.

I don't know what's so rigged about the system. Simply do your job well and get payed. Don't blow all your money random stuff- save your money.

I shoudln't be paying for people's bad habits.

So why didn't you oppose the $7 Billion Bailout? That was paying for people's bad habits.

Public education is fine, although it doesn't work well everywhere. Public health care is wrong as I shoudln't be paying for people's bad habits. I alreday explained my view on welfare. Higher tax rates is wrong, you're already taking more money if they make more, that's the definition of a percentage. Inheritance taxes, frankly isn't a big issue to me, I don't see why it should be allowed morally, but it isn't really depriving people of anything either. I see no reason why rehab needs to be state run, which is in general a bad idea- for the government to run businesses.


Free healthcare sucks. Those working class people who can't pay really shouldn't have been in the way of that knife, or that speeding car.

limited government, individualism self-responsibility and self-made men do not exist under Socialism.

Limited Government: You already conceded.

yep and gladly


Individualism: Socialism is all about the community and social-harmony/equality. Individualism in the sense of doing your own thing, not being an exact part of "the community" is made difficult, financially, under socialism.

not . . .true . . .Socialism is about equality. But that only (at least the way I read it) means that everyone has an equal opportunity to do whatever they want to do. If you, as an individual, are defined by what you do then increasing the number of things you can do via not limiting your ability to do things through economic or social restrictions should allow for greater individuality.


Self-Responsbility: A no-brainer. All ideas of self-responsbility are gone once you dicate, yes dicate, that the community most support everyone.

Again not factual. The community does not support everyone in socialism (it might in comunism but I'm not sure) it supports those who need it. Yes the community wqill support you if you screw up big time and end up on the streets but your still responsible for that and you still won't be as well off as someone who didn't screw up. Maybe a dcrease in self-responsibility but really I dunno . . .


Self-Made-Men: This idea thrives under Capitalism and is repressed under Socialism. The idea that you can see a demand for something (or create it), go, yourself, without the government, yet taking all the risks since you'll have to put your own money into the idea, and supply to it, then profit and become rich is the very essence of what makes America the land of opportunity.
However, it create competition, progress, innovation, inequality, success and failure and thus is proposed to be extinguished under Socialism, under which Socialists are looking to create that "social harmony/equality" that they are (and forever will be) looking for.

again the same is true under socialism except that EVERYONE has that opportunity to become a "self made man" in that they all have a certain amount of money to put in. The daughter of someone who is a drug addicted factory worker with literally no money at all, will not and cannot become a "self made man" under capitalist theory. in socialism, on the other hand, she would have the same education as the rich guy (who's father was a millionaire) living five blocks away in his gated community. She would have the same health care and would have some money to start her own life.

it was Pensions, Free Healthcare, Money for the unemployed.

All components of the modern capitalist welfare state. What about them?

I agree that they involve the government supporting people rather than those people supporting themselves, but none of them involve using anyone else's money in a morally relevant sense... and none of them are strictly socialist.

Communism=bad
Socialism=Amazing
Capitalistic Democracy=Epic Fail at the moment
Monarchy=Depends on ruler usually bad
Consitutional Monarchy=decent

Pretty simple if you ask me you have to find an anti-privatized buisness and still have elections where they can tweak with certain things

So why didn't you oppose the $7 Billion Bailout? That was paying for people's bad habits.

I did I even posted a thread on it and how I was glad it failed the first time round.

How does socialism involve anyone not supporting his or herself?
Pensions, free healthcare and moeny for the unemployed are all socialist measures that result in people not supporting his or herself.


Free healthcare sucks. Those working class people who can't pay really shouldn't have been in the way of that knife, or that speeding car.

I agree I don't have any healthcare at all if I get fucked up then its my responsibility to take care of it. Its not like I'm swimming in money either, I don't make much because I'm a student but I do work and if it comes to it would pay for my medical expenses.

Of course people aren't completely self sufficient- they have support from friends and family, and charity occasionally, but they shouldn't get much help from the government.

Why not?

I don't know what's so rigged about the system.

Just for one case in point, consider the present financial crisis.

Who is responsible? Who will suffer most? And who is ending up paying a large portion of the bill?

I did I even posted a thread on it and how I was glad it failed the first time round.

Odd... the secound round was just as bad. Althouh I can't complain much, our state got some funding for our university system. Which is stagnating due to budget cuts. Thank you Harry Reid. LoL

Odd... the secound round was just as bad. Althouh I can't complain much, our state got some funding for our university system. Which is stagnating due to budget cuts. Thank you Harry Reid. LoL

uh, yeah I opposed it the whole time, the only time I was glad about anything related to it was when it failed to pass the house the first time, its not like I cheered when it got through on the second try.

Public education is fine, although it doesn't work well everywhere. Public health care is wrong as I shoudln't be paying for people's bad habits. I alreday explained my view on welfare. Higher tax rates is wrong, you're already taking more money if they make more, that's the definition of a percentage. Inheritance taxes, frankly isn't a big issue to me, I don't see why it should be allowed morally, but it isn't really depriving people of anything either. I see no reason why rehab needs to be state run, which is in general a bad idea- for the government to run businesses.



While socialist, these ideas are in no way confined to socialism. Of course you could take it to the next level and start opposing conceived occurrences or trends with programs like as affirmative action, which would be bad.
1)huh? how does public education not work everywhere?
2)so when you get liver cancer due to bad genetics, survive and then have to pay the million dollar bill for chemo meds, radiation treatment, multiple tests and scans, an extended hospital stay, multiple surgerys and follow ups for the rest of you life that is a good thing right? cause the other people who got better luck in their genetics shouldn't have tyo support you right?
3)I missed it . . .time to go looking
4)In the states their not (due to loopholes in tax law . . .anyway). A poor person paying 50% of their earnings leaves them starving due to lack of money for food. A person who makes 1 million dollars a year paying 50% of that leaves the rich guy unable to pay for one of his cars. But higher tax rates are bad . . .cause their unfair . . .right?
5)alright . . . I have no problem with this Answer. . . though how is it morally wrong?
6) Cause otherwise only celebrities and people with a bunchaton of money can afford rehab, where the people who actually need it most are those living on the streets due to their crack addiction (or w/e).
7)Those Ideas are all socialist and are not supported by true, pure, capitalism. I don't understand the rest of your statement here.

Why not?

Trollgaard apparently wants to return to a tribal society, a sentiment that is shared by quite a few misguided souls.

Pensions, free healthcare and moeny for the unemployed are all socialist measures that result in people not supporting his or herself.

Pensions and unemployment insurance are generally based upon contributions paid by the recipient.

Free Health care is great you don't pay for it if you have (random number) 2billion people in the country unemployed 10% $200 per able person pays for about all of those medical expenses unless this country had about half the population with heart problems hmm correct me if my math is wrong

oh and thats why work would/should be compolsury unless this person is disabled

I did I even posted a thread on it and how I was glad it failed the first time round.


Pensions, free healthcare and moeny for the unemployed are all socialist measures that result in people not supporting his or herself.



I agree I don't have any healthcare at all if I get fucked up then its my responsibility to take care of it. Its not like I'm swimming in money either, I don't make much because I'm a student but I do work and if it comes to it would pay for my medical expenses.

1)ya i don't know enough about that bill to support it or otherwise

2)no their not. Their support measures for those who need them . . .anyone using them is not exactly living the good life they just provide necessities. (cept. healthcare but thats another issue)

3)So you accidentally cut off four fingers in an industrial accident that is truely no one's fault but your own. how would you pay for that exactly? you could reattach maybe one. In a free healthcare system you get em all back. Oh and by the way once you've lost those fingers, you;'re not gonna be able to work for quite some time and maybe never again at all . . .so not only have you just gotten "screwed" but your no longer an asset to your country either.

oh and thats why work would/should be compolsury unless this person is disabled

what are you talking about and how do you force someone to work? Also how do you define disabled? And what whould these people be doing?

1)huh? how does public education not work everywhere?
2)so when you get liver cancer due to bad genetics, survive and then have to pay the million dollar bill for chemo meds, radiation treatment, multiple tests and scans, an extended hospital stay, multiple surgerys and follow ups for the rest of you life that is a good thing right? cause the other people who got better luck in their genetics shouldn't have tyo support you right?
3)I missed it . . .time to go looking
4)In the states their not (due to loopholes in tax law . . .anyway). A poor person paying 50% of their earnings leaves them starving due to lack of money for food. A person who makes 1 million dollars a year paying 50% of that leaves the rich guy unable to pay for one of his cars. But higher tax rates are bad . . .cause their unfair . . .right?
5)alright . . . I have no problem with this Answer. . . though how is it morally wrong?
6) Cause otherwise only celebrities and people with a bunchaton of money can afford rehab, where the people who actually need it most are those living on the streets due to their crack addiction (or w/e).
7)Those Ideas are all socialist and are not supported by true, pure, capitalism. I don't understand the rest of your statement here.
1) In inner cities where kids barely learn to read, do math or anythign else school is meant to teach you.
2) yup, if I have shitty genetics, itd probably be better for me to die than leach off everyone else.
4)Yup, I guess the government just shouldn't tax people into starvation, I dunno where they have 50% tax rates but that sucks.
5)I just don't see why the government would have to have any different tax rate on that particular transaction, it ought to be treated like anything else.
6)Weird, i didn't no there were no charities, with people here giving the most per person in the world, you'd think we'd have charities, I guess not.
7) I already said they were socialist, but not exclusively so, they're just.. common sense I suppose. They obviously aren't protected under pure capitalism because that's just an economic system. People should be allowed to do any type of job, as that will result in the best economic outcome.

Pensions and unemployment insurance are generally based upon contributions paid by the recipient.

Uh huh, that's why they're predicting both to go bust soon, cause people are only taking out what they put in. If that were the case we wouldn't have to force people to put money in, they could just save for themselves, which is a good idea anyway.

Trollgaard apparently wants to return to a tribal society, a sentiment that is shared by quite a few misguided souls.

Anarcho-primitivists are, generally, the most anti-capitalist people you will find anywhere. Among the things they admire in pre-agricultural societies is the presence of gift economies instead of market exchange and the lack of "private property" as we envision it today.

Capitalist libertarianism? Not exactly.

1)huh? how does public education not work everywhere?

England.

England.

I don't understand. England has a pretty good education system.

1)ya i don't know enough about that bill to support it or otherwise

2)no their not. Their support measures for those who need them . . .anyone using them is not exactly living the good life they just provide necessities. (cept. healthcare but thats another issue)

3)So you accidentally cut off four fingers in an industrial accident that is truely no one's fault but your own. how would you pay for that exactly? you could reattach maybe one. In a free healthcare system you get em all back. Oh and by the way once you've lost those fingers, you;'re not gonna be able to work for quite some time and maybe never again at all . . .so not only have you just gotten "screwed" but your no longer an asset to your country either.

1) ok

2) huh? thats what supporting yourself is, providing for your basic needs, through your own effort

3) I don't know how much it costs someone to get fingers reattached, so I can't say how many I'd have left, but I guess I'd have to work with my other hand. It'd probably lower my productivity, but I'm thinking of going into teaching so I won't really need that hand to teach anyway.

1) In inner cities where kids barely learn to read, do math or anythign else school is meant to teach you.

You know what doesn't help there? Free markets.

The parents with the time, money, and energy get their kids into private schools (or just leave the area). And the public schools get even worse for the underprivileged children.

Jesus Christ was a radical social. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Good Samaritan a parable based on socialist ideals??

Jesus Christ was a radical social. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Good Samaritan is a parable based on socialist ideals??

I thought it was supposed to be based upon basic universal human decency.

You know what doesn't help there? Free markets.

The parents with the time, money, and energy get their kids into private schools (or just leave the area). And the public schools get even worse for the underprivileged children.

really, so charter schools and private schools have no better outcomes in those areas? Wait you already admitted they did, which is pretty much a free market, except that those parents are now paying tuition twice. I don't know that the public schools get worse, children who might have been artificially increasing the school's scores are removed so that they appear to be doing worse, but the school is probably doing the same shitty job for the kids stuck there.

1) In inner cities where kids barely learn to read, do math or anythign else school is meant to teach you.
2) yup, if I have shitty genetics, itd probably be better for me to die than leach off everyone else.
4)Yup, I guess the government just shouldn't tax people into starvation, I dunno where they have 50% tax rates but that sucks.
5)I just don't see why the government would have to have any different tax rate on that particular transaction, it ought to be treated like anything else.
6)Weird, i didn't no there were no charities, with people here giving the most per person in the world, you'd think we'd have charities, I guess not.
7) I already said they were socialist, but not exclusively so, they're just.. common sense I suppose. They obviously aren't protected under pure capitalism because that's just an economic system. People should be allowed to do any type of job, as that will result in the best economic outcome.




1)find me a source that says the cause of that is public schooling.
2)lol or just pure bad luck? you get into a car accident etc.? how bout fixable things that are a joke really (a minor staph infection) that could kill you if not treated but cost upwards of 5 grand to treat?
3)there is no three muhhahahahah. . . or you just skipped it. .. oh well
4)lol I was trying to make a point. but you got the point? right? equal tax rates force the poor to stay poor while the rich are not affected at all . . .was the idea . . .
5)I guess cause it gives someone a place of privilege within society when they haven't actually done anything . . .but again this isn't really something I'm sure about myself. That's just a possible argument off the top of my head.
6)and charities are obviously the solution . . .cause despite the fact that American's are some of the most giving people in the world you Never see people addicted to drugs and alcohol on the streets . . .oh . . .wait. . . . look charity is great and all but its just another way of keeping the poor poor.
7) which is . . .at least in my view . . .one of the things i like about socialism.

but the school is probably doing the same shitty job for the kids stuck there.

Why do you think some public schools are excellent, and some horrible?

Magic? Luck?

:hail:especially national socialism

I thought it was supposed to be based upon basic universal human decency.

Yes it is. But of course, you have to remember the Samaritan payed out of his pocket to pay for wounded man and promised to pay for whatever other debts he incurred. Tell me that's not socialist.

really, so charter schools and private schools have no better outcomes in those areas? Wait you already admitted they did, which is pretty much a free market, except that those parents are now paying tuition twice. I don't know that the public schools get worse, children who might have been artificially increasing the school's scores are removed so that they appear to be doing worse, but the school is probably doing the same shitty job for the kids stuck there.

or lack of funding moves teachers to private schools so only poor teachers teach at public schools keeping them shitty. Easy fix. Fund public schools better, get more intelligent kids (see Canada vs. the States). That's not public schooling failing that's the US of A failing.

really, so charter schools and private schools have no better outcomes in those areas? Wait you already admitted they did, which is pretty much a free market, except that those parents are now paying tuition twice. I don't know that the public schools get worse, children who might have been artificially increasing the school's scores are removed so that they appear to be doing worse, but the school is probably doing the same shitty job for the kids stuck there.

Charters I believe don't have a better record than regular public schools. Private schools, the results are mixed.

Why do you think some public schools are excellent, and some horrible?

Magic? Luck?

Difference in funding?

I don't understand. England has a pretty good education system.

Says the man from Canada. Heehee, it really doesn't. Not state-wise, anyway.

or lack of funding moves teachers to private schools so only poor teachers teach at public schools keeping them shitty. Easy fix. Fund public schools better, get more intelligent kids (see Canada vs. the States). That's not public schooling failing that's the US of A failing.

most public schools are better funded than their private counterparts, at least i terms of teacher pay. Clearly throwing money at this one is not the trick.

"Social Studies" in the American grade school amounts to 'here's basically how America works, Communism is bad.'

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

:hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

~ stupid trolling ~

Go away. We already have our fair share of utter and complete idiots here.

Jesus Christ was a radical social. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Good Samaritan a parable based on socialist ideals??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o :p

1) ok

2) huh? thats what supporting yourself is, providing for your basic needs, through your own effort

3) I don't know how much it costs someone to get fingers reattached, so I can't say how many I'd have left, but I guess I'd have to work with my other hand. It'd probably lower my productivity, but I'm thinking of going into teaching so I won't really need that hand to teach anyway.

1)we agree? impossible!
2)um I think I lost the thread of the argument here . . .give me a sec and I'll edit this. EDIT: Ah right. ok I misread your argument. The thing is these programs only provide funding for those who need it so its not a blanket lack of anyone supporting themselves its just those who need and use those programs do not support themselves while they are in those programs. That being said, very few people WANT to be on welfare or in health care and they usually do everything they can to get themselves out of that situation. Welfare would provide enough for the bare necessities for example but not for anything anyone would consider comfort.
3)expensive as hell (in the states) ranging to "free" (in canada, britain cube, etc.). And I didn't actually mean you . . .I more meant someone in your situation . . .also you definately need both hands fully functional to teach, trust me on that, kids can be quite a handful (ehehehehhe)

Difference in funding?

That's part of it--and the differences are truly egregious. But only part.

Another part is the simple facts of how things get done in our society: governments (like any other institution) respond when people make them do so. When the parents with the most resources simply exit the public education system, instead of remaining within it and pushing for changes, those students who do remain lose out.

most public schools are better funded than their private counterparts, at least i terms of teacher pay. Clearly throwing money at this one is not the trick.

source . . .PLEASE. (truth be told I honestly don't know whether or not that's true in the states)

That's part of it--and the differences are truly egregious. But only part.

Another part is the simple facts of how things get done in our society: governments (like any other institution) respond when people make them do so. When the parents with the most resources simply exit the public education system, instead of remaining within it and pushing for changes, those students who do remain lose out.

I can agree with that

most public schools are better funded than their private counterparts, at least i terms of teacher pay. Clearly throwing money at this one is not the trick.

With the exception Catholic schools and some other religious school I believe private schools generally have better funding than public schools.

Why do you think some public schools are excellent, and some horrible?

Magic? Luck?

Due to student composition and teacher ability, as well as, perhaps most importantly, the involvement of the parents of the child. Asking things like did you do your homework, and encouraging them to succeed. Unfortunately a lot of schools are full of kids who don't have the above, but there isn't a government fix to this, you can't force people to be involved in the lives of their children.

Says the man from Canada. Heehee, it really doesn't. Not state-wise, anyway.

heheheheheh ok you could be right . . .I honestly have no idea lol. Damn . . .I really shouldn't have put down my real location lmao.

With the exception Catholic schools and some other religious school I believe private schools generally have better funding than public schools.

I believe catholic and other religious are the majority of private schools...

http://teachers.net/mentors/private/topic4896/2.18.08.19.46.09.html "Also, there is a difference between
Catholic/Parochial schools and "independent" schools. The latter tend to pay more, although not as much as public. "

No idea if this is true, will look more into it.

http://privateschool.about.com/od/salaries/qt/salaries.htm

although: "Obtaining accurate teacher salary information is as murky a science as discovering the whereabouts of a certain infamous terrorist leader. It's almost impossible because the NAIS keeps that information well-guarded from public view."

Due to student composition and teacher ability, as well as, perhaps most importantly, the involvement of the parents of the child. Asking things like did you do your homework, and encouraging them to succeed. Unfortunately a lot of schools are full of kids who don't have the above, but there isn't a government fix to this, you can't force people to be involved in the lives of their children.

agreed. . . again . . .something is wrong here

I believe catholic and other religious are the majority of private schools...

True, which means they're generally subsidized by the associated church and religious minded faculty.

True, which means they're generally subsidized by the associated church and religious minded faculty.
and churches=big money makers (actually some really really do).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o :p

lol??

and churches=big money makers (actually some really really do).

Which does not necessarily mean large subsidies.

Because Americans have no idea what Communism is and equate Stalinism with all things progressive. Ask them who Trotsky was and they'll guess 'Stalin's brother'.

Because Americans have no idea what Communism is and equate Stalinism with all things progressive. Ask them who Trotsky was and they'll guess 'Stalin's brother'.

That's by those Americans who don't say," Trotsky....? Who's that?"

That's by those Americans who don't say," Trotsky....? Who's that?"

I'd expect that . . .more than the other.

source . . .PLEASE. (truth be told I honestly don't know whether or not that's true in the states)
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/tracy/privat_publ2.gif

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/tracy/privat_publ2.gif

Are you absolutely certain that the private schools don't also get the public school funding?

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

:hail::hail::hail::hail::hail::hail:

More people need to react like this when I speak.

I don´t find anything wrong with Socialism. I mean, Spain is a parliamentary monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain) with socialist policies supported by it´s current president (or Prime Minister for the anal here) José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. I grew up in this kind of government. We seem to be doing fine.

I don´t find anything wrong with Socialism. I mean, Spain is a parliamentary monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Spain) with socialist policies supported by it´s current president (or Prime Minister for the anal here) José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. I grew up in this kind of government. We seem to be doing fine.

Tell us that again around new year. *waits for recession to go to Spain*

Tell us that again around new year. *waits for recession to go to Spain*

I said ¨we seem to be doing fine¨, right?:wink:

the trouble with socialism is that it has never been tried in its intended form, there has been social welfare reform and a welfare state in European nations for years but these days this has been badly eroded.

another problem with socialism is the very word socialism has been given many negative connotations by its connection to totalitarian government which stemmed from failed revolution (revolution normally fails sadly) a key example being Russia post 1917. After the Bolshevik revolution (which occurred after the overthrowing of the tsar) the Bolshevik elite did away with the equivalent of a constituent assembly in Russia and then tried to skip a stage in Marxist development (liberal democratic capitalism, the one one the west is in now) Russia was barely post feudal, a proto capitalist peasant economy which was still steeped in feudal obligations. By skipping a stage of social development and removing democracy what was created was essentially another authoritarian absolute monarchy with no accountability of government, a system which is always open to the evil of oppression, hence Lenin and Stalin always knew best in all cases - bring on the red terror and the death of 20 million citizens of all classes for just having an opinion. In my opinion the Russian revolution has set socialism back by hundreds of years.

yet another problem is the natural hostility of the western establishment and areas of intelligentsia to socialism, the wealthy (for lack of a better word) see in socialism the radical redistribution of there wealth to people who, in there eyes, don't deserve it and the removal of the right own business. this has led to many media being hostile to socialism and the use of these failed totalitarian states such as Russia for propaganda because of numerous Russian atrocities and lack of freedoms.

it amuses (and sickens) me that in the uk we spend $2200 (roughly) per capita on healthcare each year and in the us you spend over $6000 per capita (roughly) and yet we have the better health system according to the world health organisation.
common sense says that healthcare is an essential part of life and therefore should be a right to all humans therefore shouldn't this healthcare be funded by all for the use of all? and therefore if all are funding it and need it then shouldn't it be organised by the state even if you keep an unfair system of taxation and tax the poor to the same percentage as the rich, a small scale example of this would sharing food with a house mate, you both need it so you both pay for it, simple practicality. in the uk yes we pay greater taxes but we pay less in totality because we don't pay for insurance which means healthcare is cheaper and more accessible to the average person.

people who argue that giving money in a socialist way is bad for society forget that by giving this money social mobility is increased i.e. the rich pay more because they can afford (greater expendable income) to into educating all children in a stare funded system leading to the poor being more able to become rich through a better education and equal access to this education. plain efficiency

I would like to add a further argument in favour of socialism based on the current developing market situation and the possible links to the depression in 1929. In my view socialist systems come about through evolution never revolution, social evolution occurs due to necessity for example Britain needed an efficient Medicare system after World War Two hence the NHS was developed, we needed social housing schemes due to the returning armed forces and the masses of destroyed houses due to bombing. I think that due to the current economic crisis that another wave of reform controlling finance has been made necessary to stop this from happening again - this could be viewed as necessity to curb our boom and bust economics and protect consumers from the twists and turns of a market led system. not revolution sane forward think necessity as I for one don't want my savings to disappear or my bank to recall my overdraft. More to the point I don't see why I should fund to foolish gambling of the big banks - limit them and control them more effectively and bring areas under state control.


sorry its so long winded people

*snip*

Yes, right: if you can turn away whoever you like, education is less costly than if you have to educate everyone, whatever their needs.

What does that prove about the general superiority of markets? Nothing whatsoever.

Are you absolutely certain that the private schools don't also get the public school funding?

If I remember right, they can't be for-profit schools, and even then they only get federal help in 'services' whatever that means. I might be wrong there.

Yes, right: if you can turn away whoever you like, education is less costly than if you have to educate everyone, whatever their needs.

Ignoring the fact that many private schools have a 100% ACCEPTANCE rate.

What does that prove about the general superiority of markets? Nothing whatsoever.

Ignoring that the national graduation rate of public schools is far inferior to most private schools.

Ignoring the fact that many private schools have a 100% ACCEPTANCE rate.

The secular, tuition-funded private schools that conservatives look to for "saving" education? Really?

The point holds: for a variety of reasons, student composition at private schools is not at all comparable to student composition at public schools. That makes simple comparisons of cost per pupil meaningless.

Ignoring that the national graduation rate of public schools is far inferior to most private schools.

Correlation is not causation.