So you'd break the law there, just as you've broken the rules here regarding multiple registrationsOriginally Posted by Clarkie
Socialism is simply the Collective denial of responsibility.
Well as a citizen of a country that took a socialist path for nearly 50 years, I would say never again.
Socialism destroyed our economy, condemned millions to poverty and saw the Government ballooning to huge proportions.
Some aspects of socialism are good in moderation such as more tax on the very wealthy so the poor can come up faster, and the idea of a minimum level of healthcare for all. The rest is junk.
What I can get from the replies in this thread is that alot of people dont understand socialism .They are equating it to communism and since you fought a long time trying to bring it down it is understandable you fear socialism since you see it as some backdoor kind of communism.
I will probably reply to each reply later today when got the time.
Masada,
I ask once again: In what way?
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
I think you missed what I was saying. It can and does exist in other forms of government. However, it is a essential feature of a socialist state.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
Really? I'm interested to hear how you've come to that conclusion....
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
We have a lot less of that crap than most other places. And we hope to get rid of a lot more of it.
By the way, merit-based education does not look at your wealth level, so you needn't be exceedingly rich, you just got to have potential somehwhere inside that hat rack we all carry on our shoulders.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
That is always the excuse of socialism:
"It wasn't implemented right."
"You don't understand it."
Meanwhile, millions of people starve and are marginalized.
Socialism only works when you get to pick who takes part. If everyone is productive and pays into it, it works. I'll admit that.
Let's say I have private insurance, which is basically a tiny model of socialized welfare. Everyone pays into it, and it helps you out in extreme circumstances. This works. Why? Because the insurance company gets to pick who takes part. If you are going to be a drain on the insurance company, and not pay your bills, you don't get to take part. When more people take from the insurance company than are putting it, the company goes under, and everyone suffers.
Socialized government doesn't have the luxury of choosing who gets to take part, unless they just eliminate whole portions of the population (which has been done). So they have to basically "insure" everyone. Which is a massively failing business model. There is no incentive to work hard, because your excess success is taken from you, but not working at all is equally rewarded. People take the path of the most benefit with the least amount of work.
As has been stated above, those at the top who contribute the largest portion of the success will simply leave if they can not benefit from their hard work. Once that happens, only the non-producers are left, and nobody benefits. To prevent this, the state needs to stop people and business from leaving. This is done mostly by nationalizing business. Productive people will still leave, and head towards capitalist countries though. Any business ran by people who are not concerned about making a profit from it, or experienced and talented enough to do it well, will fail both in its mission, and in its efficiency. This is why socialism can never exist in competition with capitalism. Ever. Socialism requires global dominance, otherwise, those who can succeed will simply leave.
Socialism requires a paradigm shift in how humans interact with the world, which is generally to their advantage.
I am always skeptical of wealthy people who advocate socialism, because as of yet, I have not seen too many of those wealthy politicians or entertainment figures abandon their wealth to live like the common person, or support a large number of people. It is disingenuous of them, and makes me think that their version of socialism allows them to be more equal than others. Anyone who advocates socialism feels that they will benefit from it, probably on the backs of others. A nation of free-riders doesn't function, and will fail massively eventually.
Last edited by Army5339; 19 May 08, at 13:28.
You're right, I should have been more specific. I'm sure you can still own knives. Everyone else has guns, however.
Your press is NOT free. It exists at the sufferance of, and has to bow to the desires of your government.
I'd advise not getting so snotty so fast. Just some advice.
-dale
Dammit. Wasted my time with a banned guy. And he never even got a chance to call me Hitler.
-dale
I am not sure what the current definition of socialism is, but I will say this much: I believe that the government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to the following to allow them to perform on a more or less equal footing:
1. Quality compulsory education, upto high school
2. Decent level of medical benefits for all
3. Some amount of progressive taxation to help pay for the first 2 points
After that, it is upto each individual's ability to rise or sink. Anyone who feels that some other section of the society should pull them along are free riders and leeches.
On the other hand, if there are individuals who genuinely are not able to take care of themselves (and they will form a very small minority), the goverment may set up programs to take care of this group.
Any else, as Bolo121 has pointed out is junk.
One other thing, needles of what socialists (or communists? or leftists?) believe, inequality is moraly desirable, if it means that all members of the society are better off than an "equal" world with no personal freedom, initiative or drive to be better.
This thread started as a question: "what's wrong with socialism." I don't see anything wrong with your taking off in the direction of discussing actual states that practice social-welfare, but at least don't use a change in subject to refute an analogy illustrating the principle of socialism.
Instead, explain why the analogy is wrong. Why is it wrong to point out that a country of freeloaders will eventually topple.
The list of countries that you gave have social programs, but none are thoroughly socialistic. The granddaddy of all social-welfare states recently tanked--the USSR, and the next in size, the PRC, is slipping the bonds step by step. So, if you want to differentate, list countries that aimed at socialistic nirvana and succeeded and those that fell flat from overload. The subject is socialism and its pros and cons.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Fear not; he got his refutation. Unfortunately, it went right over his head.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
Oh really? You might have posted too quickly to see bolo's response
Well as a citizen of a country that took a socialist path for nearly 50 years, I would say never again.
Socialism destroyed our economy, condemned millions to poverty and saw the Government ballooning to huge proportions.
Some aspects of socialism are good in moderation such as more tax on the very wealthy so the poor can come up faster, and the idea of a minimum level of healthcare for all. The rest is junk.
amen.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: