Socialism, is it really any good?

[spurgistan]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

Seeing as you're unilaterally disregarding an entire theory of distribution of wealth, perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

[bradleybadly]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

[muy_thaiguy]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

Seeing as you're unilaterally disregarding an entire theory of distribution of wealth, perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Fine then. We'll take away, oh about 60-70% of what you get monthly and then continue giving it to someone who's probably never worked a day in their life until the both of you are at about the same amount financially. But will we stop there? Nope. Gotta keep doing it so that person still doesn't have to lift a finger while you are working your ass off just to keep going.

Whether you like it or not, there are PLENTY of people who would simply mooch off of this "distribution of wealth." After all, they're getting money without having to lift a finger, while others are stuck doing tons of jobs just so that THEIR money goes to those moochers. Granted, there are some people that could use a boost, but there are also quite a few who would easily take advantage of the system.

[radiojake]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

Seeing as you're unilaterally disregarding an entire theory of distribution of wealth, perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Fine then. We'll take away, oh about 60-70% of what you get monthly and then continue giving it to someone who's probably never worked a day in their life until the both of you are at about the same amount financially. But will we stop there? Nope. Gotta keep doing it so that person still doesn't have to lift a finger while you are working your ass off just to keep going.

Whether you like it or not, there are PLENTY of people who would simply mooch off of this "distribution of wealth." After all, they're getting money without having to lift a finger, while others are stuck doing tons of jobs just so that THEIR money goes to those moochers. Granted, there are some people that could use a boost, but there are also quite a few who would easily take advantage of the system.

You make it sound as though there is noone who takes advantage of the capitalist system. Oh wait, everyone who has ever amounted wealth has worked hard for it and earned it, right? So when the IMF and WTO routinely destroy economies of countries that nationalize their industries so that they can force privatization and free trade and allow multi-national companies to take advantage and triple their wealth instantly is all ok, yeah? Because atleast moochers aren't making a living off someone else's hard work.

If you're worried about people working hard so that someone else can make money without lifting a finger, what do you think of third world sweatshops that make clothing for companies like Nike and others? Pretty sure Phil Knight makes a shitload of money off the backs of sweat shop labourers.

[muy_thaiguy]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

Seeing as you're unilaterally disregarding an entire theory of distribution of wealth, perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Fine then. We'll take away, oh about 60-70% of what you get monthly and then continue giving it to someone who's probably never worked a day in their life until the both of you are at about the same amount financially. But will we stop there? Nope. Gotta keep doing it so that person still doesn't have to lift a finger while you are working your ass off just to keep going.

Whether you like it or not, there are PLENTY of people who would simply mooch off of this "distribution of wealth." After all, they're getting money without having to lift a finger, while others are stuck doing tons of jobs just so that THEIR money goes to those moochers. Granted, there are some people that could use a boost, but there are also quite a few who would easily take advantage of the system.

You make it sound as though there is noone who takes advantage of the capitalist system. Oh wait, everyone who has ever amounted wealth has worked hard for it and earned it, right? So when the IMF and WTO routinely destroy economies of countries that nationalize their industries so that they can force privatization and free trade and allow multi-national companies to take advantage and triple their wealth instantly is all ok, yeah? Because atleast moochers aren't making a living off someone else's hard work.

If you're worried about people working hard so that someone else can make money without lifting a finger, what do you think of third world sweatshops that make clothing for companies like Nike and others? Pretty sure Phil Knight makes a shitload of money off the backs of sweat shop labourers.

And me thinks that you'll be next in the sweat shops (if what jay and company are saying is true).

But you would rather put everything into Government control, after all the screw ups they've made other then in the trade industry? As if we weren't in enough debt as it is. Sure, like has been said before, it's a hell of a lot easier to do it with countries that have populations that are only a fraction of the size of the US (even though it looks that even those are going back to Capitalistic trade), but when you get around 300 million people, it sure as hell ain't going to work so smoothly. Countries with high populations that have tried this, have ended up in financial ruin. Especially China under Mao. They tried the whole "equal distribution of wealth," thing, and look where it got them. Now, they are becoming more Capitalistic and people are actually getting better lives because of it. They are becoming increasingly more wealthy.

It's 3:30. I'm going to bed now.

[heavycola]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

Seeing as you're unilaterally disregarding an entire theory of distribution of wealth, perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

Fine then. We'll take away, oh about 60-70% of what you get monthly and then continue giving it to someone who's probably never worked a day in their life until the both of you are at about the same amount financially. But will we stop there? Nope. Gotta keep doing it so that person still doesn't have to lift a finger while you are working your ass off just to keep going.

Whether you like it or not, there are PLENTY of people who would simply mooch off of this "distribution of wealth." After all, they're getting money without having to lift a finger, while others are stuck doing tons of jobs just so that THEIR money goes to those moochers. Granted, there are some people that could use a boost, but there are also quite a few who would easily take advantage of the system.

A brilliant summation of the flipside of the American dream: 'anyone who has less than me deserves what they have.'

Ever read Death of a Salesman?

[Curmudgeonx]

HC wrote:

A brilliant summation of the flipside of the American dream: 'anyone who has less than me deserves what they have.'

Of course, anyone who has more than me deserves what they have.

And "deserves" is as ambiguous as "worthy" (see the UHC thread). Not to get all Wittgenstein on you, but a little tighter on the language use may result in more clarity in argument.

[jonesthecurl]

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.

Well then why can't you just let him speak for himself, Snorri? I'm trying to restrain myself because I don't want to come off as hostile towards you but you are totally twisting what is being talked about. Are you doing this intentionally to try to be cute? There was absolutely no talk about health care. Who are you to say that someone's statement is meaningless?

I rarely get angered but I'm starting to see what people are talking about when it comes to elitist attitudes around here.

Here's Jones speaking for himself as my last post apparently failed to come across, even though i checked it for sense(check!) and irony(check! irony-free).

Let me say this again:

(1)there are things that government should do.

(2)therefore the argument that the government "should do little" is not, in and of itself, a valid argument for failing to act in any particular matter.

(3)The question of whether the government should or should not get involved in healthcare is worth debating: but merely saying "the government shouldn't do THIS stuff cos I think THIS is stuff the government shouldn't do" is a circular argument and gets nobody anywhere.

Separate point: why are you annoyed at someone for responding to your response to my response to someone else?
How come you can jump in and Snorri can't? What makes Snorri elitist in this case, and not you?

[CoffeeCream]

Here's Jones speaking for himself as my last post apparently failed to come across, even though i checked it for sense(check!) and irony(check! irony-free).

Let me say this again:

(1)there are things that government should do.

(2)therefore the argument that the government "should do little" is not, in and of itself, a valid argument for failing to act in any particular matter.

Jones, that was not his argument. I don't see why you can't get that. He never said the government should fail to act in any particular matter. You took his words and twisted them to a position that he never took. He never said the government should fail to act on immigration. Now this is the 2nd time I've pointed that out and apparently you're just going to keep charging him with that because you want to. Governing less is not equivalent with failing to act. They are distinct from each other.

(3)The question of whether the government should or should not get involved in healthcare is worth debating: but merely saying "the government shouldn't do THIS stuff cos I think THIS is stuff the government shouldn't do" is a circular argument and gets nobody anywhere.

Then the opposite is also true. Merely saying that the government should do THIS stuff because I think THIS is the stuff the government should do is also a circular argument.

Separate point: why are you annoyed at someone for responding to your response to my response to someone else?
How come you can jump in and Snorri can't? What makes Snorri elitist in this case, and not you?

A brief moment of irritability. I didn't word it correctly. I was more irritated that he was changing the subject towards health care when that was never originally mentioned between Jenos and yourself. I also thought it elitist to say that someone else's post was meaningless just because there was a disagreement on the subject. I certainly don't agree with a lot of people here but that doesn't mean their contributions in the forums are meaningless.

If I came across that way (elitist) towards him I didn't mean to. Sorry.

[spurgistan]

Well, I think that you should have to prove that the government should not provide an essential service for its citizens with a lot more force and reason than the argument that it should provide all essential services. On account of the whole, "What are we paying them for", thing. So, while we may have similarly circular arguments saying "The government should / not do this because it's what I want it to do", shouldn't the anti-single payer folks need to prove why the government shouldn't take charge for the health of the community?

Oh, and I take my coffee black.

[bradleybadly]

shouldn't the anti-single payer folks need to prove why the government shouldn't take charge for the health of the community?

No, because we currently lead the world in quality of health care. It should be up to those who want to change it to prove why it should be changed to something worse. Now I tried showing you guys sources on this but I was told to "go read a book". I've read up on this subject since it was started in another thread by reputable sources.

The truth is that European single-payer systems are moving more towards requiring consumer-sharing of the costs of health care to discourage over-utilization of so called "free" services. The systems are unable to keep up with the demand because so many people use the system. Global budgets and fee restrictions (a price control instituted by government) have lead to a shortage of capital investment, resulting in a lack of medical technology and an actual lack of access (something you guys on the left constantly cry out for) for patients needing advanced care.

Once these European countries instituted single-payer systems, their own health care costs have steadily risen. It's not like the USA is the only country facing rising health care costs. In fact, the rising costs have exceeded their respective government's forecasts. Overcrowding and unclean hospitals are common in some countries. In Japan & France, the overcrowding problem has decreased since they've implemented more rules forcing citizens to do more cost-sharing - in other words THEY'RE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE because the governments have said they can't handle the demand.

Waiting lists are also becoming more and more of a problem. In some parts of Europe, waiting lists are so long that the European Observatory on Health Systems claimed that they "veer toward de facto rationing". As many as 750,000 Britons are currently awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. There is explicit rationing of patients awaiting certain types of care in the UK: kidney dialysis & open heart surgery. Canada's system has become so bad that there are illegal for-profit clinics operating out in the open. The Canadian government doesn't dare prosecute them because the government hospitals couldn't handle the demand if they were shut down. That's what happens under a "free" single-payer system --- everyone and their brother uses it and drives the demand so high that less people actually get health care.

It's also interesting to see that no European single-payer system actually covers everyone in their countries. The universal health care that is promised is actually a myth. Universal health insurance does not guarantee universal health care access. The funny thing is that European countries are now moving further away from centralized government care (single-payer systems) and more towards having their citizens share in the cost of their health care.

While for-profit health care isn't perfect, it is far better than what is being offered as an alternative. There, I made a post without saying f*@k or name-calling. (Player's influence rubbed off on me )

[bradleybadly]

A brilliant summation of the flipside of the American dream: 'anyone who has less than me deserves what they have.'

That's not what it is at all. It's the notion that people can best be trusted to provide for their own lives when there's an incentive (wealth creation) to do so better than having the government provide it for you.


Notice I didn't say "perfect" - I said "best". There is no such thing as utopia in any economic system. More people (not all) are helped and have their needs met in a capitalistic system than in any other.

[Juan_Bottom]

No, because we currently lead the world in quality of health care.

I don't like this argument one bit. That is an arguable statement, and this is a subject where quantity counts too. I'm not asking that the government take charge of everything, only that they provide healthcare services to everyone. Which they won't. I am an example.

[jonesthecurl]

Here's Jones speaking for himself as my last post apparently failed to come across, even though i checked it for sense(check!) and irony(check! irony-free).

Let me say this again:

(1)there are things that government should do.

(2)therefore the argument that the government "should do little" is not, in and of itself, a valid argument for failing to act in any particular matter.

Jones, that was not his argument. I don't see why you can't get that. He never said the government should fail to act in any particular matter. You took his words and twisted them to a position that he never took. He never said the government should fail to act on immigration. Now this is the 2nd time I've pointed that out and apparently you're just going to keep charging him with that because you want to. Governing less is not equivalent with failing to act. They are distinct from each other.

(3)The question of whether the government should or should not get involved in healthcare is worth debating: but merely saying "the government shouldn't do THIS stuff cos I think THIS is stuff the government shouldn't do" is a circular argument and gets nobody anywhere.

Then the opposite is also true. Merely saying that the government should do THIS stuff because I think THIS is the stuff the government should do is also a circular argument.

Separate point: why are you annoyed at someone for responding to your response to my response to someone else?
How come you can jump in and Snorri can't? What makes Snorri elitist in this case, and not you?

A brief moment of irritability. I didn't word it correctly. I was more irritated that he was changing the subject towards health care when that was never originally mentioned between Jenos and yourself. I also thought it elitist to say that someone else's post was meaningless just because there was a disagreement on the subject. I certainly don't agree with a lot of people here but that doesn't mean their contributions in the forums are meaningless.

If I came across that way (elitist) towards him I didn't mean to. Sorry.

Let me see if I can put this in words of one syllable (all right so far but for "syllable").

I did not say that J said the gov should not act on immigration (I can have that more-than one syllable word 'cos he used it too).

I said that to say the gov should try not to do stuff is not a good reason (oops) on its own not to act in this case or that case .

I tried to show that to say this was balls in case (a) since it would not make sense on immigration. This was where the "irony"* came in.

*Don't know a one syllable word for irony. My Bad.

[protectedbygold]

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)

Umm no! The protesters were not against the market reforms towards capitalism. They were calling for more freedom of the market because those reforms didn't go far enough! Yes, they were joined later by some union workers who thought the reforms had gone too far, but they were johnny come latelies who agreed with the students on the issue of government corruption. One of the 4 magic weapons they called for in order for China's modernization to take place was a market economy. Student committees sent letters to the National People's Congress demanding a repeal of the "anti-bourgeois liberalization" and "anti-spiritual pollution" campaigns against Western and capitalistic influences.

I wrote a paper about this a few years ago. The people you're talking about who are now claiming the protests were against market reforms have done so after having been ordered to attend compulsory 're-education' for their part in the protests. Wang Hui is just one example of protesters who have now changed their tune on this.

[CoffeeCream]

Oh, and I take my coffee black.

[Snorri1234]

No responce. I do believe that he is evading us for a reason; we know the sort of slime he is.

I know you're probably just baiting me, but whatever.



Did you actually claim there that I am not responding to you? You mean that after that post of mine in which I responded and you didn't respond back you are accusing me of doing exactly that thing you're doing?

Are you a retard? Or is it just the lack of college-education that makes you look like an idiot everytime you post?

[bradleybadly]

I know you're probably just baiting me, but whatever.

Did you actually claim there that I am not responding to you? You mean that after that post of mine in which I responded and you didn't respond back you are accusing me of doing exactly that thing you're doing?

Are you a retard? Or is it just the lack of college-education that makes you look like an idiot everytime you post?

Ah, I see you're back from the Dutch teenage doctor convention. Take two doses of bullshit and call me in the morning

[Snorri1234]

I know you're probably just baiting me, but whatever.

Did you actually claim there that I am not responding to you? You mean that after that post of mine in which I responded and you didn't respond back you are accusing me of doing exactly that thing you're doing?

Are you a retard? Or is it just the lack of college-education that makes you look like an idiot everytime you post?

Ah, I see you're back from the Dutch teenage doctor convention. Take two doses of bullshit and call me in the morning

Actually, I was dissecting corpses.

[DangerBoy]

Actually, I was dissecting corpses.

Sure sure. Personally I was helping out on the communication frequencies for the Mars Exploration Rover. Would you please give up the whole "I'm a medical student" stunt. You can only play that one out for so long.

[Snorri1234]

Actually, I was dissecting corpses.

Sure sure. Personally I was helping out on the communication frequencies for the Mars Exploration Rover. Would you please give up the whole "I'm a medical student" stunt. You can only play that one out for so long.

Please give me a good reason to lie about it. Honestly, I don't see a good reason to do so. I mean, it's not like I immediately get massiv respectah because I happen to actually go to university unlike that retard of a Jenos.

[Ray Rider]

question:

Socialism, is it really any good?

answer:

no

[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.

Snorri, you've made an ass of yourself; if you are indeed a medical student, then, by your own admission, you do not take your studies seriously. I know that if any of us here were Dutch citizens or residents, we'd all be appalled that measures have not been taken to disipline you. Therefore, quit wasting your money (btw, how do you pay for the courses?) and the professor's time and get a job. Either that, or you get serious about it and shut up.

By the way, my self-important friend, I have been to college. Wasn't able to pay for more than three quarters. Which brings me back to that annoying little question; how do you pay for it? I would be going to college now if I had the funds for it, and consequently, I'd be posting less often. Because, unlike you, I actually want to do well and be a productive member of society.

Glad to see you summoned the nerve to reply, saddened to realise that you're too proud of the non-accomplishments you've racked up for yourself.

The key difference, I think, between us is that I have no problem with hard work as a means to an end. Maybe that is how I was raised, maybe not. But it doesn't change the facts.

You should be attempting to save (what little) face you have left. Please, do not be any more a fool than you've been so far.

[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.

Snorri, you've made an ass of yourself; if you are indeed a medical student, then, by your own admission, you do not take your studies seriously. I know that if any of us here were Dutch citizens or residents, we'd all be appalled that measures have not been taken to disipline you. Therefore, quit wasting your money (btw, how do you pay for the courses?) and the professor's time and get a job. Either that, or you get serious about it and shut up.

You don't even know how my study works, you dickwad. You don't know how my country functions and how I can afford to study and I doubt you've seen much of the world judging from your utter ignorance of many issues. Your conclusions from what little info I have given are flatout ridiculous. You take from me not passing tests that I don't take this study seriously?

Do you actually know how med-school works in the rest of the world? I've come directly from highschool, not from college after getting my bachelor. I'm still orientating and having the student-live. If I take 12 years for my study instead of 10 it's all good, nobody cares. Hell, I know people who have taken 15 years to finish who are now well-paid doctors.

[Curmudgeonx]

Take your shit with Snorri to flame wars. It is his fucking life Jenos, if he wants to f*ck around (in your opinion) in medical school, it is his fucking time, not ours. I fucked around a great deal in both undergrad and grad school and since I was paying for my education I was only hurting/entertaining myself. Quit your fucking judging; if you have an interesting viewpoint on Socialism, state it, argue it, etc. Otherwise if you want to pull Snorri's chain : get thee the f*ck to Flame Wars.