Why is socialism so bad?

[bigtopsfinn]

Hello Everyone!

I have been following the presidential race and the arguments in these forums for the past few weeks. One of the new issues is SOCIALISM. I lived in the United States for 17 years, but moved back to my home country of Finland a couple years ago.

Finland is a Socialist Democracy. We have free health care, free education through your bachelor's degree (when you turn 18, the gov. also pays for 80% of your rent and grocery money(240â?¬/month), and allows you to take out gov. backed student loans), and a welfare system that assures no Finnish citizen is without a roof over their heads or food on the table.

Our taxes are very high, about 19-20% income tax. We are also the second most expensive country in the EU, behind only the UK. But we still have people who have nice houses, plenty of Mercedes and BMW's on the roads, and people travel abroad frequently for vacations.

After living in both the U.S. and Finland, I think I would choose Finland, because it is a very safe country (yes we had 2 school shootings recently, which shocked all of us, but otherwise very low crime and the least corrupt country in the world), very clean country, high standard of education, and a great place to raise a family.

Please do not think that I am putting down the U.S. in any way. I liked living there, but I prefer here for the reasons stated above. Once I graduate, I will probably move somewhere else in Europe, just because its too fucking cold here.

I just want to know your opinions of why Socialism is really that bad. It might not be for everyone, but it's certainly not communism. Hopefully this thread won't get too out of hand:jointsmile:

[thcbongman]

I very much agree with you. I am American, but I lived in Switzerland, Germany and the Czech Republic and if I had a chance to to live in any country in Europe, I'd hop on the next plane without hesistation. The safety net that most western european citizens get is unparrallel and it's a life I find to be less stressful because of it. I never understood why America couldn't adopt some of the policies especially when it comes to education and health care. People get the wrong idea that they have to go through their systems, their private schools and hospitals there like anywhere in America that you can chose to pay for it yourself if you want. But why when those school systems and heath care systems are some of the best in the world?

[IAmKowalski]

There are a lot of reasons for this - first, realize that Americans don't actually know what they are talking about when they use the word "Socialist". Realize too that Americans have a very cartoonish and very black and white view of the world. Socialist and/or communist are the same thing in American speak - and what comes to mind immediately when you say the word "Socialist" to the average American is a grim militaristic society in which everyone is desperately poor, wears all gray, and stands in line all day for a loaf of bread while guards on every street corner hold machine guns and glare at people.

I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.

Most Americans have no clue what Socialism actually is - just that it's evil and bad. If you want to discredit someone's beliefs, just label them as "Socialist" then the debate gets shifted so they have to deny the charge. Now rather than discussing their ideas, we manage to reduce the discussion to "No I'm Not"/"Yes You Are".

As a result, we have a sub-minimal welfare system, we have a for-profit health-care industry in which any illness can be catastrophic for those without insurance both to their health and to their finances (and they better hope they're healthy before they run out of cash or they're out of luck - if you have no cash then bandages in an emergency room are all the healthcare you can get buddy), and we have continually rising costs of college education.

But the thing is that Americans think we have the best quality of life and the best healthcare system of anyplace in the world - and good luck telling anyone otherwise! It's gospel, it's a basic religion to Americans that our way is the best and that everyone else just wishes they could live here instead of standing in line in their gray coats shivering and waiting for bread.

[stoned88911]

Have u ever heard about "THE AMERICAN DREAM"

And before someone says i dont know what it is ill go ahead and post a definition.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society


Its not fair when some one works hard then gets the same benefits of some lazy asshole.

America is the right to choose what u want, not have goverment do it for u.

[IAmKowalski]

Have u ever heard about "THE AMERICAN DREAM"

And before someone says i dont know what it is ill go ahead and post a definition.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society


Its not fair when some one works hard then gets the same benefits of some lazy asshole.

America is the right to choose what u want, not have goverment do it for u.

Thank you so much for demonstrating my point.

[stoned88911]

Thank you so much for demonstrating my point.

Ya that u dont know what ur talking about.

[bigtopsfinn]

Have u ever heard about "THE AMERICAN DREAM"

And before someone says i dont know what it is ill go ahead and post a definition.

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society


Its not fair when some one works hard then gets the same benefits of some lazy asshole.

America is the right to choose what u want, not have goverment do it for u.

Thanks for the replies! And yes, I have heard of the American Dream, and it is also the reason my family moved there. I give credit to America for creating many opportunities to earn a lot of money and live a lifestyle which is unfathomable in other most other countries. The problem I saw first hand, was that not everyone can achieve this dream, that would be egalitarian... and the people who cannot realize this dream are left behind. We went from a 2 story 3 bedroom house on a lake to a 2 bedroom condo behind the ghetto when times got tough for us in the 1990's.

Now, when you talk about the state/collective ownership of production/distribution, that sounds to me more like communism. Here in Finland, the state runs the schools, health care, postal services(they own dhl here), transportation, gambling, and alcohol (i may have forgotten something). Otherwise, its a free market. And also here in Finland, if you don't work hard, you get paid less, but enough to survive. If you work harder or have your own company, you can make more money...

I just wanted to clarify that socialism, democracy, and capitalism can all co-exist, can they not?

[FlyGuyOU]

Thank you so much for demonstrating my point.


so⋅cial⋅ism

â??noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

[FlyGuyOU]

I just wanted to clarify that socialism, democracy, and capitalism can all co-exist, can they not?

No they cannot

Democracy is a system of government and has very little to do with socialism or capitalism.

Socialism and Capitalism are economic theories which can be independent of governmental structure. Socialism and Capitalism are unable to coexists. Socialism is set up for the collective, Capitalism is set up for the individual.

[stoned88911]

Anyone in america can become a billionair.

It just is gonna take alot of hard work and brains.

But if ur lazy and dumb in america u will be one broke motha

Socialism doesnt give u the same opportunities.

[bigtopsfinn]

No they cannot

Democracy is a system of government and has very little to do with socialism or capitalism.

Socialism and Capitalism are economic theories which can be independent of governmental structure. Socialism and Capitalism are unable to coexists. Socialism is set up for the collective, Capitalism is set up for the individual.

I see your point. I guess the problem with socialism in general is the definition, and how it is tied into communism so easily. Finland is a socialist democracy, but we have free markets, and like I stated above, the government only controls some sectors to ensure the well-being of the public, like schools and health care. Maybe the name just confused me...

[flyingimam]

cuz we got a problem with them communist bastards in america... i bet most people dont even know why? they just got a problem with it, same way they got a problem with any middle eastern, french or muslim

America as a whole (there are exceptions) has a good hateful memory, everything that we've hated we remember here, most things like slavery and segregation are just being countered with ideas like reverse discrimination within less than 60 years from civil rights movement, cuz we didnt hate it as a whole country as much as we hated the bolsheviks


Socialism has a very negative stereotype associated with it in America, while I know what many people see in europe tells a different story, it's just that America rebels against most foreign ideas, check the history, thats like the "thing" about America

[flyingimam]

Anyone in america can become a billionair.

It just is gonna take alot of hard work and brains.

But if ur lazy and dumb in america u will be one broke motha

Socialism doesnt give u the same opportunities.

in fact it does. u know there are other millionaires and billinaires across the world right? and most other developed countries with exception of US and maybe another one or two have some sort of socialist programs embedded within their systems and the rest is merely free market.

just as stated earlier by others

I know a lot of lazy and dumb people in America that are not broke, and i know many hard workers that are broke.

on a side note socialism is one thing, socialist looking programs are another
its the same misconception about environmentalism and environmental science.

they are different.

[daihashi]

in fact it does. u know there are other millionaires and billinaires across the world right? and most other developed countries with exception of US and maybe another one or two have some sort of socialist programs embedded within their systems and the rest is merely free market.

just as stated earlier by others

I know a lot of lazy and dumb people in America that are not broke, and i know many hard workers that are broke.

Question.. if Other countries who have socialist practices are so much better.. why are we #1 in GDP? Socialism directly impacts your ability to control the direction in which your life takes.

Case in point and I hope someone here can chime in to acknowledge as what i'm saying is true, because I'm sure everyone here who hasn't lived in the netherlands will call me a liar.. but here we go.

In the netherlands the government for the most part tells you where to live. If you have a 4 person household then you are told where to live. If your household downsizes to 2 people then you are moved right away to a smaller home.

Recently a friend of mine's grandmother lost her husband. Within 1 day she was notified that she would be being relocated to a smaller home.

When someone has rule over where you live then where is your motivation to aspire for more in life. A person could say that all their aspirations in life revolve around a person's home. To change it to their liking.. to update it.. to make it a comfortable environment for themselves. What aspiration do you have to make the money to do this when the government tells you where to live (taxes are also way high there too).

I love Europe.. I love visiting; but I wouldn't want to live there primarily for the number of social programs and fairly socialist governments there. I don't like being told what I can and can't do... which is the same problem I have with the direction the American Government is going. Our government is starting to get so bloated it's ridiculous.

Less government now please!

[flyingimam]

Question.. if Other countries who have socialist practices are so much better.. why are we #1 in GDP?

cuz we are 300 million people, cuz we are not just 1 country, we are 50 countries merged together, we are literally a continent
cuz we landed in a place just less than 600 years ago that was totally untouched in means of resource... that gave us a massive boom
cuz we practiced free labor (slavery) for a good part of our history and that gave us an advantage over others

the rest of the worlds resources have been used for a much longer time (excluding oil)

our GDP is based on consumer spending. average american holds thousands of dollars in debt, so far we have kept it rolling on debt, at some point u cant accumulate more debt

we got WW II, the rest of the world was literally destroyed to ruins, they have had to start over (most of europe, japan and even china)

u know what counts? PPP, or GDP per capita, not just the GDP alone, and then compare the population and general number of people in each country who live under poverty line

u will find out that Swiss has only 4000 dollars less than us in PPP, but look at their size and their system and their population and their poverty stats

A lot of our richer people cancel out the effect of our poor in this calcualtion, go ahead and compare the poverty statistics in US and other developed countries


here is just one link for the start List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_country), i must go to a test now, but i'm interested in this debate, I'll be back

an for clarification: I'm not a socialist nor do I advocate socialism but I see nothing wrong with certain things that people consider to be socialist, like a socialist healthcare system. or a socialist taxation system

we are capitalist right? how come we got the highest corporate tax rate in the world, forcing companies to seek means of saving by outsourcing and other means... think about it till i get back:D;)

[theforthdrive]

There are a lot of reasons for this - first, realize that Americans don't actually know what they are talking about when they use the word "Socialist". Realize too that Americans have a very cartoonish and very black and white view of the world. Socialist and/or communist are the same thing in American speak - and what comes to mind immediately when you say the word "Socialist" to the average American is a grim militaristic society in which everyone is desperately poor, wears all gray, and stands in line all day for a loaf of bread while guards on every street corner hold machine guns and glare at people.

I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.


I would like to confirm this. I consider myself intelligent. Im college educated. yet, last week I spent two hours trying to find out what the fuck socialism actually is and why Obama was being called one. The conclusion I came to was it was just more hypocritical BS. Some things are ok to be sponsored by the gov't ...ie schools, welfare, disability payment. but others not... ie. health care. Ive had the opportunity to travel to a few parts of world. And it changed my outlook in life because it broke down the fallacies I was taught as a kid about America being the best and everywhere else inferior. I had a close friend attend med. school in a county with social medicine. he became very sick and was in ICU. Never paid a dime as a foreigner and as a med student said he had great care. How is this bad socialism yet I personally know four people on disability from the gov't and I dont think one of them really needs it. yet somehow, this is good socialism?

stoned88911 I think youre speaking in black and white. Not everyone can be a billionaire. you said it yourself.... brains and hard work. what if you have no brains? shitty luck? I also know smart hard working people that dont have much because they choose to have some level of morality. Morality can hold many people back from making massive amounts of money. Furthermore, I would argue that many athletes and modern day musicians dont have super high IQ's (but high earners)and some dont even have work ethics. For every LaBron James there is a Sabatian Telfare!

[IAmKowalski]

This black and white thinking is the problem I was getting at.

Dude - All modern societies are socialist to some degree including the United States. Thinking of it as Black and White issue (Democracy & Capitalism versus Socialism and Big Brother) is juvenile and silly.

The Wic program, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Programs, Federal/State Student financial aid programs. Are these anti-democratic institutions? Do they hinder the hand of the free market?

How about the FDA? Completely free markets do not exist because it would be dangerous. Would you prefer that no standards for safety and hygiene be set for the food you eat?

Do you drive a car? Would you be happier if every road were privately owned? What would your commute be like with a toll gate every few miles paying a different owner for the use of their section of highway?

Speaking of that car - your seat belts, crumple zones, air bags, and other safety standards are set because our "evil socialist government" has set standards that manufacturers must meet for any vehicle that is to be licensed and driven on our roads.

What about the EPA? Would you be happier if we went back to the days when the air of our cities was black with soot?

A pure free-market society would be an absolute nightmare to live in - and even more of a nightmare to do business in.

Now, the difference is in degree - and of realistic perspective. The fiction says that this is the land of opportunity in which anyone can be a millionaire if they just work hard enough (or billionaire as someone said earlier in this thread) Isn't it strange then, that we have the highest disparity of wealth of any industrialized nation in the world? The fiction says that we have the best healthcare system in the world. Isn't it strange then that we have a shorter average life span and pay more per capita for health care than all these evil socialist societies with single-payer health care systems that we're so proud not to be?

This juvenile Us and Them, Black and White, Day and Night thinking just isn't productive, and doesn't accurately reflect any real society or government in the world.

[flyingimam]

I would like to confirm this. I consider myself intelligent. Im college educated. yet, last week I spent two hours trying to find out what the fuck socialism actually is and why Obama was being called one. The conclusion I came to was it was just more hypocritical BS. Some things are ok to be sponsored by the gov't ...ie schools, welfare, disability payment. but others not... ie. health care. Ive had the opportunity to travel to a few parts of world. And it changed my outlook in life because it broke down the fallacies I was taught as a kid about America being the best and everywhere else inferior. I had a close friend attend med. school in a county with social medicine. he became very sick and was in ICU. Never paid a dime as a foreigner and as a med student said he had great care. How is this bad socialism yet I personally know four people on disability from the gov't and I dont think one of them really needs it. yet somehow, this is good socialism?

stoned88911 I think youre speaking in black and white. Not everyone can be a billionaire. you said it yourself.... brains and hard work. what if you have no brains? shitty luck? I also know smart hard working people that dont have much because they choose to have some level of morality. Morality can hold many people back from making massive amounts of money. Furthermore, I would argue that many athletes and modern day musicians dont have super high IQ's (but high earners)and some dont even have work ethics. For every LaBron James there is a Sabatian Telfare!

i gotta give it to ya: well said.

there is a wisdom in 1 year of traveling to different parts of the world and learning about different systems, cultures and perspectives that one cannot find in a decade of studying in one location, even if it's the best university in the world.

I've met a number of Americans who have traveled and lived abroad and almost every single one of them says something similar to the above story (including some of my professors, and I'm talking about Texas people, u know...)

but i already know the counter argument: "I aint gonna pay a dime for someone else's health problems cuz when i need help, i can take care of myself"

I wish every person who says such a thing was actually a follower of this idea, but a lot of people just gurgle this idea and dont even know why and barely follow it. insurance for instance is basically using other people's money to your advantage. also u pay for your time of need and other people's problems even if u never use it due to excellent health. get it? its just profit oriented for insurance companies

Social healthcare system, is basically a non-profit insurance system governed by a government entity. Taxes are the premiums, everyone should pay them, sure not everyone does, but this will not make the system any bad. just think about it, doesn't this system sound familiar?

In Texas we have 1 out of 5 drivers without liability insurance on the roads which causes other people's premiums to go higher and public safety risks to increase. Regardless, still those who follow the rules and laws and pay taxes and premiums still "pay the cost" of the irresponsible individuals. because the insurance companies are profit based and will pass their risk cost to their customers... OK for car insurance which is not nearly as expensive and as hard to get as health insurance I'm down with free market and competition.

but healthcare is a different issue, as the saying says "one is too many" we are dealing with something that cannot be manipulated, "health".

sadly, one problem with profit oriented healthcare is that it plays with people's quality of life and even their death, over what? profit and money? I don't think money is worth everything. At least a companies' or a few in individuals (shareholders) profit aint worth nobodies life.

its called healthcare how can u take "care" of someone's health when the first order of business is to take care of your money even if its at expense of someone's life. these two will not always go along, u know...

see, doctors and hospital staff are usually sworn and thus provide healthcare and emergencies (lets say most of the time) to even those whom they know will not pay the cost, thats an ethical behavior. but insurance companies dont think that way.

[stoned88911]

If u want something bad enough in america u can get it. The goverment isnt going to hold you back.


Of course there is pros and cons on every type of goverment

Just in MY OPINION socialism pros dont outweighn there cons.

[IAmKowalski]

The "I don't want to pay for some lazy bum's healthcare" logic is faulty.

First, for those at the bottom of the economic pool the only health care options available are emergency rooms and - if you're lucky and live in large enough of an urban area to have such facilities - a free clinic. If you have the cash or if you have the insurance, you are footing the bill in higher costs when you check into the hospital. The money has to come from somewhere.

Secondly, we lack a single-payer health care plan and therefore have enormous overhead and administrative costs - much higher than any other nation - because we duplicate the same tasks over and over and over again.

Third, debilitating medical conditions put people into a situation where they must struggle to get by - thereby creating a drain on society as a whole. Easily prevented and easily treated health issues can become much more serious, and much more expensive, when routine care is not an option, only emergency room visits when the problem becomes serious enough.

We pay more per person in the United States for health care than any other country in the world. Think about that.

We pay more, and we get less. Our average life expectancy is shorter in the United States than the U.K, Canada, Japan, Most of Europe, and we keep falling further and further behind. As of 2004, we are ranked 42nd in the world in terms of life expectancy. If our healthcare system is supposed to be the best in the world, how can this be?

So let's think about this: We want to fight against the idea of a single payer health care system because we don't want to subsidize some lazy schmuck. As a result we ALL pay more for OUR OWN healthcare than we would under a single payer system that covers everyone. And what do we get out of the deal? We get a society that has to deal with the economic burdon of more people who are disabled, dying, or simply too sick to work. Does that seem like a good deal to you?

And what about that "lazy" schmuck that you don't want to help? Are you better off when the minimum wage worker down the street gets evicted from their home because they weren't able to work for a month or two due to illness? Does one more boarded up house on your street and one more homeless person in your city help your property value? What about the mother who can't get to work because her car got reposesed when she couldn't make the payment after her kid broke his arm and she had to take him to the hospital - is that going to help you out in the end? Is the economy in your town going to be better off with one less paycheck coming in and one less paycheck being spent in local shops?

Guess what folks - the more people unemployed in your city, the harder it is for anyone to get a decent job - 'cause with more people unemployed there's always someone else willing to do the same job for less. Higher unemployment means lower wages, and lower wages mean less income for merchants. The more people who scrape by just to afford the bare minimum for groceries at Aldi foods - the less money local businesses receive. Remember Joe the plumber? If someone can't afford to buy food or pay the bills, they aren't going to be calling Joe when the bathroom sink starts leaking - they'll just have to put a pot under it to catch the drips. Joe looses out.
And it isn't just Joe - what happens to whole streets when owner after owner has to put off painting their house for another year, has to put off basic repairs - what happens to YOUR home value then, neighbor? The real world isn't a big game with everyone else as the competition, it's one big interconnected economy and the better off the majority is the better the opportunities for success for any one individual in the community - including you.

[flyingimam]

all that shit u just typed, for sake of space :D

IOU another + rep man!

[JeffersonBud]

Want to know why a socialist party is bad? Watch the movie "The Lives of Others" (its a German flick). you can rent it at blockbuster. One of the best movies ever to grace the screen.

[bigtopsfinn]

Want to know why a socialist party is bad? Watch the movie "The Lives of Others" (its a German flick). you can rent it at blockbuster. One of the best movies ever to grace the screen.

YES!!! Great movie actually... but as iamkowalski explained earlier, this is the society where everyone wears gray and in the militaristic society. This is hard-core socialism, and it is actually a true story.

When communism was first "invented", it was a great idea, and many people embraced it. Over time, we saw that it was great on paper, but just didn't work in practice (the only exception being Cuba). Now, who is to say that capitalism works either? We human beings have a problem, where we tend to do things for our own good, and not the greater good. This happens in communism and capitalism...

Thanks everyone for replying, and not letting this get out of control like some of the other political threads!

[maladroit]

"Socialism and Capitalism are unable to coexists."

- they coexist in the usa where some financial institutions are privately owned, some are part private and part government, and some of the largest are 100% government owned

[ralphbuick]

Socialism is Bad = Greed is Good

[theforthdrive]

sadly, one problem with profit oriented healthcare is that it plays with people's quality of life and even their death, over what? profit and money? I don't think money is worth everything. At least a companies' or a few in individuals (shareholders) profit aint worth nobodies life.

its called healthcare how can u take "care" of someone's health when the first order of business is to take care of your money even if its at expense of someone's life. these two will not always go along, u know...


Love it. this is a major issue with me! Im guessing stoned88911, youve never been placed in a position of being at the mercy of insurance co. and medical bills. We can beat this dead horse all we want, but some people dont see that we do have social aspects in the US gov't. Where do you stand on the 700 bil. bailout? thats direct socialism if you ask me. we just nationalized a large portion of the banking industry but somehow the mention of allowing proper health care is socialist propaganda. I just think that if we are not going to have a complete laissez faire gov't two things should be the right of every American, greatest nation on earth :D, healthcare and education. maybe we should start making everyone pay to go to school too, huh?

[bigtopsfinn]

I may have found my answer:

For those who don't know Geert Hofstede, he is a Dutch researcher who studied cultural differences from country to country (I think about 80 countries in total). He had 5 different dimensions, and individualism was one of them:

"There are only seven (7) countries in the Geert Hofstede research that have Individualism (IDV) as their highest Dimension: USA (91), Australia (90), United Kingdom (89), Netherlands and Canada (80), and Italy (76).

The high Individualism (IDV) ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. The populace is more self-reliant and looks out for themselves and their close family members."

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Americans (in general) to not favor socialist ideas... just thought it was interesting. here's the link if you want to see more: United States - US or American Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Explained (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_united_states.shtml)

[Fugitive]

I think the current form of socialism is a damaging and false ideology. This relatively new socialist experiment in Europe, I believe, will be detrimental in the long run. This may sound harsh, but it is essentially funding the lazy and incompetent. As well as encouraging them to breed (more children more money).

If you don't contribute to society then society should not contribute to you. Following that logic I would be in favour of healthcare for those who work or are incapable because of disease or handicap. I would also agree to scholarships for good students. I believe with the money saved people who truly need help will get more attention.

AT THE VERY least the people on welfare should get a job list they can accept or refuse for two months. If they keep refusing and are perfectly able, then the funding should not continue. I know that businesses are turning to china and it leaves many people unemployed . . . but aren't we always told we need immigrants to fill jobs? Something doesn't add up.

[maladroit]

whatever the usa is doing is even more damaging because it's resulted in:

- $10.5 trillion national debt
- 45 million people with NO health insurance
- another 40 million people with inadequate health insurance
- substandard health outcomes compared to other developed countries
- substandard education compared to other developed countries

that doesn't mean the usa is a terrible place, or that i hate the usa...it means the usa government is not doing a very good job of protecting and promoting the public interest...it's up to the people to demand more from their government (and not just more tax cuts)

[JaySin]

IamKowalski, brilliant post!

Health care shouldn't be a luxury that only the wealthy can afford.

[stoned88911]

Ur right i dont have insurance problems

Because im not lazy and i work and make a buncha money.

Im sorry u should get insurance or a job with insurance benefits.

And im so glad my goverment doesnt take my very hard earned money and give it to the person who stays home all day and watches tv. Becuase they deserve nothing from the goverment GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!

[stoned88911]

whatever the usa is doing is even more damaging because it's resulted in:

- $10.5 trillion national debt
- 45 million people with NO health insurance
- another 40 million people with inadequate health insurance
- substandard health outcomes compared to other developed countries
- substandard education compared to other developed countries

that doesn't mean the usa is a terrible place, or that i hate the usa...it means the usa government is not doing a very good job of protecting and promoting the public interest...it's up to the people to demand more from their government (and not just more tax cuts)



Sounds like usa has 45 million lazy people.

No reason to steal from the hard working.

[JaySin]

Sounds like usa has 45 million lazy people.

No reason to steal from the hard working.

You're statement is so full of BS.

I have several friends that work VERY HARD and even put in overtime whenever possible. Yet they can not afford health care or schooling because they need to pay for their living expenses. Yet the extra money they do make they give to their family because they are not greedy slobs. Now if only we could only see all of America as our family like we should, then everyone would have the chance to be healthy and educated and get a decent job.

People aren't lazy just cause they want to be. People are lazy because we put them there. America makes goals harder to obtain then they need to be. So even if someone is working really hard and making their way up, they are forced back down because of a medical bill. Why should people work and try to contribute to society if society doesn't even give a fuck about them or their health?

If you are going to try and fight how much of a good idea socialized health care and education is, maybe you should provide some useful arguments instead of some disgusting generalizations.

[stoned88911]

Please go to a socialist country.


Goverment is suposed to supply people wth diffence.

Not pay there bills, buy insurance, or wipe are butts.

Ya socialism sounds good, ya sounds sweet dont have to work as hard to get good things, why wouldnt anyone want that.

Oh ya if we do that, we wont have the largest military.

Im sure your not worried about it u didnt live threw ww1 or ww2 and neither did i.
But when ww3 comes, and dont kid urself it WILL HAPPEN, id rather have trouble paying for insurance then having to dig a hole to live in.

[IAmKowalski]

Please go to a socialist country.


Goverment is suposed to supply people wth diffence.

Not pay there bills, buy insurance, or wipe are butts.

Ya socialism sounds good, ya sounds sweet dont have to work as hard to get good things, why wouldnt anyone want that.

Oh ya if we do that, we wont have the largest military.

Im sure your not worried about it u didnt live threw ww1 or ww2 and neither did i.
But when ww3 comes, and dont kid urself it WILL HAPPEN, id rather have trouble paying for insurance then having to dig a hole to live in.
Wow. Just Wow.

[GrinKyle]

Please go to a socialist country.


Goverment is suposed to supply people wth diffence.

Not pay there bills, buy insurance, or wipe are butts.

Ya socialism sounds good, ya sounds sweet dont have to work as hard to get good things, why wouldnt anyone want that.

Oh ya if we do that, we wont have the largest military.

Im sure your not worried about it u didnt live threw ww1 or ww2 and neither did i.
But when ww3 comes, and dont kid urself it WILL HAPPEN, id rather have trouble paying for insurance then having to dig a hole to live in.

Are you in fantasy land?

Or do you actually think this way on a daily basis?

[thcbongman]

Question.. if Other countries who have socialist practices are so much better.. why are we #1 in GDP? Socialism directly impacts your ability to control the direction in which your life takes.

Case in point and I hope someone here can chime in to acknowledge as what i'm saying is true, because I'm sure everyone here who hasn't lived in the netherlands will call me a liar.. but here we go.

In the netherlands the government for the most part tells you where to live. If you have a 4 person household then you are told where to live. If your household downsizes to 2 people then you are moved right away to a smaller home.

Recently a friend of mine's grandmother lost her husband. Within 1 day she was notified that she would be being relocated to a smaller home.

When someone has rule over where you live then where is your motivation to aspire for more in life. A person could say that all their aspirations in life revolve around a person's home. To change it to their liking.. to update it.. to make it a comfortable environment for themselves. What aspiration do you have to make the money to do this when the government tells you where to live (taxes are also way high there too).

I love Europe.. I love visiting; but I wouldn't want to live there primarily for the number of social programs and fairly socialist governments there. I don't like being told what I can and can't do... which is the same problem I have with the direction the American Government is going. Our government is starting to get so bloated it's ridiculous.

Less government now please!

Were #1 in GDP because we have a lot of capital, a lot of resources and a ton of land. It has little to do with the social services that could be provided or how much the government controls.

If you look at GDP per capita, already two "socialist" countries beats the USA, Norway and Ireland. Both countries have mixed economies, welfare systems, and free education to everyone. Look at the countries slightly behind. Switzerland is one of the most capitalistic countries in the world, home to a gluton of multinational corporations and bankers, yet they offer a ton of social programs. The Netherlands, despite being told where they are housed have about $5000 less than Amerca per capita.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

I believe a capitalistic with elements of socialism can help American continue to prosper, plus re-focus on education and health and in the long-run it'll continue long-run prosperity. I believe the American government should pay for students that deserve it. Not only would it raise academic standards for institutions, but would inspire a population to focus on education knowing they have the opportunity to get an education for free without incurring a rack of debt.

And lack of choice? Most those school systems allow you to attend private schools like anyone else. No one is telling anywhere where to go to school or where they should be hospitalized. If you don't have the money, you really don't have an option have you? But it's better than nothing at all. So much for being told what to do. There are some restrictions when it comes to some social programs but they aren't so hampering as everyone makes it out to be. You have the choice to pay your own way.

[flyingimam]

Please go to a socialist country.


Goverment is suposed to supply people wth diffence.

Not pay there bills, buy insurance, or wipe are butts.

Ya socialism sounds good, ya sounds sweet dont have to work as hard to get good things, why wouldnt anyone want that.

Oh ya if we do that, we wont have the largest military.

Im sure your not worried about it u didnt live threw ww1 or ww2 and neither did i.
But when ww3 comes, and dont kid urself it WILL HAPPEN, id rather have trouble paying for insurance then having to dig a hole to live in.

hahaha :S2:

duuuuude!!! what kind of weed are u smoking, it must be some real strong sativa, share the secret with me;)

what u typed here sounds very paranoid, i mean on scale of 1-10, 1 being the most laid back or careless person u have known to date and 10 being the simpletons who stared at me while I was in the plane, thinking I'm a terrorist or something just cuz of my facial hair, my unibrow or skin color (that shit was as funny as it was annoying to me then) u stand at 11 :D

[8182KSKUSH]

Ur right i dont have insurance problems

Because im not lazy and i work and make a buncha money.

Im sorry u should get insurance or a job with insurance benefits.

And im so glad my goverment doesnt take my very hard earned money and give it to the person who stays home all day and watches tv. Becuase they deserve nothing from the goverment GET JOBS!!!!!!!!!!!


Sounds like usa has 45 million lazy people.

No reason to steal from the hard working.


Please go to a socialist country.


Goverment is suposed to supply people wth diffence.

Not pay there bills, buy insurance, or wipe are butts.

Ya socialism sounds good, ya sounds sweet dont have to work as hard to get good things, why wouldnt anyone want that.

Oh ya if we do that, we wont have the largest military.

Im sure your not worried about it u didnt live threw ww1 or ww2 and neither did i.
But when ww3 comes, and dont kid urself it WILL HAPPEN, id rather have trouble paying for insurance then having to dig a hole to live in.

I love it!:D:thumbsup:
You are probably better off talking to your plants though! The "True Believers" they are many here!
Sadly though, we already have socialist programs and have had them for some time. I have realized that we are on the fast track to this if someone doesn't step up in the next 20 years and straighten shit up quick fast and in a hurry. (And apparently McCain ain't the one to do it, but of course on the other hand you have...duhdaduah! So of course I will support McCain.)(Lesser of 2 evils, another thread).
I have never, in my life, ever, met anyone that attributes their life's success to any kind of "social, welfare program." Never.
Not ever.
You know, like, "Aw, thank you, thank you, I would like to thank so and so and oh yeah, I could have never made it to where I am today if it were not for my subsidized housing and welfare food stamps! Thank you big brother for "helping" me out.Golly, I could have never done it without you,"
and of course, Big Brother saying all the while,
"yes you are helpless, and you can't make it without my help, that's why it's so important to vote for me, the other guy is rich and he hates poor people. And he has all your money you should have, (if you actually worked of course) and you have no chance now, the rich guy has all the money there will ever be and there's none left for you yes!!!"
Does anyone not clearly see why it is not a good thing for the "people" to become dependant on the federal government?
How would you feel if the government legalized cannabis, but only goverment grown cannabis. They of course use a secret police to literally destroy any and all remnants of any other cannabis genetics, except for theirs, (which in the hypothetical scenario, sucks.) Then they make you go to one place, that is 100 times more crowded and slow than the post office if the people from the DMV were all filling in. And you get 1 gram, per day, that's it, because that's the way it is because that's what big brother says. Digg.
Everyone gets cannabis now if they want it, and everyone gets the same too, so there is no more "oh waa, I only get this and so and so gets that", everyone just gets the same, shit ass brick. Oh and did I mention the gram included seeds that were sterile and stems.
So is that what you want?
Of course the joke here is that even as a socialist republic we would still not legalize cannabis. But just a scenario folks could relate to. :D

[IAmKowalski]

I love it!:D:thumbsup:
You are probably better off talking to your plants though! The "True Believers" they are many here!
Sadly though, we already have socialist programs and have had them for some time. I have realized that we are on the fast track to this if someone doesn't step up in the next 20 years and straighten shit up quick fast and in a hurry. (And apparently McCain ain't the one to do it, but of course on the other hand you have...duhdaduah! So of course I will support McCain.)(Lesser of 2 evils, another thread).
I have never, in my life, ever, met anyone that attributes their life's success to any kind of "social, welfare program." Never.
Not ever.
You know, like, "Aw, thank you, thank you, I would like to thank so and so and oh yeah, I could have never made it to where I am today if it were not for my subsidized housing and welfare food stamps! Thank you big brother for "helping" me out.Golly, I could have never done it without you,"
and of course, Big Brother saying all the while,
"yes you are helpless, and you can't make it without my help, that's why it's so important to vote for me, the other guy is rich and he hates poor people. And he has all your money you should have, (if you actually worked of course) and you have no chance now, the rich guy has all the money there will ever be and there's none left for you yes!!!"
Does anyone not clearly see why it is not a good thing for the "people" to become dependant on the federal government?
How would you feel if the government legalized cannabis, but only goverment grown cannabis. They of course use a secret police to literally destroy any and all remnants of any other cannabis genetics, except for theirs, (which in the hypothetical scenario, sucks.) Then they make you go to one place, that is 100 times more crowded and slow than the post office if the people from the DMV were all filling in. And you get 1 gram, per day, that's it, because that's the way it is because that's what big brother says. Digg.
Everyone gets cannabis now if they want it, and everyone gets the same too, so there is no more "oh waa, I only get this and so and so gets that", everyone just gets the same, shit ass brick. Oh and did I mention the gram included seeds that were sterile and stems.
So is that what you want?
Of course the joke here is that even as a socialist republic we would still not legalize cannabis. But just a scenario folks could relate to. :D

:S2:

[JakeMartinez]

Why are the people who are all against socialism espousing the same fears "Black and White", militaristic communism have brought us?

Socialism is NOT communism.

In a socialist society, what you earn is yours.

In a communist society, what you earn is the property of the public.

That is one of the major differences between socialism and communism. People act as though paying an extra .25% of their money out to universal health care is abhorrent, but think about how much money you pay for insurance (or your employer).

If you have health insurance that you rarely use, you are paying for someone else's insurance, and to line the shareholders' pockets.

To truly pay for your own way in the health care department, don't buy insurance. Don't do it. I dare you. Maybe then we'll all see you on the AARP commercials telling your story of how you lost your life because you have cancer or some sudden, expensive disease.

Personally, I'd rather have government involved because they aren't motivated in making money, so it would be less expensive in the long run.

.....

Also, you guys act like Capitalism is the best thing we'll ever have in the world. Like it's a perfect system.

Two things.

The global economy is capitalistic, 28,000 children a day die from starvation and preventable illnesses. Many HARD-WORKING people live in poverty despite having a steady job and busting their asses. I know someone who is one of the best in his business at least in the state, yet he's busting his ass just to pay his mortgage each month.

Also, everything that nature or we create will, unless restricted, constantly change. It will be updated, fixed, streamlined, and (more often than not) eventually replaced. To say that free-market trading is the best thing we could ever hope to achieve is to restrict ourselves from living healthier, longer, and better lives.

[Reefer Rogue]

I'd much rather live in England where my health care is free, where the government actually cares about the people, rather then the profits. I'll gladly pay taxes to help people in need. The amount of money you're forced to pay for an American college is deplorable, these are 2 reasons i moved back to England from America. The people are great but the laws suck ass, too harsh, too republican, too reactionary. Not enough equality in society. All they wanna do is bleed you dry. This is why Obama will win, because these are the key issues which affect a majority of people in difficult economic circumstances. People aren't even aware of the differences between positive and negative liberty. Too many people want too much negative liberty, they want the government out of their lives, they see them as people who interfere in your business. Whereas positive liberty is where the government uses its tools and power to help people in need with social reform and welfare and health insurance and college costs. There's been so much negative liberty recently, the republicans thought the wealth would trickle down but the wealth must start from the bottom up. This is how the economy will really prosper, when people on main street have enough confidence and money to start buying and investing again.

[apocolips31]

There are a lot of reasons for this - first, realize that Americans don't actually know what they are talking about when they use the word "Socialist". Realize too that Americans have a very cartoonish and very black and white view of the world. Socialist and/or communist are the same thing in American speak - and what comes to mind immediately when you say the word "Socialist" to the average American is a grim militaristic society in which everyone is desperately poor, wears all gray, and stands in line all day for a loaf of bread while guards on every street corner hold machine guns and glare at people.

I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.

Damn must of been some feat to have met all 305 million Americans personally. That or that is one of the most ignorant statements in this thread.

[maladroit]

"im so glad my goverment doesnt take my very hard earned money and give it to the person who stays home all day and watches tv."

- if you are an american, your government does take your hard earned money and give it to the person who stays home all day and watches tv...ever hear of social security? medicaid? food stamps? police protection? fire protection? paved roads? now that 'socialist' john mccain is promising to give low income people another $300 billion of your money to help them keep homes they can't afford, while maintaining the rest of the so-called socialist programs that benefit people who don't work or pay a cent in income tax...how come you're not complaining about that?

[FlyGuyOU]

Obama has managed to turn 'Welfare' into 'tax credits'

fucking genius!

[maladroit]

then ronald reagan turned welfare in tax credits when he created earned income tax credits! OMG obama is a republican or reagan is a socialist - either way we're screwed!!


critique of ronald reagan's earned income tax credit:
Tax Credit or Income Transfer? by Laurence M. Vance (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance11.html)

[GoldenBoy812]

I have been letting this topic marinate, until the urge could not be resistd anymore.

1.) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.) Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4.) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7.) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10.) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc....

Most of that above list is unconstitutional. But look at how many exist today.

Planks #2, #5, #6, and # 10 are already present, or were present in the last 50 years. During the Kennedy administration, there was a 91% income tax on the highest earners at that time. This country has already given way to socialist policy during the great depression, when it was believed that government intervention would be the savior. Even to this day, many are taught in schools, it was FDR's policies that paved the way for recovery.

It is the abolishment of rights that allows socialist policy to function, more specifically privacy. One of the main reasons i oppose state provided health care is because it instantly blurs the line between your privacy and government. Socialized health care also has a serious question mark in regards to more prestigious medical school graduate's income vs less prestigious school graduate's. Does a doctor from Harvard have the right to charge more than the state is willing to pay for the average person, therefore excluding all those who cannot afford top notch health care resulting in class based hostility.

I love how people are now calling government intervention in the markets socialist, when the same scenario happened over 75 years ago. But do remember. A society that leans more towards more free markets will always be more productive than their left leaning counterparts. It is apparent in cyclical recovery as citizens of the US are far less impacted in terms of overall wealth, buying power, and access to goods and services. Believe it or not, there were always people who were able to pay for things in "cash". The people who have done well with their finances are actually being rewarded with higher purchasing power relative more specifically to imports.

There are 380 million gallons of gasoline used daily. This is giving a weekly saving of about $3.8 billion to consumers and producers. Farther left economic leaning countries will face more harsh realities...

[maladroit]

"A society that leans more towards more free markets will always be more productive than their left leaning counterparts."

- then why doesn't the free market approach work with US health care? despite paying twice as much per capita for health care compared to canada, americans see their doctors less often, and spend less time in hospital than canadians, and experience a 2.5 year shorter lifespan, along with higher infant mortality...that's not very productive

[JaySin]

It's more productive because that's what they've been telling us for a long time now so that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter that it is obviously not working and leaving people behind.

If you think about it, having a shorter life span helps us out. That just means that the poor people die off faster so we don't have to listen to them complain about how unfair they are being treated. How they don't even get the chance at good education or health care because of the rediculous costs. I know I don't like people complaining, do you? So lets just keep heading in the direction we've been heading. Eventually will be able to just kill them all off with some sort of disease or starvation. Who cares, as long as I don't have to hear the comlaining anymore. I mean, I have my money and well-being and that's all that matters.

[maladroit]

poor people are so noisy and smelly that i have to stuff $1000 bills in my ears and nostrils before i venture outside

[GoldenBoy812]

"A society that leans more towards more free markets will always be more productive than their left leaning counterparts."

- then why doesn't the free market approach work with US health care? despite paying twice as much per capita for health care compared to canada, americans see their doctors less often, and spend less time in hospital than canadians, and experience a 2.5 year shorter lifespan, along with higher infant mortality...that's not very productive

There are plenty of factors that lead to high life expectency, of which are far more heavily weighted than "health systems" to reflect total life expectancy. One of which is lifestyle, another is stress; this truly says something that goes along with part of the OP's premise.

Secondly, there is not a free market in regards to healthcare... It's heavy regulations here in the US lead to an oligopoly of firms. State regulatins alone in regards to insurance completely distorts the market.

[Fugitive]

There is no such thing as free healthcare; the people who will pay for it are the middle class who have worked all their lives. The very rich will not, they have their tax free havens. If Obama even attempts to reach in their pockets, an assassination is certain, conveniently blamed on white supremacists.

Look forward to free tattoo removal and other general stupidity.

NHS blows millions on removing tattoos - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article609160.ece)
Cancer patients ‘betrayed’ by NHS - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4040168.ece)

Most nations in the world are socialistic to some extent today.

Anarchy = no discipline
Socialism = government imposed discipline
Capitalism = self discipline

[theforthdrive]

Secondly, there is not a free market in regards to healthcare... It's heavy regulations here in the US lead to an oligopoly of firms. State regulatins alone in regards to insurance completely distorts the market.

exactly, Im not arguing for socialism. Trust me, Im acutely aware that "those that much is given, much is needed" My point is that socialism already exists on a large level. We dont have a completely free market and having seen a social healthcare at work. I would like to see it in this country. I would be willing to give up welfare, food stamps, and half of the disability cases to pay for healthcare. I think its that important. I just dont understand how someone really thinks that welfare, food stamps, and disability are not social programs and enable fools to sit on their ass all day. trust me, I have two close people in my life that collect disability (in my opinion needlessly) and dont give anything back to society... or even put in so much that they deserve to sit on their ass all day. yet, despite our anit-socialism rhetoric our gov't sends them a check every month! Thats FUCKING socialistic!

[GoldenBoy812]

I'd much rather live in England where my health care is free, where the government actually cares about the people, rather then the profits. I'll gladly pay taxes to help people in need. The amount of money you're forced to pay for an American college is deplorable, these are 2 reasons i moved back to England from America. The people are great but the laws suck ass, too harsh, too republican, too reactionary. Not enough equality in society. All they wanna do is bleed you dry. This is why Obama will win, because these are the key issues which affect a majority of people in difficult economic circumstances. People aren't even aware of the differences between positive and negative liberty. Too many people want too much negative liberty, they want the government out of their lives, they see them as people who interfere in your business. Whereas positive liberty is where the government uses its tools and power to help people in need with social reform and welfare and health insurance and college costs. There's been so much negative liberty recently, the republicans thought the wealth would trickle down but the wealth must start from the bottom up. This is how the economy will really prosper, when people on main street have enough confidence and money to start buying and investing again.

Being that we are a republic, i damn sure expect the laws to be that of a republican standard. :jointsmile:

You are refering to "freedom of" vs "freedom from". The American creation was based on a strict balance between the two, where you have the freedom of speech, religion etc... (that had been denied for ages), and you have freedom from your governments ability to take that away. We are talking federal, as states truly had the power to act more so how the federal government does today, which creates a competition among states.

Its not that i am against socialized health care, just that i do not want such things dictated from Washington DC. States should have the right to enact such policies, as well as preform the will of the people, as it is through or state where the democratic process ends. If success is achieved, other states will eventually adopt such policies which can lead to a constitutional ammendment (just so it does not interfere with aspects of the constitution). This rightous path has been stolen from the American people and now live on the dictatorship of Washington...

Think about it for a second, if a state wants to employ more safety nets, it will have to tax its people more heavily. If this leads to greater production from its populace, other states will adopt similar policy. Remember, wealth is not a zero sum game. Slavery actually sapped the wealth of the south after the slaves were free. The north was always more productive, which should have been a great indicator that an economy based on slave labor made even a smidget of pareto efficiency impossible.

In reality, it was not about efficiency, nor was it about doing the right thing. Slavery was used by the south to keep the price of cotton cheap over the short run. Over the long run it backfired.

I guess what i am trying to say is, states should be the sole provider of social safety nets. Just so long as they do not deny your constitutional rights:jointsmile: But when it comes to competing against capitalist states, one will always outshine the other. Free markets always win, and they never discriminate...

[GoldenBoy812]

exactly, Im not arguing for socialism. Trust me, Im acutely aware that "those that much is given, much is needed" My point is that socialism already exists on a large level. We dont have a completely free market and having seen a social healthcare at work. I would like to see it in this country. I would be willing to give up welfare, food stamps, and half of the disability cases to pay for healthcare. I think its that important. I just dont understand how someone really thinks that welfare, food stamps, and disability are not social programs and enable fools to sit on their ass all day. trust me, I have two close people in my life that collect disability (in my opinion needlessly) and dont give anything back to society... or even put in so much that they deserve to sit on their ass all day. yet, despite our anit-socialism rhetoric our gov't sends them a check every month! Thats FUCKING socialistic!

One of the main reasons socialized health care will never be fully adopted is because it will lead to a deficient research and development budget. Sad but true, the driving force in global innovation is profit.

[theforthdrive]

One of the main reasons socialized health care will never be fully adopted is because it will lead to a deficient research and development budget. Sad but true, the driving force in global innovation is profit.

Valid point. youre right, profit is the best drive for innovation. And lots of money goes into R & D. But I would also argue that lots of the R & D of big Pharma. is not needed. The med. schools could take back much of the research thru. gov't grants. I know I know. Thats more socialism. Fuck, I dont know what the answers are, I just know what we are doing now isnt working that well!

[JakeMartinez]

One of the main reasons socialized health care will never be fully adopted is because it will lead to a deficient research and development budget. Sad but true, the driving force in global innovation is profit.

I think that's false. Doctors and researches who are actually devoted to their work will still make the progress, and could be paid by the government for their hard work. If profit drove research, we would probably have cures for Diabetes, AIDS, and cancer right now. The problem is that it's much more profitable for these diseases to still be around than it is to cure them.

That's the sad part.

[daihashi]

I think that's false. Doctors and researches who are actually devoted to their work will still make the progress, and could be paid by the government for their hard work. If profit drove research, we would probably have cures for Diabetes, AIDS, and cancer right now. The problem is that it's much more profitable for these diseases to still be around than it is to cure them.

That's the sad part.

What's sad is that a good number of doctors do become doctors in order to make money. Socialized medicine would require regulation in other markets aside from the insurance industry otherwise costs would get out of hand. A doctor's Salary is directly dependant on what an insurance company will pay for. When you have a socialized healthcare plan then you force a TON of risk onto policy writer. The only way to cover the risk is to charge a high premium or to regulate other fields.

Shrug.. I like my doctor making 100-200k/year and I would hate to see that impeded when 61% of American's have employer based insurance, 19% have no insurance and the remainder have medicare/medicaid or are unconfirmed.

We've had a 9% decline in employer based insurance since 1988. That is less than 0.5% a year. This would seem to indicate a problem that needs to be addressed and not necessarily that we need to have a universal healthcare system.

[maladroit]

with universal health care, the doctor charges the health care plan (or the hospital) for each procedure, much the same way a doctor charges procedures to an insurance company or directly to an uninsured patient in the private USA health care system...unlike the private system, there is no insurance company in the universal health care system so it isn't overburdened with paperwork and profiteering...i think the usa is the only country in the world where the health care system is dedicated to avoiding the provision of health care by denying insurance coverage, which probably has a lot to do with the poor US healthcare outcomes compared to universal health care systems in other countries

[aceon9]

First, I think all of your comments are interesting but doesn't anybody think that the size and population of the U.S. is a factor in any of this?

I could compare a lemonade stand to coca cola and come to the conclusion that the owner of the lemonade stand (a 9 year old boy) has a better business plan then coca cola company because his profit margin is a lot higher due to his incredible efficiency an low over head.
truth be known he's not busy enough to have to deal with hiring employees, he only makes one kind of drink so there is never any waste, he's cute and has no competition

Look, there are over 300 MILLION people in the US 3rd highest in the world. Japan has a little over 100 Million.........that's a 3rd less
France has a little over 60 million........ that's 5 times less
the netherlands has a little over 15 million.....that's 20 times less

Life expectancy for the US is 78.06
Life expectancy in france is 80.59..... a little over 2 years
Does anybody have any idea of how many different life styles, eating habits there are in the US compared to ANY of the ones in question? It is proof of how great this country is that we are so closely comparable.

How about quality of life?
U.S. ranks 12th at 0.951
France ranks 11th at 0.952
Netherlands ranks 9th at 0.953
This is also how great this country is because we are so comparable.

On top of all of this, we have the largest and strongest military in the world....don't forget that. It costs a lot of money to be a super power.
Also, I've met many people in my life time that have flown here...to the US for surgery because their hospitals weren't good enough to take on a given procedure.
Something as simple as an MRI...something used quite frequently to find cancer in the body is not used in Canada, they have to drive over the border for that.
Now, of course there are examples of government run programs but that is the problem they keep growing and growing and growing.
That is the greed of the government...nothing more. Stamp out greed, make government smaller, that's how life gets better in the US.

If anybody really wants to know the truth look up who has been running this country since the 50's
Both the House and the Senate, you know the guys that vote on everything, have had a majority of democrats overwhelmingly since 1955.
Until 1983 there was never a republican majority for either.
Collectively the republicans have run both houses about a total of 20 times in 53 years that means that 80 times collectively the democrats have.

Good day and good luck!

[pipemanpiper]

it only about who is charge of the country if it a good then it would be good if a bad guy is in charge then it would be bad for the people, like how it was in eastern europe in the 80's,

[maladroit]

"Something as simple as an MRI...something used quite frequently to find cancer in the body is not used in Canada, they have to drive over the border for that."

- huh? we have MRI machines in canada (and not the flintstones version with a little bird inside the machine that creates the image with it's beak)...americans cross the border to get cheaper MRI's in canada
Canada MRI Scan Clinics for Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging Clinics in Canada (http://www.findprivateclinics.ca/MRI_Scan/82-0.html)

[Bongboy89]

Socialism is not bad when your taxes are just raised a bit higher, and you can get socialized prescription medicine, socialized health care, or socialized college... Yeah, I'm pretty optimistic about socialism, but other opinions may vary.

[maladroit]

i think the government has a role to play in making sure that essential services are available to everyone (defence, police, fire, health, sewage, roads, education, housing), but that doesn't mean the government has to operate the programs

[foxfire342]

Because socialism implies a government dominated centrally planned economy that allocates the nations resources at whatever the socialist rulers deem "just". It's principles detract from a market based economy system and without economic freedom you cannot have personal freedom.

[psychocat]

Please go to a socialist country.


Goverment is suposed to supply people wth diffence.

Not pay there bills, buy insurance, or wipe are butts.

Ya socialism sounds good, ya sounds sweet dont have to work as hard to get good things, why wouldnt anyone want that.

Oh ya if we do that, we wont have the largest military.

Im sure your not worried about it u didnt live threw ww1 or ww2 and neither did i.
But when ww3 comes, and dont kid urself it WILL HAPPEN, id rather have trouble paying for insurance then having to dig a hole to live in.

If as you predict a third world war should occur I think you're going to need a little more protection than your tinfoil hat will afford. .. :D

Healthcare and education should be free to everyone.

Financial success is a joke , I have made more money in the last 30 years than most people can dream of.
I have dined in the finest restaurants , drank expensive wines and flown first class , I have always been blessed with the ability to make money.

I would trade it all to be able to walk without pain , I have had MRI scans and doctors prodding and poking me and nobody can tell me what the cause is.

I am very happy with the lengths the docs have gone to in thier quest to help me , I suppose after all those years of working and paying taxes I am reaping the benefits of a society that believes in the idea of free healthcare for all.

The clinic I attend is a private clinic but my care is funded by the NHS.

[anomaloustango]

I think it's rather funny that the conservatives are always refering to the founding fathers and what not. If they even had the slightest knowledge of history they would know that the very figures that they hold up as standards and ideals were themselves mostly liberals. That's right Jefferson, Franklin, Rosseau, Voltaire, even Washington they were the fuition of a great liberal movement that started with the Renessance and then reemerged stronger in the Enlightenment. Now they were all products of their time so their liberal then is not ours now, but I can assure you that the conservatives were in favor of the royals holding all property and power and anyone who went against them was a liberal in that they believed in the equality of man before the law--a liberal--even revolutionary concept of the time--and the two great liberal movements, in France and America based themselves in a romaticised ideal of Ancient Greece and took it's notion of personal liberity from the Germanic peoples who replaced the Romans empire and who we know as all the various European strains--all Germanic--even Sanskrit comes from an archaic Germanic language. The whole movement of history is away from the conservative notions of power and toward a more equitable and higer notion of the value of a human being. The United States is already what you fear, but only for the power elite--they have socialism plus--they have just initiated the largest shift in wealth form the middle class to the upper in the history of history. Your notions of what capitalism actually is are distorted. You would not want to live in a purely capitalist country it would be hell, it would be like living in a world run by the mafia where only power and posessions counted for anything and these were continually irrevocably more and more concentrated in the hand of fewer and fewer families whose opinions would count billions of times more than you own, it would be a land were every road was a toll road and the price increased during rush hour. Listen when I was a young lad the average MD made about $25,000 a year--cared about his patients--who he actually was able to spend time with and made housecalls for a few bucks extra. Now most MD expect to be millionares by the time they are in their forties and care mostly about prestige possessions. This is just a fact when the difference between the rich and poor becomes so great as it has the entire society becomes focused on prestige possessions. When there is more equality of income the societies attentions are more focused on civic and human relationships. Also this always comes before the fall of a great country or empire, such as Rome where the income differential went from about 40-1 during the republic to the type of astonomical ratios we have today. I can't imagine how blind a person must be to be living through the first spasms of the fall of our nation as we have known it, as we are living through now, and think that the forces of unrestricted market speculation and gambling should not only go on as it has, but be more unrestricted and therefore coercive against everyone not in a privilaged position such as the CEOs and Power Elite who steer us from one crisis to another knowing we can always be divided by the slightest red herring, like flag burning, or gay marriage, so we are no threat to the shady money men who pull the strings and cause you to take up a polarized political position, which are both naive and ultimately self-defeating and futile, as regards the real values of human life and organization.

[overgrowthegovt]

Socialism is considered "bad" because of the media influence of the huge corporations who run the world and exploit its peoples (whether for labour or the dehumanization known as consumerism), and who do not want to see its staggering profits cut down by a more even distribution of wealth.

Also, concepts of privilege and aristocracy still permeate the Western consciousness: i.e. if you're rich and you get tried, you can afford a hot-shot lawyer who'll get you off or serving minimal time. If you're in the camp of the have-nots you'll have a stooge provided for you who will easily lose to the crown shark they'll have attack you.

I'm all for small business and free enterprise, but the line must be drawn at global corporate slavery and the denial of basic rights (like access to health care and quality legal protection) from those raised in uneducated slums. Brazil's Umber has some interesting theories on all this.

[anomaloustango]

What you said bro. Now all you misguided libertarians and neocons get thee to a nunnery or to youtube or a torrent index site and watch the entire series of the three part documentary Century of the Self by Adam Curtis -- the most important documentary that was ever made-- especially for Americans to see, and therefore never broadcast here or even carried as a selection on NetFlicks along with their reams of Jewish and Christian propaganda which they probably got for free that bulk up their instant viewing section trying to pass for history. Here is a clue: read Bondage of the Mind by Gold. I bet if you were raised anything like I was that you will be amazed that the most basic things that are reported in the Old testement (Tora) are just out right lies with absolutely no historical parellel and no metaphorical significane worth the time of day. And I am not talking about angels and fantastic myths here, I am takling about what passes to the majoity of right thinking conservative Americans as history and it has not the slightest basis in truth, no more than the rediculous projections of "social Darwinism" the Nazis made to try to establish their own similiar myth of being the chosen people--I mean superior race. If you have any doubt that the Israelis have become the Nazis just compare what the Nazis did to the Jewish getto in Warsaw and what the Isralies are doing to the Palestenians with their walls and illegal settlers then maybe go to the yahoo news video archives and search for Wild West Bank and watch that news video and the absolute sincerity that the Jewish babe has when she says to the camera that the Palistinians must learn to fear them because God has chosen them as his special people and given them this land--and the love in her heart (she's so prescious.) The same video shows gangs of teenage Isralis teens attacking a defensless old Palestinian shepard with axe handles--completely unprovoked--and beat him to the ground--watch it--its on Fox news no less--how the hell did that slip through. Don't you just wish all the Isralies and Arabs would kill each other and leave us the fuck alone. The funny thing about it is they are the same people--they can trace the mitochondrial dna back--the Jews are Arabs--well mostly half breeds from traveling around, but the part of them that is pure Jew is pure Arab--that alone should tell you that there is something deeply wrong here with the peoples that came from the cannites--the Jews and the Palestinians aren't you sick of them--I am--they will never change and the measily five million jews that live in the US have us at odds with the billion Moslems and they are all just nuts with their lies and their desperate attempt to escape the reality and shock of naked existance without a monumental false identity that they built up out of fear and thin air. These people and their whole warped concept of a partisan predatory evil God is insane and the fact that it was globbed onto a religion that was just begining to introduce the rudiments of a transcendent understanding of life to a spiteful and venemous nest of professinal rabbis--it was just a natural thing for such a people to murder an enlightened being just like it would happen in most moslem countries today is a Jesus appeared among them and spoke up--their the same people--its in their genes--except for those Jews who descended from the Kazars which was a sizable kingdom that converted to Jewdism in total when their king converted. These people did not come from Palestine at all like the "real" Jews--they were Turks--you can see it in the somatotype of many Russian Jews" they are genetically Turks with a little Russian and Cossack and Pole and German thrown in due to rape and ethnic mixing. It's all the same old divide and conquer bullshit. There are no Jews and Moslems and Christians itls all just a way of keeping humanity divided and enslaved by the kind of bastards who would feel no guilt at all for depriving anyone of anything as long as it made them richer--even if its only on paper--their illusion is worth more to them than your life. The worst of humanity leads us. The people who are totally self-decieved lead all over the world and people love them for it--see NPR's radio lab program "lying to ones self" and listen to the last fifteen minutes about the self-deception test that was developed--tell me that doesn't make your assumption's neck snap? That's your assignment--go forth and free you mind from knee jerk reactionism. --or not.

cheers

[maladroit]

if the jews who converted are not real jews, then are the christians who converted from judaism not real christians either?

[anomaloustango]

Ask a Hassid if a convert to Judism is a real Jew.
They will never really be thought of by the real Jews as real Jews which is doubly funny because the whole thing is all make up to begin with.
He who tells the stories ultimately controls the banks and some of us have been oh so busy telling stories.

I am a Gloik and you must respect the Gloiks because being a Gloik is not only my genetic ethnicity but is my religion and largely determines my political views. Part of being a Gloik it that we are distinguished from you in very important ways with it is against my religion to fully explain but I can tell you that Gloiks are special and you are not. But don't get offended because being a Gloik entails special responsibilities to lead the people of the earth out of darkness so you really have it better than me because being non Goikish you don't have to live up to Gods expectations because you are not his pet people and Goiks are. Really I can't explain it to you--it's a Goik thing--but thank God I am a Goik--it makes my life so much richer and special, and people just like me are really more real than people like you--what ever people you may be.

Probably one of those primitive tribes that thinks they are the only real human beings. No this comes in particularly handy during a crisis of a lack of brutality--but I can always remember that you are not really a real person not a fully formed one like the Goiks--and really God wants you dead anyway and he has put me here to test my faith by seeing if I am faithful enough to kill you without remorse.

And we Goiks do not answer hollow retorical questions that really amount to the nitpicking of one whose nits deserve to be picked on. It's fundamental don't you see?

[anomaloustango]

More specifically the test is to see if I can kill you without remorse and still remain a good person--thats a real leader for you--you gotta believe in youself--fuck all this questioning.

Did you know that the most successful people in this life
are the happiest and the happiest most successful people accross the board have been pretty much shown to have the least realistic self-concept and views. They are the most self-deceived of any subset of persons, but they are successful and happy, cause that's what it takes. While people who have shown them selves to have consistently realistic views of themselves and life tend to be at least a bit depressed. So basically you are dealing with a situation where everything will eventually become itr's own opposite, everything is conflicted, and the the very initiation of any enterprise inherently carries the seeds of its own destruction--man will never really understand this in a functional way because they are genetically wired up not to see it--even though this self-deception and the lack of the ability to see it taking place as one sees one move thier arem or their bowels or liver or brain--so until this natural predisposition is able to be seen in oneself, and what one considers the world, all motive are conflicted and all personality is just a constelation of compulsive complexes--yet this seeminly dire news, like everything, has it's other side. Whether we humans can take hold of this other side and abide with it, that is the question. If we can't there will never be action in oneself or the world that is not born--based--and itself one form of conflict or another. Whether this can be done or not is pretty much gonna determine human destiny--like whether humans really have any destiny or are just doomed to enless exitless deep conflict, never escaping the charged nature of their own nervous systems or coming to know a less limited themselves of compassion and joy. Their lives remain another rerun of a barely interesting situation comedy based on superficial insults and accidents.

[DaBudhaStank]

without economic freedom you cannot have personal freedom.

THIS is precisely what is wrong with our society, summed up in a sentence. If you don't have money you arent free. Well guess what, if you HAVE money, you're in a much deeper, darker prison than those without. The only TRUE way to actually HAVE freedom is to NOT have money. You can't have corporate, capitalist, CONSUMER freedom without money; this is true, but what kind of freedom is that?

[wonderjoint]

We have socialism in America! :thumbsup: But, it only applies to institutions that are, "Too big to fail" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_Big_to_Fail_policy). :wtf:

[thcbongman]

I think it's rather funny that the conservatives are always refering to the founding fathers and what not. If they even had the slightest knowledge of history they would know that the very figures that they hold up as standards and ideals were themselves mostly liberals. That's right Jefferson, Franklin, Rosseau, Voltaire, even Washington they were the fuition of a great liberal movement that started with the Renessance and then reemerged stronger in the Enlightenment. Now they were all products of their time so their liberal then is not ours now, but I can assure you that the conservatives were in favor of the royals holding all property and power and anyone who went against them was a liberal in that they believed in the equality of man before the law--a liberal--even revolutionary concept of the time--and the two great liberal movements, in France and America based themselves in a romaticised ideal of Ancient Greece and took it's notion of personal liberity from the Germanic peoples who replaced the Romans empire and who we know as all the various European strains--all Germanic--even Sanskrit comes from an archaic Germanic language. The whole movement of history is away from the conservative notions of power and toward a more equitable and higer notion of the value of a human being. The United States is already what you fear, but only for the power elite--they have socialism plus--they have just initiated the largest shift in wealth form the middle class to the upper in the history of history. Your notions of what capitalism actually is are distorted. You would not want to live in a purely capitalist country it would be hell, it would be like living in a world run by the mafia where only power and posessions counted for anything and these were continually irrevocably more and more concentrated in the hand of fewer and fewer families whose opinions would count billions of times more than you own, it would be a land were every road was a toll road and the price increased during rush hour. Listen when I was a young lad the average MD made about $25,000 a year--cared about his patients--who he actually was able to spend time with and made housecalls for a few bucks extra. Now most MD expect to be millionares by the time they are in their forties and care mostly about prestige possessions. This is just a fact when the difference between the rich and poor becomes so great as it has the entire society becomes focused on prestige possessions. When there is more equality of income the societies attentions are more focused on civic and human relationships. Also this always comes before the fall of a great country or empire, such as Rome where the income differential went from about 40-1 during the republic to the type of astonomical ratios we have today. I can't imagine how blind a person must be to be living through the first spasms of the fall of our nation as we have known it, as we are living through now, and think that the forces of unrestricted market speculation and gambling should not only go on as it has, but be more unrestricted and therefore coercive against everyone not in a privilaged position such as the CEOs and Power Elite who steer us from one crisis to another knowing we can always be divided by the slightest red herring, like flag burning, or gay marriage, so we are no threat to the shady money men who pull the strings and cause you to take up a polarized political position, which are both naive and ultimately self-defeating and futile, as regards the real values of human life and organization.

You refer to classic liberalism and it has nothing to do with liberalism today. Also you confuse the classic liberal movements that occurred in America and France. But they are vastly different.

In America, It's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In France, it's freedom, equality, fraternity.

I hope this helps you understand why France is more socialist than America will be. No where in the constitution did it dictate the redistribution of wealth, just how many can operate to be free.

[maladroit]

if we're judging countries by their slogans, what is the differentce between freedom and liberty?

canada's slogan is peace, order, and good government...we don't have any freedom or liberty!

[thcbongman]

if we're judging countries by their slogans, what is the differentce between freedom and liberty?

canada's slogan is peace, order, and good government...we don't have any freedom or liberty!

Those words represent their emancipation, The American Revolution and French Revolution which occurred only decades apart.

However the last two words of the French slogan, equality and fraternity, describe socialism to a tee. It's a brotherhood and everyone is to be equal and part of their application of wealth distribution.

While America "life and pursuit of happiness" represent economic freedom and self-interest, which pretty much reflects on the society today. Those words are still representative of it's meaning over 200 years later.

[psychocat]

Those words represent their emancipation, The American Revolution and French Revolution which occurred only decades apart.

However the last two words of the French slogan, equality and fraternity, describe socialism to a tee. It's a brotherhood and everyone is to be equal and part of their application of wealth distribution.

While America "life and pursuit of happiness" represent economic freedom and self-interest, which pretty much reflects on the society today. Those words are still representative of it's meaning over 200 years later.

Is that representative of a "Screw you Jack I'm alright attitude" ?

[thcbongman]

Is that representative of a "Screw you Jack I'm alright attitude" ?

Precisely :thumbsup:

[psychocat]

Precisely :thumbsup:

And there was me thinking that because of that attitude I was a complete arsehole when in fact I am a living example of the American dream :D :thumbsup:

[roninwithnoname]

Anarchy = no discipline
Socialism = government imposed discipline
Capitalism = self discipline

Actually that would be Anarchy = Self Discipline, Capitalism = No Discipline For Those Who Control the Capital. Remember: Anarchy is not Chaos, but Capitalism is!

[JakeMartinez]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness do not add up to just capitalism. That is a ludicrous assumption that stems from the anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda that defined the Cold War. Socialism allows for just as much liberty and happiness as free market society. Americans, in general, tend to have a "Fuck you, we're the best on the planet" attitude, which not only keeps us from even giving other systems a good look, but is eating away at the foundations of our nation.

None of the founding fathers would be proud of a race of ignorant, selfish, entitled assholes who think that economically dominating the world is the best way to spread equality and freedom, or would go to war just because a country disagrees with our way of thinking.

[psychocat]

None of the founding fathers would be proud of a race of ignorant, selfish, entitled assholes who think that economically dominating the world is the best way to spread equality and freedom, or would go to war just because a country disagrees with our way of thinking.

"Brought tears to me eyes did that guv'ner" (said in a mock cockney* accent)
All joking aside though , I think you put that extremely well. :thumbsup:

*cockney - definition of cockney by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cockney)

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness do not add up to just capitalism. That is a ludicrous assumption that stems from the anti-communist, anti-socialist propaganda that defined the Cold War."life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has nothing to do with capitalism. it is nothing more than a statement of intent, emphasizing the importance of the individual over the needs of government or the so-called best interests of the people as a whole. it stems from the simple belief that no man or organization has the right to infringe upon the freedoms of any individual. this includes all freedoms, even those that might be labeled as greed or callousness.

though capitalism is never prescribed in any of our founding documents, it is the natural choice for a nation whose creed is the protection of the individuality of all its citizens. with centralized socialist controls the individual is placed secondary to the will of the government and personal success is subject to the whims of a group with the power of life and death over the population. it is a small step to the totalitarian measures that this country was founded to escape from.

with the freedom to prosper must come the freedom to fail, only a fool or a politician could ever believe otherwise. the equality that that declaration spoke of was not the tawdry materialism of a roof over your head and shoes on your feet, but the much more fundamental equality of each man's right to exist without the fear of unwarranted persecution and the opportunity to freely make a better life for himself.


Socialism allows for just as much liberty and happiness as free market society.what capitalism offers that socialism can never equal is the opportunity to thrive beyond the constraints of a self-serving government. socialism's downfall is and always has been the naive belief that governments can be trusted. government already has control of military force and the power of the judicial and legislative systems. to allow them to totally dominate the labor and materials of commerce leaves the people at the mercy of an uncaring bureaucracy, with no power of their own.

the failures of both systems are the failures of the people themselves. avarice and an unquenchable thirst for power are the faults of humanity, not of economic ideologies. in an enlightened population any economic system could be made to work, but we are far from such goals. the free markets of capitalism avoid the problems of the consolidation of all the different forms of power that socialism can only aggravate.


Americans, in general, tend to have a "Fuck you, we're the best on the planet" attitude, which not only keeps us from even giving other systems a good look, but is eating away at the foundations of our nation.such generalizations may seem cool and they may even get you laid, but they are as disingenuous as any such statements are bound to be. the abuses you rail against are not the sole domain of this country, rabid nationalism rears its ugly head in every corner of the world. the real cancers eating away at the soul of this country are the total lack of personal responsibility that is engendered by our growing cult of entitlement and the petty envies of those who fear the power of the individual.


None of the founding fathers would be proud of a race of ignorant, selfish, entitled assholes who think that economically dominating the world is the best way to spread equality and freedom, or would go to war just because a country disagrees with our way of thinking.i don't doubt that our founders would be appalled at the current state of the experiment they began. our species began as creatures of the herd, huddled together for safety. this country would seem to be an attempt to move past this existence of apathetic bovine meanderings and cease our dependence on the mediocrity of the mob. instead of following their lead and embracing the concept of the superiority of the individual, we have merely lapsed back into the primitive habits of our ancestors and created ever larger herds to graze over the dwindling countryside.

[DaBudhaStank]

delusions- I agree with parts of your arguement and disagree with others, as is expected.

However, I think the real problem begins with the Constitution, if it is in fact how most people here are understanding it, to put the individual first, to desire personal satisfaction over the benefit of all. If this is true, we have a fundamental problem with our country. Also, our country doesn't advocate the personal freedom of the masses, to make each individual more free. It's based off the simple majority rule, regardless if its only by one percent, regardless of right and wrong. This is also a major problem.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

before responding i should probably remind any interested party that i am the patient anarchist. i see government as a necessary evil (for the moment) and regard the ideals of the american system as the surest path to regaining the freedom to which we are all born. when faced with a choice between injustice and slavery, i believe we should remember that injustice is an inherent flaw of humanity while slavery is a choice we make to bow down to tyrants.


However, I think the real problem begins with the Constitution, if it is in fact how most people here are understanding it, to put the individual first, to desire personal satisfaction over the benefit of all. If this is true, we have a fundamental problem with our country. the bill of rights is meant to define and restrict government's role in society, not the people's. it is designed as a leash on tyranny, not a moral code. we have asked far too much of such a basic document and our refusal to take control of our own lives has handed over the responsibility of molding the nation's ethos to governmental bodies that are wholly unsuited to the task.

the "fundamental problem" lies not with the nation, but with ourselves. instead of cultivating the finer aspects of our humanity such as charity and empathy, we demand that government take care of the duties that we ourselves should be responsible for.


Also, our country doesn't advocate the personal freedom of the masses, to make each individual more free. it is not government's job to "make each individual more free", but to limit the freedoms to which we were all born. there is nothing godlike in our system that enables it to hand out freedom, that is the spark that resides solely in the people themselves.


It's based off the simple majority rule, regardless if its only by one percent, regardless of right and wrong. This is also a major problem.an independent judiciary was designed to offset what would later be termed "the dictatorship of the proletariat" and to see to it that mob rule did not infringe on the rights of the individual. it has always been a balancing act between the needs of the masses and the rights of the individual and it would seem that the individual is quickly losing his rights to the overwhelming tide of the mob.

[GoldenBoy812]

However, I think the real problem begins with the Constitution, if it is in fact how most people here are understanding it, to put the individual first, to desire personal satisfaction over the benefit of all. If this is true, we have a fundamental problem with our country. Also, our country doesn't advocate the personal freedom of the masses, to make each individual more free. It's based off the simple majority rule, regardless if its only by one percent, regardless of right and wrong. This is also a major problem.

The constitution was set up to avoid a situation where the majority ruled the minority with absolute power. This is why we have a Bill of Rights, to guarantee no government powered majority could remove your liberty.

Our Union was created to protect the rights of its citizens first and foremost. What we do with our freedom is our choice. Rational beings desire to prosper, which is also known as acting upon self interests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalism is based on competition. Socialism is based on equity. Socialism < Capitalism because not everybody is equal in terms of ability. Until we genetically modify all humans to be the same, socialism will continue to fail when allowed to compete with capitalism.

[JakeMartinez]

The constitution was set up to avoid a situation where the majority ruled the minority with absolute power. This is why we have a Bill of Rights, to guarantee no government powered majority could remove your liberty.

Our Union was created to protect the rights of its citizens first and foremost. What we do with our freedom is our choice. Rational beings desire to prosper, which is also known as acting upon self interests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalism is based on competition. Socialism is based on equity. Socialism < Capitalism because not everybody is equal in terms of ability. Until we genetically modify all humans to be the same, socialism will continue to fail when allowed to compete with capitalism.

Humbly, I disagree. I think every human being is as capable as the next. I do not subscribe to the theory that our abilities and talents are set in stone from the moment we're born. We pick up almost every aspect of our beings as we going on, and thus I believe everyone IS equal in ability, the difference is their motive to use their abilities and the drive to always hone them.


My two cents, anyway.

And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I think every human being is as capable as the next.universal equality of talent is one of the myths that fuel the socialist agenda. they tell us that if wealth were only shared equally we would all be capable of greatness, but we know that just isn't so. there will always be those who excel and those who are doomed to failure. we may provide aid to those failures, but we cannot force them to succeed.


And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.if you are talking about a compromise between capitalism and socialism, i doubt you will find a workable model. temporary measures may hold for a while, but the freedom of the individual and slavery to the state are incompatible ideas.

[DaBudhaStank]

before responding i should probably remind any interested party that i am the patient anarchist.

This is where I stopped listening. There is nothing good about anarchy, not one thing. I'm sorry, there just isn't. There's nothing good about a world where people are free to rape, murder and pillage at will with little to no consequences, as most people can't/won't/don't know how to defend themselves or others. Ever play Fallout 3? Yeah, no thanks. There might not be a nuclear holocaust where everything you touch is irradiated, but it's largely the same thing.

[GoldenBoy812]

Humbly, I disagree.




I think every human being is as capable as the next. I do not subscribe to the theory that our abilities and talents are set in stone from the moment we're born.

You are absolutely wrong! Not everyone is capable as the next to be an NBA basketball player, let alone a superstar. Not everyone can handle a 22 credit hour course load, let alone get straight A's.


We pick up almost every aspect of our beings as we going on, and thus I believe everyone IS equal in ability, the difference is their motive to use their abilities and the drive to always hone them.

I cannot play the guitar. I can however spar 30 rounds in a given session. Could i play the guitar if i really really wanted to? Most likely yes, but not as good as say Kayne West would be able to given the same amount of practice. With that said, even if Kayne West were to train in the gym hour for hour with me, i firmly believe i would tear him up in the ring. Not because he lacks desire, but because i am more physically blessed. Therefore people are not equal.



And I do have a compromise between the two, if anyone's interested.

Are you describing the utopia created in another thread? If so, you are going to have to prove how to virtually eliminate opportunity cost.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

This is where I stopped listening. There is nothing good about anarchy.....i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.

it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.

[JakeMartinez]

No, it's not that "utopian" society.

I'm not even going to argue anymore. I'm sick of being talked down to from all angles when all I'm trying to do is give everyone a fighting chance at living a good life. I was hoping someone here would want to work with me to figure out something that would work better than the system we have now, but oh well.

I will say this, though. If you dig in to history, you'll find that a lot of what we know about socialism comes out of the propaganda pushed by neo-conservatives during the Cold War.

And by the way, even communist nations are still competitive, and no less capitalistic than we are. Did you think China just gave us all of the lovely little things we import from them?

[thcbongman]

i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.

it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.

Do you really think a million civil servants focus on watering the truth? That is quite delusional.

It's not like anarchy is a non-existant concept. There's plenty of anarchists applying their views. East Washington State is a prime example. They got their communities where they support themselves through marijuana traffiking, armed themselves to the teeth to protect themselves from the outside world. It works, it's self-sustainable for those that choose to participate in those communities.

But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?

[DaBudhaStank]

i can't say as i blame you. i'm sure that you, along with most everyone else, have been brainwashed into believing in the need for the massive bureaucracy that is sucking dry the citizens of this country and doing their best to enslave us as they consolidate the power we so willingly abdicate to them. i'm certain you see the concept of anarchy as a wilderness with no rules and no law but the law of the jungle (much like the streets of many of our cities after the sun goes down). i have no doubt that you find the average person incapable of governing himself. that is, after all, the only reason we should endure these uncaring bureaucracies supported by the sweat of the people they claim to represent.

it's a pity you stop listening when you hear that someone may advocate an ideal so different from the reality you desperately cling to. it's a pity that most people refuse to listen to the idea that humanity is capable of ruling itself without the buffer of a million civil servants to water down the truth of what the people really need. if they bothered to listen and to think we might have fewer ignorant souls who cannot see beyond the mundane lies of their masters, who are capable of forming opinions based on something a bit more real than video games and the daily show.

Oh, no I can govern myself quite well, given the resources. But can others? Fuck no! All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process. The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual. Watch Mad Max; anarchy in action. You're honestly going to tell me that if we did away with all laws and guide lines, even if over a 100 year period, that things will be fine and dandy? We might regress to a tribal state, but I can't say that'd be terribly fun.

[DaBudhaStank]

That is quite delusional.



Given who we're talking to, I had to lol a little at that.

[psychocat]

Oh, no I can govern myself quite well, given the resources. But can others? Fuck no! All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process. The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual. Watch Mad Max; anarchy in action. You're honestly going to tell me that if we did away with all laws and guide lines, even if over a 100 year period, that things will be fine and dandy? We might regress to a tribal state, but I can't say that'd be terribly fun.

A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .

The whole tribal side of humanity has made it possible to enjoy the luxuries we often take for granted , without team work many of mankinds greatest achievements simply would never have happened.
Safety in numbers is also a reason for mankinds compromise toward each other that we call society , the realisation that one man can never do everything makes each person a part of the whole.

YouTube - The Cramps - People Ain't No Good (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ExELkCBiE)

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

This is where I stopped listening. There is nothing good about anarchy, not one thing. I'm sorry, there just isn't. There's nothing good about a world where people are free to rape, murder and pillage at will with little to no consequences, as most people can't/won't/don't know how to defend themselves or others. Ever play Fallout 3? Yeah, no thanks. There might not be a nuclear holocaust where everything you touch is irradiated, but it's largely the same thing.


you say that as if people are incapable of exacting revenge WITHOUT police.



Isnt that all the police do? legal vengeance?

you murder someone, and they will put you to death, or imprison you for life, which is the same as being put to death, it jsut takes a LOT longer. that's more like torture...

well, eliminate the police, and what REALLY changes?


more people will be policing themselves and everyone else, but not getting payed to do it, so they wouldnt be overzealous about apprehending "criminals" and more focused on keeping peace.


theft wouldnt be given much care, except between the thief and the victim. wherein the victim, if they desire justice, must seek it out htemselves, instead of being pampered little fucktard brats who can just call someone else to do it for them.



im in direct disagreement with your idea of what anarchy entails.

[DaBudhaStank]

you say that as if people are incapable of exacting revenge WITHOUT police.



Isnt that all the police do? legal vengeance?

you murder someone, and they will put you to death, or imprison you for life, which is the same as being put to death, it jsut takes a LOT longer. that's more like torture...

well, eliminate the police, and what REALLY changes?


more people will be policing themselves and everyone else, but not getting payed to do it, so they wouldnt be overzealous about apprehending "criminals" and more focused on keeping peace.


theft wouldnt be given much care, except between the thief and the victim. wherein the victim, if they desire justice, must seek it out htemselves, instead of being pampered little fucktard brats who can just call someone else to do it for them.



im in direct disagreement with your idea of what anarchy entails.

we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.

And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.

People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.

[DaBudhaStank]

A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .

The whole tribal side of humanity has made it possible to enjoy the luxuries we often take for granted , without team work many of mankinds greatest achievements simply would never have happened.
Safety in numbers is also a reason for mankinds compromise toward each other that we call society , the realisation that one man can never do everything makes each person a part of the whole.

YouTube - The Cramps - People Ain't No Good (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ExELkCBiE)

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.


That is quite delusional.what did you expect, sanity????:D


But my question is how could you apply anarchy on a widespread scale of 300 million people and be feasible?there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.


All it takes is a few people who want nothing more than what they can get for themselves while they can get it, and with no one to stop them, they WILL get it and fuck a lot of people in the process.no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.


The problem with anarchy is it focuses explicitly on the self, the individual.yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.


A state of lawlessness would only be a good idea for those who wish to live in a world where people like me would pretty much have great fun in running rampage and having no regard for anyone.
If there were no punishments then there would be a lot more murders , if it is kill or be killed I would certainly not hesitate .we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.

[GoldenBoy812]

we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.

And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.

People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.

I agree to a point, so i will explain.

First off, a society without government is the exact opposite of full blown socialism. In the instances of both extremes, they both ignore simple aspects of human nature such as greed, desiring, jealousy, and laziness. The anarchist ignores the fact that people are greedy and jealous, just as the socialist ignores that people are desiring and lazy. The simple act of ignoring these facts about humans beings as a whole discredits any opinion of how an authoritarian/anarchist society would be able to exist.

Any sane and prosperous society needs some sort of police force to protect the rights of a states citizens. Failure to do so opens the doors for a "mafia" style entity that will eventually gain power through organization, which undermines the whole concept of a stateless society.

Comparatively, a complete scope of state power will pave the way for sub-societies to form, or a rebel like entity to brood under the oppressions of an all powerful central authority. Authorities and supporters of a such society will view this person/group as a terrorist, much like the antagonist V from V for Vendetta.

Now, on a smaller scale as previously mentioned, communities based on such ideals can prosper. But, its only under the protection of the state, even if that state implores the majority of its powers to its citizens, that would allow for this. Otherwise, neither extreme is self sustainable, as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).

[DaBudhaStank]

i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.

what did you expect, sanity????:D

there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.

no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.

yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.

we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.

I can't argue with you about this anymore. Sorry, law is necessary and that's all there is to it. We wouldn't have made them if they weren't (yes, I know there are some that are stupid and NOT necessary).


I agree to a point, so i will explain.

First off, a society without government is the exact opposite of full blown socialism. In the instances of both extremes, they both ignore simple aspects of human nature such as greed, desiring, jealousy, and laziness. The anarchist ignores the fact that people are greedy and jealous, just as the socialist ignores that people are desiring and lazy. The simple act of ignoring these facts about humans beings as a whole discredits any opinion of how an authoritarian/anarchist society would be able to exist.

Any sane and prosperous society needs some sort of police force to protect the rights of a states citizens. Failure to do so opens the doors for a "mafia" style entity that will eventually gain power through organization, which undermines the whole concept of a stateless society.

Comparatively, a complete scope of state power will pave the way for sub-societies to form, or a rebel like entity to brood under the oppressions of an all powerful central authority. Authorities and supporters of a such society will view this person/group as a terrorist, much like the antagonist V from V for Vendetta.

Now, on a smaller scale as previously mentioned, communities based on such ideals can prosper. But, its only under the protection of the state, even if that state implores the majority of its powers to its citizens, that would allow for this. Otherwise, neither extreme is self sustainable,

I can live with this, it's better than a world free of consequence.


as both would require an aspect of the other to grow (not chronic).

lol

[thcbongman]

i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

we appear to exist in the realm of immediate gratification and patience is little understood. if we could take our eyes from today's concerns, we might glimpse the path we are on and what lies down it. there you would find the anarchy i advocate; not a destination, but another length of road to be traveled. taking that particular fork means accepting personal responsibility for the freedoms we take for granted and relinquishing our places in the mindless herd. it means allowing those who are willing to accept the load to shoulder the burden of aiding those in need and relieving those who are incapable of such empathy of that onus. it means not requiring anything from anyone, but simply asking that we all abide by the laws of enlightened self-interest. it means taking the leap of faith that humans are not such beasts as we have been led to believe, but that they all have a spark of kindness and generosity hidden behind the needs of surviving in this world of brutality that we have created.

after reading all that you might consider my beliefs to be childish fantasy, but what is the alternative? we now embrace the doctrine of force. forcing us to abide by the arbitrary rules of unresponsive representatives, forcing the unwilling to care for the undeserving, forcing the mediocrity of the herd on those few bright lights that emerge within our species. what i advocate is the doctrine of allowance. allowing the best of humanity to reveal itself and its worst to be burned away by the unrelenting pressure of society's version of natural selection, the choice that we all have to support the good and to refuse the evil.

what did you expect, sanity????:D

there will always be those who cannot rise above the herd mentality, but there are also many who are capable of utilizing their individuality and embracing the responsibility of independent action. to expect the world's population to turn their backs on centuries of indoctrination overnight is lunacy. that doesn't mean we shouldn't set out on that path, but that our steps must be cautious.

a sensible anarchist realizes that, for a society without formal government to work, there must be a strong ethical base on which to build. a strong central authority attempts to force a moral code on the masses through the threat of violence, a threat that is effective only with ever tightening controls on the citizens' behavior and ever more intrusive observation of their daily lives. the natural reaction to such restrictions is rebellion, the exact opposite of the desired effect. a weakened central authority leads its people by demanding that they themselves construct the ethos of their society and abide by the rules of their own making. this is the lost goal of the ideology behind democracy, to allow the people to emerge from their primitive herd mentality by handing them the power to decide their own destiny based on individual preference.

no government can stop those "few people" from striving for that sort of control. government merely gives them a platform from which to launch their schemes and the power to implement their designs.

yes, it focuses on self-control and individual responsibility. anarchy does not negate charity or empathy, it demands acceptance of the consequences of our actions.

we are not children, no matter how much our governments may wish us to believe we are. there are basic laws of civilized behavior that we all know and understand to be necessary for survival. anarchy does not equal lawlessness. it demands that we pay for our freedom by accepting the responsibility for not only our own actions, but the actions of others as well.

But how is my example a "wild west stereotype?" It's very real, you have anarchist enclaves all over the country. Mind you, they aren't blasting people or are some shadowy figures. They simply want to live in their self-sustainable communities in peace. You also got hippie enclaves, who are anarchists, because they live off the land and of nature. They are anarchists.

What you stated is very interesting. I'd just like to know how everyone would achieve "enlightened self-interest?" How would we end up in a situation where a few good but powerful souls can enforce self-awareness and respect for others in order to live in a peaceful yet economically prosperous society? Please keep in mind, I'm not opposed to any what you say, infact it has opened my mind more. It requires a huge leap of faith I agree, but there has to be some sort of controls in order to mitigate risk. Otherwise based on what you described, anyone that has this different idea can form "a group" and attack the central authority and establish themselves as the central authority. Actually I think that's the part I don't understand. It's like:

Overthrow Central Authority ---------> ????? ----------> Anarchist Society.

[psychocat]

Anarchy would only serve to free those of us who don't much like people to do a bit of societal cleansing :D :thumbsup:

Some of us are much more capable of reverting to our most animalistic state if there were no boundaries imposed to hold us back.

[jonquest]

socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.

[psychocat]

socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.

There is no such thing as a free market.

[JakeMartinez]

socialism is bad because it is economically and morally wrong. taking money from one person and giving it to another person hinders production of the overall economy by rewarding failure. the current bailouts are the best example. as for the moral issue, it is wrong to take money earned from one person and give it to another person without their approval. socialism sounds nice and great and makes people want to gather around the campfire to sing koombaya, but really a free market is better for all people.

That's communism, not socialism.

Socialism means that the government takes over some markets, such as housing, health care, food production, etc.

You're thinking of communism, where the state tells you where to work and where to live and what to eat.

If it's not okay to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (especially income taxes) must really bother you.

[GoldenBoy812]

That's communism, not socialism.

Socialism means that the government takes over some markets, such as housing, health care, food production, etc.

You're thinking of communism, where the state tells you where to work and where to live and what to eat.

If it's not okay to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (especially income taxes) must really bother you.

I see nowhere in Jonquest's post about government telling you where to work/live.

Emerging economies that lean toward socialist ideology eventually require an even greater divergence of power to the government. Failure to do so allows for the ability of competition as well as open market activities that transition economies to a more market centered destination.

Norway for example leans completely to the left, yet allows certain open market activities. They can do this because of an abundance of potential energy available to export with a small population. As the state produced production of energy per citizen shrinks (finite resources and growing population), the more authority a state must consume in order for equity to maintain static.

Cuba on the other hand has to subscribe to authoritarian control to maintain their equity stake. Freeing of their markets allows for free market activity to begin.

Emerging economies tend to be authoritarian during the initial stages of development. Freeing of trade lowers costs for consumers of such a state, and therefore does not allow its economy to grow from a production standpoint. Reason be, it is impossible for emerging markets to compete on a cost/production level with developed nations.

Take our farming industry for example. The exporting of agriculture is not done so on a free level, at least in regards to actual free trade. Reason be, subsidies exist that lower the total production costs via tax payer money. A lower production opportunity cost lowers aggregate price accordingly. Given this situation, how else can emerging markets develop a sustainable phase 1 economy (agriculture) without isolating (protectionism) itself from developed countries?

The reason Norway's energy industry is stable coincides with the fact that foreign entities are not free to export to Norway. Once the productivity of this industry increases, expect one of two possibilities: 1.) they allow open market activities... 2.) More control is issued to the state.

[JakeMartinez]

There is nothing as scarce as you think it is, GoldenBoy.

Capitalism creates scarcity. If it didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. We always hear that

Abundance

and Sustainability

are created best under a free market system, but the opposite is true.

Abundancy--If any resource that was once scarce became incredibly abundant, to the point that it could be offered at a miniscule cost to the consumer, all the businesses in that sector would fail. Why do you think we don't have cities fitting building after building with solar panels? Why aren't we peppering the Midwest with wind turbines? If we did, we could offer energy to our citizens for practically nothing.

Sustainability--For a society to be sustainable, it has to monitor the use of the resources that it runs on, effectively manage those resources, and look for ways of making them sustainable long enough to find a better resource or find a better way of utilizing it. Thus, sustainability is the bane of a free market's existence. If ANYTHING becomes sustainable (renewable), and abundant, those two things alone kill any business' chance of making a profit from it. Thus, where's the incentive to CREATE a society where people DON'T go hungry? Or get their furnace shut off because they couldn't afford a gas or electric bill?



I understand that a free market is good for creature comforts, since it gives us such a variety of them, but the things we need to survive should NOT be for profit.

The Government should handle electricity, food, water, and shelter. Enough for all of their citizens to at least have a chance at living a decent life. If they want more than the standard food and housing, they can get a job and work for it. The private sector doesn't have to be completely phased out, which is honestly what I want. The two can meet in the middle to create a society that has competition and innovation to raise the standard of living, and yet something to offer even the lowest of the lower class.

And, under this way of thinking, we can work to make all of our resources abundant and sustainable. It's a start, at least.

[GoldenBoy812]

There is nothing as scarce as you think it is, GoldenBoy.

There is a finite limit to everything. Theoretically, the universe will come to an end when the total amount of helium is exhausted. Stars use helium, so we have about 50 billion years until there is nothing.


Capitalism creates scarcity. If it didn't, capitalism wouldn't work. We always hear that

True capitalism is operated on the concept of opportunity cost. When competing against another firm, the essence of time itself is scarce. You have to utilize your strengths and weaknesses, so that you can effectively lower OTC, and in doing so will be able to realize real growth.

For example, if a firm spends 50 hours a week aquiring material A, 100 hours to produce product X(s), time is then represented as a scarce resource. Without a quantitative limitation (function of time), i can produce an infinite amount of goods in zero time. Hence time is a scarce resource. What the firm can do is attempt to lower the amount of hours spent producing at the most minimal cost.


Abundance

and Sustainability

are created best under a free market system, but the opposite is true.

Open market operations outproduce central planned markets... End of story. If you do not believe me, than why does china produce 5 times its growth only 10 years from the previous? Answer: They opened up their markets. Now, they have a middle class that is greater than or equal to (in population) what we have in the US.


Abundancy--If any resource that was once scarce became incredibly abundant, to the point that it could be offered at a miniscule cost to the consumer, all the businesses in that sector would fail. Why do you think we don't have cities fitting building after building with solar panels? Why aren't we peppering the Midwest with wind turbines? If we did, we could offer energy to our citizens for practically nothing.

Lets go back to my example with time. Time is a scarce resource. When computers, cell phones, and the internet were implemented into the business world, something truly remarkable happened. OTC were reduced in regards to time. Firms had an abundance of time relative to when technology did not allow it. Did they fail? Of course not, because it allowed for the possibility of growth. With higher growth potential, firms had an easier time attracting capital, hiring employees, and securing loans. This allows for real growth represented in profit, although it is not a guarantee. The firm has to actually make it happen.


Sustainability--For a society to be sustainable, it has to monitor the use of the resources that it runs on, effectively manage those resources, and look for ways of making them sustainable long enough to find a better resource or find a better way of utilizing it. Thus, sustainability is the bane of a free market's existence. If ANYTHING becomes sustainable (renewable), and abundant, those two things alone kill any business' chance of making a profit from it. Thus, where's the incentive to CREATE a society where people DON'T go hungry? Or get their furnace shut off because they couldn't afford a gas or electric bill?

Again, this all goes back to opportunity costs. When energy source A becomes more expensive to produce than energy source B, which one will fetch both the smaller price, and hence the greatest potential sales? It would be source B, as long as the quality is similar.

If a firm decided not to produce source B, and instead stuck with source A, we then can observe the OTC of the situation. This firm is allocating more time and capital to produce an energy source that represents less potential profit. Therefore, this firm can be thought of as weak, and will not be able to compete with firms offering source B at a cheaper price. Rationality will call for the majority of firms to stop producing source A, lowering overall competition along with total production of source A. As more and more firms restructure to produce B, competition automatically pushes the price down as firms attempt to absorb market share by increasing their overall volume.

Is there an opportunity cost for over abundance? Absolutely! A firm that produces more than the market demands will have excess inventory. Inventory that faces potential risk of depreciation as well as cost of upkeep. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense, whether you are government or private business, to over shoot your demand capacity. You create waste, inefficiency, less potential profit.


I understand that a free market is good for creature comforts, since it gives us such a variety of them, but the things we need to survive should NOT be for profit.

There is still only one slightly free market, it is known as the internet.

By eliminating profit incentive, you lower overall production and quality. During the Russian revolution, as the Red's took control, Vladimir Lenin enacted the NEP. Instead of complete state control of production which was the current, Lenin allowed peasant farmers to sell their surplus. In doing so Russia's agriculture segment began to eclipse the industrial production segment, as prices continued to decrease in food while the prices for manufactured goods (still controlled by the state) increased. Prices increased because of the limited production (supply side), while prices decreased in agriculture.

NEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy)


The Government should handle electricity, food, water, and shelter. Enough for all of their citizens to at least have a chance at living a decent life.

As my previous example proves, centralization of these industries creates a higher OTC to consumers whether it is higher prices, limited availability, or lack of quality.


If they want more than the standard food and housing, they can get a job and work for it. The private sector doesn't have to be completely phased out, which is honestly what I want. The two can meet in the middle to create a society that has competition and innovation to raise the standard of living, and yet something to offer even the lowest of the lower class.

European nations tend to have higher social safety nets (besides the UK), and with it higher unemployment. By providing such necessities, you crowd out employment, and thus you stagnate growth.


And, under this way of thinking, we can work to make all of our resources abundant and sustainable. It's a start, at least.

I like government for certain things that cannot be efficiently provided by private industry. Such things include fire and police, military, roads (to a point), and periods of infrastructure renovation. As the evidence clearly shows, abundance and quality are a product of capitalism.

[JakeMartinez]

Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.

Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.

Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.

Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.

You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.

THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD

The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.

Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.

Why is that so hard to see?

[GoldenBoy812]

Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.

I was waiting for this comment. I disagree, and will provide an example.

Say it takes me 10 hours to build a retaining wall. I can only work 5 days a week, and 10 hours per day (i can produce 1 wall in 1 work day). If i get a contract to produce 522 retaining walls in one year, under your asertation "Time is not a resource i can buy", i am unable to fullfill my contract. Since i cannot do anything to slow down the passing of days, my only other option is to purchase someone elses time.

Now say i hire another guy for 10 hrs per day, 5 days per week, and he produces a wall at the same speed as i do. I will now be able to fullfill my contract. You know how? Because i was able to purchase time from someone who was willing to sell it...


Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.

You could make the argument that abundance and sustainability are the enemies of a monopoly. You could make the argument that they are the enemies of an individual firm. You cannot however make the argument that they are the enemies of free markets because; in a free market, i can run my firm as i please. Therefore business profit is optional.


Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.

Care to provide an example of what i said that lead you to this conclusion?


Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.

You cannot expect me to accept your opinions and beliefs as fact.


You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.

THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD

Communism is a political system, where socialism is the economic system used under a communist government. MY example of the NEP was in response to your assertion that nobody should profit from working in the food/housing industries, combined with your belief that abundance and sustainability are counterintuitive with capitalism.

It is the opposite though. Socialist systems have never outproduced capitalist systems. Until you offer some sort of proof otherwise, you are wrong.


The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.

Care to provide an example?


Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.

Why is that so hard to see?

Because you are absolutely wrong. If you are not wrong, than please provide some sort of evidence (other than an opinion) to strengthen the stance of your argument...

[psychocat]

I see it as simply as this
I don't much like people so to give some perspective I will admit that if 90% of the worlds population were to vanish overnight I would see it as a good thing.
The world we live on is an island and at some time in the future mankind is going to have to wake up and realise the only way forward is to unite as one .
The whole system as it stands is counterproductive and obsessed with the pursuit of the ridiculous
Unfortunately for mankind I do not believe it is possible for everyone to "just get along" and the whole joke we know as society will crumble

Mankind is mankinds worst enemy :thumbsup:

[thcbongman]

Time is not a resource you can buy, Golden Boy.

Abundance and sustainability are ENEMIES of free markets, because they lower profits.

Every corporation is driven solely by profit. If what you say is true, then you must have learned free market theory from studying non-profit organizations.

Also, the reason I'm done arguing with you over it is because you don't even listen.

You gave an example of the Russions, who were not only COMMUNISTS, NOT SOCIALISTS, but your example lacked two things I mentioned in my post.

THE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF USABLE RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW RESOURCES AND/OR THE IMPROVED USE OF OLD

The leftists failed to manage their resources because they were deluded into thinking that they could use everything and not worry about it. OF COURSE that's not a sustainable thinking.

Free markets fail to provide equality in a time when we could easily create more than enough to go around.

Why is that so hard to see?

The socialistic countries that are successful utilize a mixed economy while socializing some industries. Switzerland, Norway, Germany, China is figuring it out. China is still authotarian but they moved away from straight-up communism. They figured out how to use the free market and grow economically while still maintaining a lot of their socialistic policies.

I think you make profit like it's a bad thing. Too much profit can just be greedy, but profit within an acceptable scope is healthy. With profits, it leads to further growth in a company, innovation, benefits for employees, every company uses it's profit differently. Profits are good because the government collects on them. Why is this a concept that a lot of people do not understand? Some greed is good. Otherwise, how could an economy grow?

You say Goldenboy doesn't listen, but what he describes is basic economic concepts that he explains clearly like a college professor. Someone once told me the more you learn and understand finance, the more you understand the world and clearly this man understands the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against socialism at all. I'm against too much socialism because it is detrimental to society. Take France for example. You talk about affordability, but they're hit with a 19.6% sales tax on all goods that isn't basic food and medicine. You talk about sustainability, To hire and fire an employee is a vastly complex process due to overt job protectionism. The ability to combat waste is the most important control for sustainability. A job as simple as a bank teller for a french bank like BNP for example, it's a stringent interview process and if they get a bad employee after they pass a small probationary period, they are stuck with them. The employee can go to work, do the minimum and not worry about getting laid off. "At-Will" employees provide the most incentive to not only the ability for companies to grow, but for individuals as well. You can't manage resources if you are completely stuck with them.

[JakeMartinez]

That's why I think we should be looking at this and thinking "How can we make this work?"

A lot of people, Golden Boy included, look at it and say "It'll never work".

Like I said, I'm a straight-up socialist. However, I'm perfectly willing to make compromises and hash out what'll be best for all of us. After all, isn't that the theory behind socialism?

[GoldenBoy812]

That's why I think we should be looking at this and thinking "How can we make this work?"

A lot of people, Golden Boy included, look at it and say "It'll never work".

Like I said, I'm a straight-up socialist. However, I'm perfectly willing to make compromises and hash out what'll be best for all of us. After all, isn't that the theory behind socialism?

Its not that it will not work. Ideally, you are desiring a system that rewards everyone in an equal manner. As i have proved before, everyone is not equal. Therefore rewarding everyone equally will create inefficiency because there is not a finite incentive to perform better than the average or accepted.

Fredrick Taylor observed something extraordinary in the early 20th century. He found that when workers are receiving equal pay, performing the same job, they will work only as hard as the least hard working employee. Reason be, they are not receiving any extra incentive to work harder than their equally compensated co-workers. Logically, at the end of the day someone who worked harder than the rest would be more fatigued, and will feel a lesser amount of gratitude when receiving compensation as time progresses. A continuation will have an effect on the long run productivity of this worker.

It is a matter of efficiency at the end of the day. Capitalism is more efficient than socialism. Unless you can prove otherwise, you must except this as fact.

[JakeMartinez]

That was early 20th century. This is now. Times change, GB. Our society should reflect that.

We can't prove otherwise because the countries that flew under a socialist banner were, in reality, communists.

Don't bring that stuff up in here, GB. I told you in the other thread, we act the way you describe because it's the way we've been taught since the Industrial Revolution. It's not necessary anymore, or at least won't be within the next century.

Read up on your psychology. Humans are products of their environments, not their genes.

You and I, and everyone who grew up in this capitalist society, were taught from the beginning that the status quo is the way things "should" be. We're on a marijuana board for God's sake. You can't believe that society is fine the way it is.

[JakeMartinez]

Were you refering to this Frederick Winslow Taylor?

"It is only through enforced standardization of methods, enforced adoption of the best implements and working conditions, and enforced cooperation that this faster work can be assured. And the duty of enforcing the adoption of standards and enforcing this cooperation rests with management alone."

That's either fascistic or communistic. Take your pick.

"I can say, without the slightest hesitation,'' Taylor told a congressional committee, ''that the science of handling pig-iron is so great that the man who is ... physically able to handle pig-iron and is sufficiently phlegmatic and stupid to choose this for his occupation is rarely able to comprehend the science of handling pig-iron."

The delusion that only the dregs of society sink to the bottom in a free market. Oh, and workers are stupid. These are some amazing theories.

"With the triumph of scientific management, unions would have nothing left to do, and they would have been cleansed of their most evil feature: the restriction of output. To underscore this idea, Taylor fashioned the myth that 'there has never been a strike of men working under scientific management', trying to give it credibility by constant repetition. In similar fashion he incessantly linked his proposals to shorter hours of work, without bothering to produce evidence of "Taylorized" firms that reduced working hours, and he revised his famous tale of Schmidt carrying pig iron at Bethlehem Steel at least three times, obscuring some aspects of his study and stressing others, so that each successive version made Schmidt's exertions more impressive, more voluntary and more rewarding to him than the last. Unlike [Harrington] Emerson, Taylor was not a charlatan, but his ideological message required the suppression of all evidence of worker's dissent, of coercion, or of any human motives or aspirations other than those his vision of progress could encompass."

The man sounds like a Nazi to me.

Oh, and by the way, the USSR took a look at Taylor's findings before his disciples forced it down manufacturers' throats.

"The easy availability of replacement labor, which allowed Taylor to choose only 'first-class men,' was an important condition for his system's success."[22] The situation in the Soviet Union was very different. "Because work is so unrythmic, the rational manager will hire more workers than he would need if supplies were even in order to have enough for storming. Because of the continuing labor shortage, managers are happy to pay needed workers more than the norm, either by issuing false job orders, assigning them to higher skill grades than they deserve on merit criteria, giving them 'loose' piece rates, or making what is supposed to be 'incentive' pay, premia for good work, effectively part of the normal wage. As Mary Mc Auley has suggested under these circumstances piece rates are not an incentive wage, but a way of justifying giving workers whatever they 'should' be getting, no matter what their pay is supposed to be according to the official norms."[23]

The man came up with his theories during the first kicks and sputters of the industrial revolution. If you remember history class, workers weren't motivated by pay. Men like Taylor inflicted cruel and unusual practices on workers, which led them to forming unions.

[zeitgeist]

I love capitalism, but like anything it isnt perfect. There are some things out of socialism that we can use to make our society better. Im not down with just giving out free handouts left and right but I do believe in free healthcare. I mean ive seen it a hundred times, hard working middle class people that a pretty well off until they or a family member has a serious illness. Then hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills stack up causing people to go bankrupt. Situations like this are rediculous. We can spend billions of dollars on unnecesarry defense but we cant spend it to help our own people.
And for education im really not sure if that should be completly free but if the gov. helped pay for alot more then more people would be able to go to college. With more university educated people in a country I see no reason why a country wold not benefit in the long run

[DaBudhaStank]

And for education im really not sure if that should be completly free but if the gov. helped pay for alot more then more people would be able to go to college. With more university educated people in a country I see no reason why a country wold not benefit in the long run

Education should be free, period. The attitude in this country is largely that if you don't go to college immediately out of high school, you will fail and have very little opportunity at a fulfilling life. We put more pressure on kids to go to school than ever before, making it almost the only option in many cases, and yet we make it nearly impossible to go. Insane, arbitrary costs that could easily be covered by the school itself given the proper funding. Anyone who went to a public high school like I did, no matter HOW good, knows it'll never stack up to the shittiest private school. Why? Money, and how no one wants to give it to the public. I've never ever understood the logic; "You better go to college, or else you're pretty much fucked. Oh yeah, by the way, we're cutting your funding by 25% and the cost of our school has risen 5k. Oops."

[daihashi]

Education should be free, period. The attitude in this country is largely that if you don't go to college immediately out of high school, you will fail and have very little opportunity at a fulfilling life. We put more pressure on kids to go to school than ever before, making it almost the only option in many cases, and yet we make it nearly impossible to go. Insane, arbitrary costs that could easily be covered by the school itself given the proper funding. Anyone who went to a public high school like I did, no matter HOW good, knows it'll never stack up to the shittiest private school. Why? Money, and how no one wants to give it to the public. I've never ever understood the logic; "You better go to college, or else you're pretty much fucked. Oh yeah, by the way, we're cutting your funding by 25% and the cost of our school has risen 5k. Oops."

I went to a public school and I ran circles around the private school kids. That's not a testament to my school by any means; but it is to say that going to a private school doesn't necessarily make you smarter. It starts with the Teacher, and then the student + Parents. If one of those 3 aren't cooperating or working well with each other then the student will underperform unless they have a means to overcome the handicap.

We do need more funding for education but I don't think that's the end all solution for improvement.

[GoldenBoy812]

I went to a public school and I ran circles around the private school kids. That's not a testament to my school by any means; but it is to say that going to a private school doesn't necessarily make you smarter. It starts with the Teacher, and then the student + Parents. If one of those 3 aren't cooperating or working well with each other then the student will underperform unless they have a means to overcome the handicap.

We do need more funding for education but I don't think that's the end all solution for improvement.

When you pay to send your children to a "good school", you are not paying for the quality of the education. Instead, you are paying for the privilege of sitting next to someone else who is privileged (be it either socioeconomically or talent).

[GoldenBoy812]

That was early 20th century. This is now. Times change, GB. Our society should reflect that.

Of course times change, what is your point? I have observed this phenomenon myself on numerous occasions. When a group of workers are paid the same, they try not to work harder than the others. If there is a group of workers who has a member who makes more money than they do, that person, in my experiences, works/is working harder and longer than the others. This holds true especially when compensation is quota/status/production based.

Why do you think most CEO's get paid the big bucks? Bill Gates did not hire Balmer and relinquish his role as CEO in a show of gratitude.


We can't prove otherwise because the countries that flew under a socialist banner were, in reality, communists.

Yes, they were communists. The US is a republican nation, with a strong democratic tradition who's economy is primarily based on capitalism. The economic system in the former USSR was a centrally planned socialist system.


Don't bring that stuff up in here, GB. I told you in the other thread, we act the way you describe because it's the way we've been taught since the Industrial Revolution. It's not necessary anymore, or at least won't be within the next century.

When used as a premise in an argument, opinions will be taken with a grain of salt.


Read up on your psychology. Humans are products of their environments, not their genes.

Michael Jordan was a 6'6" black man, with unbelievable athleticism because of his environment? :wtf:


You and I, and everyone who grew up in this capitalist society, were taught from the beginning that the status quo is the way things "should" be. We're on a marijuana board for God's sake. You can't believe that society is fine the way it is.

Citizens of the United States are permitted to form a socialist community, just so long as it is completely voluntary and not in violation of US law. Socialist societies have existed within the US dating back to 1825.

Ever hear of Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen)???

[JakeMartinez]

Of course times change, what is your point? I have observed this phenomenon myself on numerous occasions. When a group of workers are paid the same, they try not to work harder than the others. If there is a group of workers who has a member who makes more money than they do, that person, in my experiences, works/is working harder and longer than the others. This holds true especially when compensation is quota/status/production based.

Why do you think most CEO's get paid the big bucks? Bill Gates did not hire Balmer and relinquish his role as CEO in a show of gratitude.



Yes, they were communists. The US is a republican nation, with a strong democratic tradition who's economy is primarily based on capitalism. The economic system in the former USSR was a centrally planned socialist system.



When used as a premise in an argument, opinions will be taken with a grain of salt.



Michael Jordan was a 6'6" black man, with unbelievable athleticism because of his environment? :wtf:



Citizens of the United States are permitted to form a socialist community, just so long as it is completely voluntary and not in violation of US law. Socialist societies have existed within the US dating back to 1825.

Ever hear of Robert Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Owen)???

Athleticism is a physical, not psychological, trait.

You're talking about motivation to work harder and more efficiently. Those come from the mind, not the body.

[Cederfern]

we'll just have to agree to disagree then. personally, I don't see society as a whole just policing itself and everyone doing the right thing without being forced to. Looking out for yourself all the time just ruins society, since no one cares about anyone else. If you want to arm everyone and say "Go nuts", you're in for a VERY rude awakening.

And no, I don't call police legal vengeance. There's a difference between the words Justice and Vengeance for a reason. Vengeance is for personal satisfaction, to settle a score, justice is to see that those who pray on the innocent are punished. Eliminate the police, and I'll fuckin' kill you, because who's to stop me? You? Indeed, perhaps the police wouldn't have a chance to STOP me, but they have a MUCH better chance of catching me than your family and friends do. Also, god forbid we have a set of people who seek out thieves and crooks. I don't know about you, but if I get robbed at gun point by some psycho, I don't think I wanna try and get my shit back from them. Why you ask? Because I'll get fucking SHOT, and that bastard will get away with it without a team of dedicated, well equipped and well armed people to stop them. I guess my desire to NOT murder and steal makes me ill-equipped for anarchy.

People are more than capable of getting revenge without police, and that's why its wrong. If you're seeking revenge instead of justice, if you want personal satisfaction instead of benefiting your society, you need to step back and analyze your life.

how can you say that NO ONE cares about anyone else? you never met me. i sure dont want to care about someone who expects me not to, i wouldnt want to let your expectations down!

how can you say that revenge and justice are not identical? revenge is justifyed by the ill deeds of others. and justice is no different. justice is nothing more than revenge through legislation. why do you care if a petty crook is serving time when a white collar criminal is fucking the economy every day?


what is more important, jailing the little people for petty crimes, or apprehending people for crimes that affect the nation or world level?


of police werent so focused on apprehending drug offenders and petty thieves, they might have time to spend preventing murderers and rapists from walking free. let alone corrupt authorities.

The police are bigger criminals than the majority of people they are arresting.

Anarchy wouldnt turn into chaos so universally either. not everyone in the world is a despicable douchebag. in fact, most people actually give a damn. most people would be looking out for each other, we would have each other's backs. it wouldnt be a clique or group of people under the same flag, it would be a union of all of humanity under every flag. not just one.


confusing, maybe, chaotic? far less than the system we are currently using.


anarchy is about simplicity and personal responsibility.


Those of us who are protectors at heart would be the equivelant of police, and we would keep an ever watchful eye on our communities to apprehend violent people immediately.


there are many of us who seek violence, and many more who seek to correct violence.




dont be a nay sayer of something you have never experienced.

[GoddessHerb]

Wow, I always knew people in the US were undereducated but I never knew they were this undereducated. We do NOT LIVE IN A TRUE DEMOCRACY! We live in a plutocratic oligarchy (rich corporate special interests) where the rich (via their corporations) control EVERYTHING. If you don't believe that then you don't understand what really runs the US government. I will be very surprised if Obama accomplishes much of anything let alone in the way of socialism but I say better then letting a few people get super rich by manipulating and using others because they bought the people who make the rules. The rules are so convoluted and ever-changing so that only those who can afford specialists to navigate or change them can play the game. Time to level the playing field IMHO. Even a non profit has a million hoops to jump through and all they want to do is make society a better place. :wtf:

I'm not a fan of socialism or capitalism but especially not socialized capitalism (bailouts). But the rich love socialism as long as it benefits them in some way or another. Socialism is ok as long as the money goes in their pockets and not ours. They (the rich) seem to think that they know how to make society better then the rest of us do, (hence the reason Warren Buffet gave Bill Gates almost all of his money) especially if they can profit from it in some way. The people still have masters, slavery never ended it just expanded to include all minorities (women, egalitarian white men, black, hispanic, asian, etc.) I used to want to be rich. But, now I see them for what they are slave masters that think they're better and smarter than everyone else because they have money. I don't want money. I'm not stupid or lazy, I just choose to be poor. Money and stuff get in the way of what's really important, people. It's ignorance and arrogance that are destroying our country. Ignorance of the abused and arrogance of the abusers.

To not want an egalitarian society is a shameful thing because it just shows that 1) you have no idea how a society truly works and 2)you feel so inferior to others that the only way you can value yourself if with external means (money and stuff). If you don't want to help your fellow countryman go live on a private island. You shouldn't be part of or benefit from society in any way anyway. When I see someone write that they don't want to pay for some lazy asshole I see someone who is selfish and doesn't want a better life for anyone but themselves. In my opinion people who don't want to better society shouldn't be part of it, period. By helping that lazy asshole find purpose and strength you are helping yourself not have to pay for them. But people just don't get it.:( Unless they see something in it for them directly they just won't do anything about it. Well we'll see what happens when the depression comes to the entire world this time. Like it or not we are all in this together. We all need to work together or destroy each other. We'll see which way it goes. :rolleyes: Either way I'm sure this rock (that we're all together) hurdling through time and space that we call Earth will never be the same.:smokin: Just my :twocents:

Blessed be~

[JeffersonBud]

I know what you mean but you can't just lump everyone into a category and not think there are exceptions to the rule. Stop being so ignorant. Not everyone in a situation is the same or believes in the same. Not all people in the US believe what you think. There are 7 billion of us. We all have different thoughts. Stop thinking you know the situation when you only lump your accusations into segregation. I find no peace and equality in your thought.

[thcbongman]

Education should be free, period. The attitude in this country is largely that if you don't go to college immediately out of high school, you will fail and have very little opportunity at a fulfilling life. We put more pressure on kids to go to school than ever before, making it almost the only option in many cases, and yet we make it nearly impossible to go. Insane, arbitrary costs that could easily be covered by the school itself given the proper funding. Anyone who went to a public high school like I did, no matter HOW good, knows it'll never stack up to the shittiest private school. Why? Money, and how no one wants to give it to the public. I've never ever understood the logic; "You better go to college, or else you're pretty much fucked. Oh yeah, by the way, we're cutting your funding by 25% and the cost of our school has risen 5k. Oops."

You bring a good point. Why America hasn't socialized education along time ago is mind boggling to me. Currently America spends the most, but doesn't produce the same efficient result as countries with socialized education systems. Also citizens are resources that produce capital for a country, so wouldn't it make sense for the government to provide the means to get an education if you show the willingness too? I feel it'd raise the quality of education as well as providing a service to maintain a healthy society.

[JakeMartinez]

You bring a good point. Why America hasn't socialized education along time ago is mind boggling to me. Currently America spends the most, but doesn't produce the same efficient result as countries with socialized education systems. Also citizens are resources that produce capital for a country, so wouldn't it make sense for the government to provide the means to get an education if you show the willingness too? I feel it'd raise the quality of education as well as providing a service to maintain a healthy society.

Because you can't create a class of poor, economically dominated slaves if they're smart enough to know how bad they're being fucked.

Just look at the third world, where people are denied proper education, and yet go to work for American-based corporations for less than a dollar a day.

[thcbongman]

Because you can't create a class of poor, economically dominated slaves if they're smart enough to know how bad they're being fucked.

Just look at the third world, where people are denied proper education, and yet go to work for American-based corporations for less than a dollar a day.

I should've been more precise. America already socializes some education K-12, but go no further. What America lacks is not only public free colleges, but trade schools that develop specialized skills. Development of these aspects would make America more prosperous. Why should any American incur debt to go to school unless they go to a private school?

But at least it isn't Africa.

[GoldenBoy812]

On a less serious note, here is an interesting opinion piece:


1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);

Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

Source (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/communistmanifestortenplanks12sep06.shtml)

[DaBudhaStank]

On a less serious note, here is an interesting opinion piece:



Source (http://educate-yourself.org/cn/communistmanifestortenplanks12sep06.shtml)

So are these like...bullet points on how we've failed as a nation to assist our own? Because I'd say they're pretty spot on. Socialism works; Social Capitalism, which we have, does not.

[DaBudhaStank]

I should've been more precise. America already socializes some education K-12, but go no further. What America lacks is not only public free colleges, but trade schools that develop specialized skills. Development of these aspects would make America more prosperous. Why should any American incur debt to go to school unless they go to a private school?

But at least it isn't Africa.

First, lol at the Africa comment. So, so terrible but still so, so funny.

Second, I agree. We raise our children so they can stay in debt for the rest of their lives to support a system that hates them. But then, its never been about making AMERICA proper prosperous, just corporate America. I've rethought my views on college and I say I am GLAD I'm not in one anymore. I no longer will have to pay off loans for the rest of my life so that I can struggle for years to find a halfway decent job. I'm also never ever going to own a credit card or a house, and if I buy a car it's gonna be old, used, and bought with cash straight up. Just a few more ways to never be in debt.

[daihashi]

First, lol at the Africa comment. So, so terrible but still so, so funny.

Second, I agree. We raise our children so they can stay in debt for the rest of their lives to support a system that hates them. But then, its never been about making AMERICA proper prosperous, just corporate America. I've rethought my views on college and I say I am GLAD I'm not in one anymore. I no longer will have to pay off loans for the rest of my life so that I can struggle for years to find a halfway decent job. I'm also never ever going to own a credit card or a house, and if I buy a car it's gonna be old, used, and bought with cash straight up. Just a few more ways to never be in debt.

A home is an investment as is an education. Also the loans for college do not take as long to pay back as you would anticipate.

I'm not big on credit cards.. I don't use them but I own 1. It is always beneficial to have at least 1 credit card especially in situations where there's an emergency.

[Cederfern]

First, lol at the Africa comment. So, so terrible but still so, so funny.

Second, I agree. We raise our children so they can stay in debt for the rest of their lives to support a system that hates them. But then, its never been about making AMERICA proper prosperous, just corporate America. I've rethought my views on college and I say I am GLAD I'm not in one anymore. I no longer will have to pay off loans for the rest of my life so that I can struggle for years to find a halfway decent job. I'm also never ever going to own a credit card or a house, and if I buy a car it's gonna be old, used, and bought with cash straight up. Just a few more ways to never be in debt.

:thumbsup: RIGHT ON YOU STANKY BUDHA! :D

have you heard about the republic of lakotah yet?

[thcbongman]

First, lol at the Africa comment. So, so terrible but still so, so funny.

Second, I agree. We raise our children so they can stay in debt for the rest of their lives to support a system that hates them. But then, its never been about making AMERICA proper prosperous, just corporate America. I've rethought my views on college and I say I am GLAD I'm not in one anymore. I no longer will have to pay off loans for the rest of my life so that I can struggle for years to find a halfway decent job. I'm also never ever going to own a credit card or a house, and if I buy a car it's gonna be old, used, and bought with cash straight up. Just a few more ways to never be in debt.

If you thought the africa comment was bad, I went out with a french girl and when I took her to NY, she asked where the trade towers were. It was so sick, but I couldn't help laughing because it was the dumbest shit I heard!

[Cederfern]

If you thought the africa comment was bad, I went out with a french girl and when I took her to NY, she asked where the trade towers were. It was so sick, but I couldn't help laughing because it was the dumbest shit I heard!



And lo and behold, the reason socialism is bad!



:jointsmile:

[aceon9]

"Something as simple as an MRI...something used quite frequently to find cancer in the body is not used in Canada, they have to drive over the border for that."

- huh? we have MRI machines in canada (and not the flintstones version with a little bird inside the machine that creates the image with it's beak)...americans cross the border to get cheaper MRI's in canada
Canada MRI Scan Clinics for Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging Clinics in Canada (http://www.findprivateclinics.ca/MRI_Scan/82-0.html)


We are talking about universal health care, which doesn't include MRI's in canada. Your link is a site for "private" health care. So that means you have to pay for that. I on the other hand don't have to pay for my MRI's in US under my private health care. SO A. your wrong and B. I think that was a small point.

[aceon9]

[quote=delusionsofNORMALity]i felt a familiar dull throbbing behind my eyes as i read the rather predictable responses to my anarchistic bent. y'all have no idea how many time i have been asked to respond to those same cries of "burn the witch" or how tiresome it is to read the same "mad max" cliches and wild west stereotypes. just mentioning the term "anarchism" seems to bring to mind the image of some shadowy figure with a full shaggy beard and black stovepipe hat, skulking through gloom filled alleys to plant his bowling ball shaped bomb. it would seem that anarchists are universally despised. folks seem to pay little attention to the adjective i have painstakingly placed before that hated term or to question why such patience should be required.

You certainly know your stuff, but you have yet to show a working example.

You say that the begining of man started with the herd mentality.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

Of course Anarchism came first, it is more complicated to think of others than just ones self. Evolution dictates that.

The herd mentality came from the experience of living in anarchy

In fact anarchy is what we always start with. The creation of any government is to correct the problems of anarchy. Wheher it's a form of socialism, capitialism, communism or any other. It's well known that Anarchism doesn't work, it's just a matter of what the best solution is.

Cyberspace is the latest example of how easy Anarchy can go wrong. It worked great when it first started....when it was small and only used by a select group (people that mostly thought alike). Now since it is open to anybody, anywhere it is wrought with mis information and deviant behavior.

You were right the first time when you said that government was a necessary evil.
It is certainly necessary the question on the table here today is whether or not it should be absolute.

[JeffersonBud]

Cyberspace, the internet, or whatever you call it may be the most important tool every created in the realm of technology.
Cyberspace is the only way we have to mass communicate without a middle man. Without cyberspace, our means of communication would be limited to TV and Radio, which the government and big business has control over. Yes it is filled with corrupt information and a lot of porn but like everything, you have to use common sense and weed out the bullshit.
From anarchy and chaos, life and truth can emerge. We are on a global level now and we can't rely on the tele or radio or what they tell us as truth. The internet is and forever will be mans best weapon. Knowledge.

[thebsdawg]

There are a lot of reasons for this - first, realize that Americans don't actually know what they are talking about when they use the word "Socialist". Realize too that Americans have a very cartoonish and very black and white view of the world. Socialist and/or communist are the same thing in American speak - and what comes to mind immediately when you say the word "Socialist" to the average American is a grim militaristic society in which everyone is desperately poor, wears all gray, and stands in line all day for a loaf of bread while guards on every street corner hold machine guns and glare at people.

I wish I were exaggerating, but I'm not.

Most Americans have no clue what Socialism actually is - just that it's evil and bad. If you want to discredit someone's beliefs, just label them as "Socialist" then the debate gets shifted so they have to deny the charge. Now rather than discussing their ideas, we manage to reduce the discussion to "No I'm Not"/"Yes You Are".

As a result, we have a sub-minimal welfare system, we have a for-profit health-care industry in which any illness can be catastrophic for those without insurance both to their health and to their finances (and they better hope they're healthy before they run out of cash or they're out of luck - if you have no cash then bandages in an emergency room are all the healthcare you can get buddy), and we have continually rising costs of college education.

But the thing is that Americans think we have the best quality of life and the best healthcare system of anyplace in the world - and good luck telling anyone otherwise! It's gospel, it's a basic religion to Americans that our way is the best and that everyone else just wishes they could live here instead of standing in line in their gray coats shivering and waiting for bread.


you smug one, Its MY country thats got the statue declaring "Give me your tired, your poor, your weary, YEARNING TO BE FREE". Better not forget it, there's two ways to deal with communists, shoot them in the head or shoot them in the heart. And if the political takeover of america happens on a global scale, I will be standing on a battlefield ending your ways with mine. Believe That Homie.

Whats more, lest we act like were all uneducated, but I've read enough about the institution of socialism/communism in europe, and they each agreed to define themselves as each other, thus CONFUSING those unsure of what was true. Crafty, but at some point, even a retard will punch you for f***ing with him to, if he gets enough abuse first.
but whats bugging the piss out of me is, where do you people decide that a 18 yr old slut can go out, have 6 babies in a 6 yr period, and not know theirparentage, and then are instantly entitled to welfare forever?

how about, im smarter than 99% of the population, and should well be better paid for my clear brain function, sparkling personality, charming looks and a good set of teeth and hair to boot. youre pist cuz you drank the sh*tty F*ck*ng koolaid and did what ur govs tole you, and meanwhile it was them weakening your independence and instinct to survive. P*ss**s and cowards, the lot

[thebsdawg]

cuz we are 300 million people, cuz we are not just 1 country, we are 50 countries merged together, we are literally a continent
cuz we landed in a place just less than 600 years ago that was totally untouched in means of resource... that gave us a massive boom
cuz we practiced free labor (slavery) for a good part of our history and that gave us an advantage over others

the rest of the worlds resources have been used for a much longer time (excluding oil)

our GDP is based on consumer spending. average american holds thousands of dollars in debt, so far we have kept it rolling on debt, at some point u cant accumulate more debt

we got WW II, the rest of the world was literally destroyed to ruins, they have had to start over (most of europe, japan and even china)

u know what counts? PPP, or GDP per capita, not just the GDP alone, and then compare the population and general number of people in each country who live under poverty line

u will find out that Swiss has only 4000 dollars less than us in PPP, but look at their size and their system and their population and their poverty stats

A lot of our richer people cancel out the effect of our poor in this calcualtion, go ahead and compare the poverty statistics in US and other developed countries


here is just one link for the start List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_country), i must go to a test now, but i'm interested in this debate, I'll be back

an for clarification: I'm not a socialist nor do I advocate socialism but I see nothing wrong with certain things that people consider to be socialist, like a socialist healthcare system. or a socialist taxation system

we are capitalist right? how come we got the highest corporate tax rate in the world, forcing companies to seek means of saving by outsourcing and other means... think about it till i get back:D;)

The population was nil, until then effectively, nothing had been removed that was irreversible consumed(maybe silica from sand)and almost eerything then was renewable. 50countries/1 continent? have you heard urself lately? you need to smokemoreweed dude, soyou cant type so much. youve got diarrhea of the fingertips, bro.. BTW last place in a "white" country i heard about slavery, was in your now covetedEU. but really? do you want the truth? Ive made money since the day i learned to spend it. I made more money than my highschool teachers. and I WORKED MY ASS OFF DOING IT. dealing with over 100,000 people a week. collecting 10,000 cash off my one drawer in a good day. and working 90-100 hours EVERY WEEK. and in the inbetween, id go to the gym, and swim,bike run jig skate and hike. not to mention mhy summer job moving households and washing dishes. SO WHY IS SOCIALISM BAD?? I've earned over$1200 in a day straight24hrs , of work. and I have made over a grand a week since i was 15. now, shutup while i smoke my goddamned weed!

[Trip06]

What does all this political thought even get anyone anywhere? unless your out in the street protesting does talking on a tread do anything but fling shit? The pope is calling for a new world order. Sweet dreams. Ps fuck you and you and you and you.

[Trip06]

Its true you didnt hear? Look it up. Theres this internet search engine called "google". Here the pope advocates one world currancy and a world wide government. Revalations 13 v13-15

[Bong30]

Socialism only works in heaven where they dont need it, and in Hell where they already have it..... Ronald Reagan

Socialism doesnt work cause you wont get your ass out of Bed......
look up Profit motive......