Socialism, is it really any good?

[Napoleon Ier]

And here is where you absolutely fail.

No, this is where you make a grand, assertive, haughty and authoritative statement about something you know f*ck all about, causing me to laugh heartily.

The thing is that, yes our economy is very liberal and cool and shit like that, but welfare-benefits are also pretty big. We have a largely unregulated economy, but that doesn't mean social issues are ignored because "free market is a solution to everything". There is still good welfare and prescribed marijuana and legal prostitution.

Exactly how much is JSA in the Netherlands? It does exist in the US as well, you know...and it's just the tipof the iceberg in terms of welfare. Nor would I be too complacement about the health of your economy.
As for liberal social policy, what relevance? Libertarian/free-market ideals are all for marijuana and prostitution being legal.

Yup, though working in most countries is still better.
Problem is that that is not the fault of "welfareism", it's the problem of uncorrectly applied welfare. Welfare should always be less than minimum wage (though didn't you say that should be scrapped too?).

Yes. What right do you, snorri, have, to prohibit a capitalist act between consenting adults?

It should be a way of overbridging the gap between jobs. And it's needed. People can't just immediately find a new job when they're fired or "laid off", they need time for applying and finding and even sometimes waiting for a job they can actually do. You can't very well expect a molecular biologist to take a job as plumber.

That's why savings accounts exist and most employees demand employers include lay-off pay in their contract. Think seriously about these issues rather than pulling half-aked reasons out of your arse.

[Snorri1234]

Exactly how much is JSA in the Netherlands?

Uhm, it depends on how long you've worked before, how much you've earned before and how old you are. It's fairly complicated and actually a much better solution than a random amount of money they decided on. If you have a house and family to support and earned quite a lot in previous years, then it's much higher than if you're just 20 and just moved out of the house. It's always less than what you earned and basically insures you need to look for a job because you can't really afford to live on this forever.

Yup, though working in most countries is still better.
Problem is that that is not the fault of "welfareism", it's the problem of uncorrectly applied welfare. Welfare should always be less than minimum wage (though didn't you say that should be scrapped too?).

Yes. What right do you, snorri, have, to prohibit a capitalist act between consenting adults?

The same right I have to prohibit a doctor from seducing his patients, even when they're both consenting adult, because the parties are not equal here. The employee is dependent on the employer but the employer can just go for the cheapest pay and if the guy doesn't accept it he'll find someone else who is more desperate.

It should be a way of overbridging the gap between jobs. And it's needed. People can't just immediately find a new job when they're fired or "laid off", they need time for applying and finding and even sometimes waiting for a job they can actually do. You can't very well expect a molecular biologist to take a job as plumber.

That's why savings accounts exist and most employees demand employers include lay-off pay in their contract.

Not everyone can make a savings-account. Some people can merely make it without having outstanding debts at the end of the month. You could argue that they obviously don't know how to deal with money, but as long as we don't have an exam for would-be parents or kids to live in the real world I don't think that's a concern.

And lay-off pay is difficult as it's not always possible to determine how long you'll be looking for a new job.

[Jenos Ridan]

By the way Snorri, if you're reading this I don't think you're really a med student. How could you have so much free time to average over 12 posts a day when you should be trying to learn how to save peoples' lives?

Because I procrastinate too much. That and the fact I had 3 free weeks to study, something which I do in the last minute, has made me post a lot. Also, this is my first year so I'm not that busy yet.

If I were a citizen of wherever you lived and I knew that, my faith in the NHS would dwindle to nothing.

[Jenos Ridan]

about the i hate freedom line...

If modern society is going to place market and labor flexibility above human needs and concerns, then i am not a fan of that version of freedom at all, especially not to excess. There is certainly a danger in your rhetoric Jenos, of taking terms that have a positive connotation and hijacking them.

I understand your concerns and thank you for not being a raving lunatic.

I'd like to see the return of the notion that the best form of government is the one which governs least. In the aim of pragmatism, the government should do what it can to protect the people it serves and NOT the other way around.

The beauty of how the US was formed was the Government was to serve the people and the people were asked to VOLUNTARILY participate in its functioning. An area I feel most of my fellow Americans have dropped the ball, I'll admit.

I am not in favor of a resurgant era of "Robber Barons", but I do not want any more Uncle Joes or Chairman Maos. I don't pretend for one second that any person could support either notion without either being brainwashed or clinically insane.

[Snorri1234]

By the way Snorri, if you're reading this I don't think you're really a med student. How could you have so much free time to average over 12 posts a day when you should be trying to learn how to save peoples' lives?

Because I procrastinate too much. That and the fact I had 3 free weeks to study, something which I do in the last minute, has made me post a lot. Also, this is my first year so I'm not that busy yet.

If I were a citizen of wherever you lived and I knew that, my faith in the NHS would dwindle to nothing.

That's because you're a retard. The fact is that I'm not going to make this year either, so it doesn't matter much.

[bradleybadly]

That's because you're a retard. The fact is that I'm not going to make this year either, so it doesn't matter much.

Now I know you're an adolescent

[jonesthecurl]

about the i hate freedom line...

If modern society is going to place market and labor flexibility above human needs and concerns, then i am not a fan of that version of freedom at all, especially not to excess. There is certainly a danger in your rhetoric Jenos, of taking terms that have a positive connotation and hijacking them.

I understand your concerns and thank you for not being a raving lunatic.

I'd like to see the return of the notion that the best form of government is the one which governs least. In the aim of pragmatism, the government should do what it can to protect the people it serves and NOT the other way around.

The beauty of how the US was formed was the Government was to serve the people and the people were asked to VOLUNTARILY participate in its functioning. An area I feel most of my fellow Americans have dropped the ball, I'll admit.

I am not in favor of a resurgant era of "Robber Barons", but I do not want any more Uncle Joes or Chairman Maos. I don't pretend for one second that any person could support either notion without either being brainwashed or clinically insane.

SO you don't want the government to control immigration after all? Because, you know, the best government is the government which governs least. And the founding fathers welcomed immigration after all.

[CoffeeCream]

SO you don't want the government to control immigration after all? Because, you know, the best government is the government which governs least. And the founding fathers welcomed immigration after all.

That doesn't mean the government does nothing at all. You're making a big stretch from what he said. Yes our government should govern less but not abandon enforcing rules at all. Part of the reason we have an immigration problem is because our government looked the other way while it was happening so we could get cheap labor. In my opinion, that was largely Ronald Reagan's fault.

It's not like the founding fathers could have predicted the different types of immigration waves that would later come to our shores and lump it all into one big category.

[Jenos Ridan]

Thank you for pointing out how stupid it would be if I had said "no laws at all" as opposed to having less red tape and paperwork, which is ALL I was saying.

People should learn not to abandon logic and take leave of their senses, but as Jones just demonstrated, it appears in some cases to be unavoidable.

OH, BTW Snorri, shut up. Just cease wasting your time pumping up your over-inflated sense of self-importance: you're not impressing anybody with your arrogance or your admitted laziness. Since you have no interest in succeeding in your alledged course of study, I cannot image that your actual practice, assuming you are not lying to us all, would fair any bit better. As things stand, if what you say is true, quit wasting your money and the professors time and go get a real job. But I think, from what you have shown us all, that you have too much pride to simply admit that you made some honest mistakes and that you can own up to it and pull through.

And that I all I care to say or hear about that. Good day.

[Joodoo]

I think I'm might offend some ppl here. If I do, I apologize.
Right now it might be better for the world to turn to socialism/communism because we're experiencing many problems. Consider the extreme inflation that's going on in almost every country. In Hong Kong, the average cost of a 8kg bag of rice rose from 30 Hong Kong dollars (in 2005) to 90 dollars (currently). This cause demand for food and fuel to soar. Russia predicts that by 2020, a barrel of crude oil will cost about 500 US dollars. They even suggested that if the situation worsens, the Russian government should become the ruler of the world. Now they do have a point. After all, compared to other countries, Russia has the most food and natural resources. If the world does fall into an extreme crisis, Russia will probably be the last one standing.
Now relating this to socialism, strict government control is needed over the current economy of every country. If nobody stands up, then the problem will probably even worsen. By turning to socialism, we might be able to save ourselves. Socialism ensures that every one gets a job, that everyone will be treated equally (this is what really happened during the Mao era in China), that social problems will disappear. This may sound exaggerative, but it is a possible solution.

[Jenos Ridan]

Over my rotting corpse.

You can say good bye to any sort of civil liberties, as, in order for any Marxist scheme to work, all parts of the Big Three of Economics: Labor (every person would have to be state property, literally, from conception to burial/cremation[whichever is most effiecent, I guesss]), Capital (not just money, but also things like tractors, freight ships, chain saws and trains) and natural resources (every acre of arable land, every tree in the forests, etc.) would have to come under direct government control. This means a large police force to oversee the smooth running of the myriad operations and an even larger bureaucracy to juggle all the mountains of red tape and forms for every person, commodity and piece of land or equipment. Further still, the young ones will have to be taught the importance of following the leader while the older folks will have to be "re-educated" in the proper way of thinking.

Sir, if offence was not your goal, you succeeded anyway.

[muy_thaiguy]

I'm going to do this as calmly as I can.

I think I'm might offend some ppl here. If I do, I apologize.
Right now it might be better for the world to turn to socialism/communism because we're experiencing many problems.

Communism and Socialism cause problems as well. Examples? Why do Cubans continually try to escape from the Communist Cuba to the much more Capitalist US? What about the protests in 1989 in Tianemen Square in China where literally millions of people were protesting due to the lack of Capitalism?

Consider the extreme inflation that's going on in almost every country. In Hong Kong, the average cost of a 8kg bag of rice rose from 30 Hong Kong dollars (in 2005) to 90 dollars ting this to socialism, strict government control is needed over the current economy of eve(currently). This cause demand for food and fuel to soar.

Yeah, and taxing the hell out of everyone is going to make food cheaper. Part of this is due to the ethanol "solution" that is turning into a problem, fast.

Russia predicts that by 2020, a barrel of crude oil will cost about 500 US dollars. They even suggested that if the situation worsens, the Russian government should become the ruler of the world. Now they do have a point. After all, compared to other countries, Russia has the most food and natural resources. If the world does fall into an extreme crisis, Russia will probably be the last one standing.

The Cold War went over your head I take it.
Russia does have a lot of oil and such, but if oil prices continue to skyrocket, they will soon have to contend with a powerhouse just to the South of them, China. As for food shortages and the like, the US, during the Cold War (when the US and USSR were the worst of enemies), the US had to send food to them because there was wide spread famine. And if Russia did become a power house again, well, you may as well save yourself some trouble and shoot yourself now. Just research "Gulags" a bit, and that will probably deter you from anymore such posts.

Now relary country. If nobody stands up, then the problem will probably even worsen. By turning to socialism, we might be able to save ourselves. Socialism ensures that every one gets a job, that everyone will be treated equally (this is what really happened during the Mao era in China), that social problems will disappear. This may sound exaggerative, but it is a possible solution.

True, the problem may worsen, but Socialism? There will be NO recovery then. Capitalism works because it gives growth. And Socialism, again, look at other countries who have tried the Socialist and Communist approach. It fucked them over royally. Vietnam went down the drain (the North Vietnamese soldiers, hell, even the North Korean soldiers didn't want to go back to their crappy lives), North Korea is a Hell Hole, the former Eastern Block countries are still recovering, Cuba, well, I already covered that, China is rapidly becoming more and more Capitalistic, and all the other countries have since either reformed, or are now worse off then they were.

As for Mao, it is estimated that at the very least, 20 million people died during his life time. And that is a VERY conservative estimate. Some reports claim nearly 100 million died. And nearly the whole population were in a living hell hole.

The main problem with Communism (and to a slightly lesser degree, Socialism) is that they get to the point of giving someone or a small group absolute authority, well, it backfires, and hard.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[radiojake]

What about the protests in 1989 in Tianemen Square in China where literally millions of people were protesting due to the lack of Capitalism?

Actually, the protests at Tiananmen Square were largely a protest against the government's move towards unregulated capitalism, which was largely ignored by western press. I'm not going to the extent of defending China's government at all, because (like all governments) they have done a lot of fucked stuff, but i think it's in your interest to know what those protests were about. They were pro-democracy, anti-neo-liberal protests. Capitalism isn't the be all and end all, infact laissez-faire style capitalism has ruined a lot of countries economies (as well as the bloodshed that the governments have had to use to enforce the 'western ideals' that the Chicago University Ideologies have spread around the globe)

[Joodoo]

Well if you want risks and money, then you turn to capitalism.
If you want laziness but a guaranteed stable life, then you turn to socialism.
And also, Russia would not dare to use the Gulag system. They have learned their lesson.
Right now, America is dominating the world, economically. And while this domination is present, if you don't listen to them, they'll crush you, whether it by the military or by economic means. George Soros has continuously harassed the Polish economy until it listened to what the American government wanted them to do with his "tricks" (because I'm not sure what he did in detail).
Hey, maybe having Russia as a sole world economic power will result in a change.

[jonesthecurl]

SO you don't want the government to control immigration after all? Because, you know, the best government is the government which governs least. And the founding fathers welcomed immigration after all.

That doesn't mean the government does nothing at all. You're making a big stretch from what he said. Yes our government should govern less but not abandon enforcing rules at all. Part of the reason we have an immigration problem is because our government looked the other way while it was happening so we could get cheap labor. In my opinion, that was largely Ronald Reagan's fault.

It's not like the founding fathers could have predicted the different types of immigration waves that would later come to our shores and lump it all into one big category.

I had forgotten that Americans don't understand irony.

Here's my point: everyone wants the government to do stuff. Therefore "the government should not do stuff" is not in and of itself an argument against the government getting involved in any particular area.

"Should the government get involved in health care more/less/about the same" is a good question. If the answer is "no" it is not because it is wrong in principle for the government to do stuff.

Certified irony-free post.

[Snorri1234]

OH, BTW Snorri, shut up. Just cease wasting your time pumping up your over-inflated sense of self-importance: you're not impressing anybody with your arrogance

Man, that's some pretty heavy irony there.

Since you have no interest in succeeding in your alledged course of study, I cannot image that your actual practice, assuming you are not lying to us all, would fair any bit better.

Now obviously you have no fucking idea why I don't study or pass tests, but even then you come off as a pompous twat whenever you talk like that. Even when it'd be true I have no interrest in succeeding (actually I do, I'll just take my time), judging the entire medical education in a country you have no experience with based on what some first-year collegeboy is saying is retarded at best. But then having no experience with something has never stopped you from acting like an arrogant douchebag and judging whatever thought pops up in your mind must be the absolute truth.

As things stand, if what you say is true, quit wasting your money and the professors time and go get a real job.

Ah, the old "get a real job"-response, usually made by people who have never been to college and somehow envy those who do.

But I think, from what you have shown us all, that you have too much pride to simply admit that you made some honest mistakes and that you can own up to it and pull through.

What kinds of drugs are you taking to assume I won't try harder next year or change to a different study? Why would you assume so much from 2 or 3 lines I bother to post?

[CoffeeCream]

I had forgotten that Americans don't understand irony.

Here's my point: everyone wants the government to do stuff. Therefore "the government should not do stuff" is not in and of itself an argument against the government getting involved in any particular area.

"Should the government get involved in health care more/less/about the same" is a good question. If the answer is "no" it is not because it is wrong in principle for the government to do stuff.

Certified irony-free post.

We understand irony quite well but that was not the point of why I addressed you on this. Jenos was saying that the government which governs best governs least. What you did was make it sound like he didn't want government to control immigration at all. Now you've continued to do that in the 2nd paragraph of your post -

Here's my point: everyone wants the government to do stuff. Therefore "the government should not do stuff" is not in and of itself an argument against the government getting involved in any particular area.

Which is not the case that Jenos was making. Of course we want the government to control immigration. It's a necessary function of government.

I'd like to see the return of the notion that the best form of government is the one which governs least. In the aim of pragmatism, the government should do what it can to protect the people it serves and NOT the other way around.

So as you can see he never said that the government should not do stuff. That's an argument that you claim he is making when in fact he is saying the government should do what it can pragmatically.

[Snorri1234]

Here's my point: everyone wants the government to do stuff. Therefore "the government should not do stuff" is not in and of itself an argument against the government getting involved in any particular area.

Which is not the case that Jenos was making. Of course we want the government to control immigration. It's a necessary function of government.

I'd like to see the return of the notion that the best form of government is the one which governs least. In the aim of pragmatism, the government should do what it can to protect the people it serves and NOT the other way around.

So as you can see he never said that the government should not do stuff. That's an argument that you claim he is making when in fact he is saying the government should do what it can pragmatically.

I think jones was talking more about the "less-government!"-gut reaction some people have. Basically, Jenos's statement is meaningless as it doesn't tell us what the government should be doing. He doesn't exclude health-care run by the gov in that post for example, as you can easily argue it's for the protection of people.

[muy_thaiguy]

Well if you want risks and money, then you turn to capitalism.
If you want laziness but a guaranteed stable life, then you turn to socialism.
And also, Russia would not dare to use the Gulag system. They have learned their lesson.
Right now, America is dominating the world, economically. And while this domination is present, if you don't listen to them, they'll crush you, whether it by the military or by economic means. George Soros has continuously harassed the Polish economy until it listened to what the American government wanted them to do with his "tricks" (because I'm not sure what he did in detail).
Hey, maybe having Russia as a sole world economic power will result in a change.

Yeah, and Tsarist Russia used secret police, hidden murders, etc. Bolshevik Russia, which was supposed to change that used, secret police, hidden murders, banishments, gulags, terrorism, etc. Russia has a history of of saying they'll change for the better, lasts for a marginally short time, then they're right back where they started. Russia has proved to the world that they would be unfit for being a world power not once, but at least twice. If anything, they had better luck under the Tsars then as the USSR.

[silvanricky]

We can't hear your bullshit anymore, Snorri. It's off the charts.



Your gig at pretending to be the Dutch Doogie Howser is over. You sit on the internet all day instead of engaging people in real life. If you were as serious about helping people through the medical profession you wouldn't be on Conquer Club all the time. Jenos is right and you're just being an ass and trying to inflate your ego. But go ahead and continue posting shit about stuff you know almost nothing about.

[Curmudgeonx]

We can't hear your bullshit anymore, Snorri. It's off the charts.



Your gig at pretending to be the Dutch Doogie Howser is over. You sit on the internet all day instead of engaging people in real life. If you were as serious about helping people through the medical profession you wouldn't be on Conquer Club all the time. Jenos is right and you're just being an ass and trying to inflate your ego. But go ahead and continue posting shit about stuff you know almost nothing about.

Flame Wars that way ------ >

I am sure that Snorri would like an opportunity to un-clutter this discussion of Socialism and meet you in FW.

[Napoleon Ier]

Here's my point: everyone wants the government to do stuff. Therefore "the government should not do stuff" is not in and of itself an argument against the government getting involved in any particular area.

Which is not the case that Jenos was making. Of course we want the government to control immigration. It's a necessary function of government.

I'd like to see the return of the notion that the best form of government is the one which governs least. In the aim of pragmatism, the government should do what it can to protect the people it serves and NOT the other way around.

So as you can see he never said that the government should not do stuff. That's an argument that you claim he is making when in fact he is saying the government should do what it can pragmatically.

I think jones was talking more about the "less-government!"-gut reaction some people have. Basically, Jenos's statement is meaningless as it doesn't tell us what the government should be doing. He doesn't exclude health-care run by the gov in that post for example, as you can easily argue it's for the protection of people.

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

[Snorri1234]

We can't hear your bullshit anymore, Snorri. It's off the charts.



Your gig at pretending to be the Dutch Doogie Howser is over. You sit on the internet all day instead of engaging people in real life. If you were as serious about helping people through the medical profession you wouldn't be on Conquer Club all the time. Jenos is right and you're just being an ass and trying to inflate your ego. But go ahead and continue posting shit about stuff you know almost nothing about.

Coming from the guy who has never contributed to any discussion here with anything other than silly claims, I don't really want to listen to you.

Also, why do you think I take this serious?

I am sure that Snorri would like an opportunity to un-clutter this discussion of Socialism and meet you in FW.

Yes, it would be greatly appreciated actually.

[Snorri1234]

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

Difficult issue actually.

I think a state serves the function of doing what is right for the people as a whole. So in that regard it derives it legitimacy from people willing to give them that power.
However, this is ofcourse very optimistic as through several tactics a government can trick people in giving them more power than they actually would when thinking clearly about it. I think that that is the main problem with big nations, as they require a non-direct democracy and are therefore flawed as they gain more and more power like any other government in the history of mankind.

I'm watching football right now excuse me if my thoughts seem a little rambled.

[Napoleon Ier]

This discussion needs to progress to an understanding of where it is States derive their legitimacy from.

So Snorri. Expound.

Difficult issue actually.

I think a state serves the function of doing what is right for the people as a whole. So in that regard it derives it legitimacy from people willing to give them that power.
However, this is ofcourse very optimistic as through several tactics a government can trick people in giving them more power than they actually would when thinking clearly about it. I think that that is the main problem with big nations, as they require a non-direct democracy and are therefore flawed as they gain more and more power like any other government in the history of mankind.

Government cannot exercise authority from the consent of the governed, the mere existance of anarchists dispells this notion.

Thanks for playing, try again...