When communism pwns

[Der-Lowe]

A common argument set forth by those who favor communist regimes in Latin America has been the example of Cuba: with a much more limited amount of resources, it is able to achieve the same level of social welfare as its more affluent neighbors, namely, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile.
I would then like to focus into which goods should be universally provided (ie communism!). Most countries have a "communistic" primary educational system, basic health services, while others also have universal higher education systems many European countries have established "safety nets", minimum incomes for all, etc.
The questions would be as following: What goods do you think a person deserves even if it does not have an ability to pay for it?

If you're interested in the subject, you should check this link, or grab an introductory public-finance book (Stiglitz, Musgrave and Musgrave, or whatever you google).

[yurgenburgen]

At 12/8/09 03:00 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: The questions would be as following: What goods do you think a person deserves even if it does not have an ability to pay for it?

Water, basic food, shelter, basic clothing.

And when I say "basic" I do mean basic.

[Stoicish]

It's a little hard to enjoy life when the government is able to provide everything for you in exchange for basic civil liberties.

Also, what they provide is bordered on dead basic requirements to survive.

[Ismael92]

I live in Uruguay and here higher education is free. There are private universities too, of course, but I think that being able to study without having to pay is a must. If a place doesn't have free education, then you're denying knowledge to those who aren't lucky enough to have the money to afford it.

There have been problems with people taking advantage of our educational system (people from other countries who come here to study for free, and then leave), but I think that's not possible anymore (I think you must pay a tax or something if you study here and go to another country, I'm not sure though).

Other goods that should be free are the ones that yurgenburgen named: food and water (obviously), shelter and clothing. And there are probably more things that I can't think of right now :/

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/8/09 05:29 PM, Stoicish wrote: It's a little hard to enjoy life when the government is able to provide everything for you in exchange for basic civil liberties.

We're not talking about communist regimes here, the question was what goods should be provided not in an ability-to-pay basis, ie, "freely" (rationing might apply); there is no loss of civil liberties.

At 12/8/09 04:48 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 12/8/09 03:00 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: The questions would be as following: What goods do you think a person deserves even if it does not have an ability to pay for it?

Water, basic food, shelter, basic clothing.

And when I say "basic" I do mean basic.

Define basic non-circularly.
I believe that such a wide array of goods freely provided is too much. I'd limit it to a monetary criteria. Let the minimum wage be A, then give a universal grant of A/2. Or have it implemented as a per-child grant, based on the kid's academic achievement (not that he is an A-grader, basically that he goes and passes school, has all the vaccines, etc).

At 12/8/09 06:28 PM, Ismael92 wrote: I live in Uruguay

Best country in the world
You, sir, win this thread.
*modship*

There have been problems with people taking advantage of our educational system (people from other countries who come here to study for free, and then leave), but I think that's not possible anymore (I think you must pay a tax or something if you study here and go to another country, I'm not sure though).

Actually, I don't believe in free higher education, I like the loan system: it's free if you want, but pay later when you are a qualified worker.

[HorseloverFrost]

As experience in Africa has shown, the problem of providing basic goods for free is that it undermines the production of similar goods of the cost-money variety. If the choice is between working or starving, a person will surely choose work. But when the choice is between working and living lower class, a significant part of the population chooses to live lower class, effectively reducing the number of available workers and paying customers without reducing the number of consumers.

[kraor024]

What should the government provide for free?

Water, health care, & birth control.

[AndyTHL555]

Communism sounds awesome in theory, but because of a few "bad" countries, we generally assosciate it with Russian invaders and nukes and Cuba. It would be easy to set up a communist government in America, hell, I think we're leaning there right now, and how hard would it be to set up a communist country that still have rights and democracy? Easy, until a Republican gets voted to office and destroys it. I mean, extreme republicans can be viewed as anarchists, while extreme democrats will be labeled communists. But what do I know? I'm only fourteen.

My father told me a saying: An old democrat is probably brainless, while a young republican is probably heartless.

Anyways, I'm thinking about writing a letter or possibly even an email to my state's two senators, both democrat, as I'm from Maryland, to vote for the healthcare bill, which my guess is that they would anyways.

Lol, I just remembered this funny video my gf showed me, where they were discussing the republicans supposed healthcare plan: Don't get sick. If you do get sick, get better. If you can't get better, die. A little extreme, but funny.

[HorseloverFrost]

At 12/8/09 08:59 PM, AndyTHL555 wrote: Lol, I just remembered this funny video my gf showed me, where they were discussing the republicans supposed healthcare plan: Don't get sick. If you do get sick, get better. If you can't get better, die. A little extreme, but funny.

I know it's supposed to be satire, but that's actually a pretty sensible solution to health care.

[adrshepard]

At 12/8/09 07:25 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I believe that such a wide array of goods freely provided is too much. I'd limit it to a monetary criteria. Let the minimum wage be A, then give a universal grant of A/2. Or have it implemented as a per-child grant, based on the kid's academic achievement (not that he is an A-grader, basically that he goes and passes school, has all the vaccines, etc).

Don't forget to include a utility function describing x number of utiles a person receives from having good y for time span z. Seriously, dude, I know you're all about the economics, but must you use it in common speech? "Let the minimum wage be A, then A/2 etc." I'm surprised you didn't work Ceteris parebus in somewhere.

Anyway, you first asked what people deserve in terms of services, not monetary equivalents. If the service is meant to achieve some end, then probably one single value will not produce the same end for every single person ("people deserve to be healthy").

[SmilezRoyale]

Government should be put in charge of providing the menial and unimportant things in life that don't do terrible harm to the economy and to the people at large if they are provided by a coercive monopoly. Snack foods, tennis shoes, rubber bands, card board boxes... etc.

Public goods such as health care, waste disposal, water and electric, food production, law, defense, are too important to be left in the hands of a small group of people decided by bizarre rituals called elections who are given frightening high levels of power to commit deeds otherwise considered anti-social.

[Warforger]

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Public goods such as health care, waste disposal, water and electric, food production, law, defense, are too important to be left in the hands of a small group of people decided by bizarre rituals called elections who are given frightening high levels of power to commit deeds otherwise considered anti-social.

So what you saying is, is that instead of putting it in the hands of the government whose goal is for the better of the people, we leave them to people whose only goal is money? Great logic there dude, but wouldn't that lead to other things like ignoring problems which would be expensive to fix, putting more chemicals in our food, bribes being rampant with judges and the jury, and defense is the most retarded thing on the list, this leaves our military split up and we would have a hard time fighting wars even with small nations, not to mention they would collaborate with mining and oil companies to invade and control certain area's.

Now it seems to be when the topic of Communism arises, everyone who is pro-Capitilism acts like the government is the greatest evil and most corrupt organization in the country, and acts like companies serve the people and can be trusted.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/8/09 09:39 PM, Warforger wrote: So what you saying is, is that instead of putting it in the hands of the government whose goal is for the better of the people,

funniest post of the day

[Dawnslayer]

At 12/8/09 03:00 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: The questions would be as following: What goods do you think a person deserves even if it does not have an ability to pay for it?

Let's see...I'd say: decent food, potable water, clean air, shelter from the elements, medicine and care for life-threatening illness, basic education at minimum, equal rights and protection in freedoms and justice, and a voice in social affairs.

Now, looking at how a certain federal government provides for these things...
-Food: Soup kitchens rely on citizens' donations and volunteered time. Government provides little, if anything; also, government pays subsidies to farmers to not grow crops for various reasons.
-Water/Air: There are regulations, but they don't seem to be working; chemical waste, salmonella infections, etc., seem to be all-too-common news stories.
-Shelter: Homeless shelters do exist, but tend to fill beyond capacity and still turn people away. Such shelters don't usually get government funding. In this regard, tent cities do a better job.
-Medical care: a hospital can't deny you treatment (anymore), but that said, medicine as a basic provision would probably eliminate a number of trips to the emergency room.
-Basic education: overall, government manages. But there's still room for improvement.
-Equality under law: Work in progress, especially in the justice system. White-collar crime tends to be under-punished.
-Voice: every citizen has one, but most don't know where or how to use it beyond election day (if they even care).

So things probably wouldn't be any better or worse without government involvement, but there are many instances where a more proactive people could improve matters by taking them into their own hands.

[SadisticMonkey]

In all seriousness, government should be responsible for the following:

Giving me a house, giving me food, giving me healthcare, punishing companies for my own stupidity, punishing people for making me upset, taking money away from people who earn more than me and giving it to me, providing someone to wipe my own ass...

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/8/09 08:59 PM, AndyTHL555 wrote:

I suggest you at least read what the original poster has said, not only the subject of the thread.

At 12/8/09 08:03 PM, kraor024 wrote: What should the government provide for free?

Water, health care, & birth control.

Not education?

At 12/8/09 07:57 PM, HorseloverFrost wrote: As experience in Africa has shown, the problem of providing basic goods for free is that it undermines the production of similar goods of the cost-money variety. If the choice is between working or starving, a person will surely choose work. But when the choice is between working and living lower class, a significant part of the population chooses to live lower class, effectively reducing the number of available workers and paying customers without reducing the number of consumers.

That's why I said that a safety net half of the minimum wage should be in place, so as to leave incentives for work.

At 12/9/09 12:47 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: So things probably wouldn't be any better or worse without government involvement, but there are many instances where a more proactive people could improve matters by taking them into their own hands.

So basically, you're an anarchist. If Government action is irrelevant, and things could only get better with individuals being more proactive, then why have a government?

At 12/8/09 09:39 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Public goods such as health care, waste disposal, water and electric, food production, law, defense, are too important to be left in the hands of a small group of people decided by bizarre rituals called elections who are given frightening high levels of power to commit deeds otherwise considered anti-social.

So what you saying is, is that instead of putting it in the hands of the government whose goal is for the better of the people, we leave them to people whose only goal is money?

We generally do not care about the goals of the different individuals in the system, but the consequences of their pursuits of their goals. If the consequences of individualistic behavior were to be superior to that of altruistic behavior, then, why condemn it?

Who'd you rather hire, a surgeon that cuts you open for the money, or your 13yo that really cares about whether you live or die, but hasn't even finished high school?

At 12/8/09 09:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: Don't forget to include a utility function describing x number of utiles a person receives from having good y for time span z.

Heh. Actually, that analysis is applicable here, let X be a privately provided good, G a good which consumption is not individual... eh, never mind.

Seriously, dude, I know you're all about the economics, but must you use it in common speech? "Let the minimum wage be A, then A/2 etc." I'm surprised you didn't work Ceteris parebus in somewhere.

The thing is I've got a linear Algebra final next week, and I've studied so many definitions and demonstrations that I'm starting to talk like that.
Ask me to prove that two eigenvectors related to two different eigenvalues are linearly independent.
ASK ME NOW.

Anyway, you first asked what people deserve in terms of services, not monetary equivalents. If the service is meant to achieve some end, then probably one single value will not produce the same end for every single person ("people deserve to be healthy").

Care to elaborate? I believe that I know what you're saying but I'm not sure.

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Government should be put in charge of providing the menial and unimportant things in life that don't do terrible harm to the economy and to the people at large if they are provided by a coercive monopoly. Snack foods, tennis shoes, rubber bands, card board boxes... etc.

Public goods such as health care, waste disposal, water and electric, food production, law, defense, are too important to be left in the hands of a small group of people decided by bizarre rituals called elections who are given frightening high levels of power to commit deeds otherwise considered anti-social.

Public goods in its formal definition (which greatly reduces the scope of the term) are (mathematically) proved to be inefficiently provided by a free market.
Nevertheless, empirical evidence shows that other goods (mostly, those with high externalities) are better provided by an entity with coercive power, as you'd call it. Just click at the links I have provided.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Government should be put in charge of providing the menial and unimportant things in life that don't do terrible harm to the economy and to the people at large if they are provided by a coercive monopoly. Snack foods, tennis shoes, rubber bands, card board boxes... etc.

Public goods in its formal definition (which greatly reduces the scope of the term) are (mathematically) proved to be inefficiently provided by a free market.
Nevertheless, empirical evidence shows that other goods (mostly, those with high externalities) are better provided by an entity with coercive power, as you'd call it. Just click at the links I have provided.

For one, most people have little to no idea in any situation (Or they do but it doesn't factor into their decision making) that certain actions have positive externalities, yet they none the less do the. And Something having positive externalities is a rather open ended criterion for making something public or private. That my taking showers makes me smell pleasant to those around me and conveys a positive externality would seldom constitute a valid justification for state subsidies to my showers.

Two, ALL goods fit the criteria of having a positive benefit to society if they were provided "For Free" and Universally, if it was possible to conjure these goods up at no cost what-so-ever, and this is what i assume the public goods advocates refer to when they advocate making something free and provided to all citizens regardless of the ability to pay.

However, i look at something such as Education, in which Public education is most usually more expensive (per child per year) as far as costs go, and often times of equal or even lower quality than private education. And it makes me wonder how much Utility society loses from having to have it's education provided (Albeit universally) at High prices and low quality by a monopoly. And it seems clear that the nature of the public good as being free is an illusion, and that the idea that society can make up the benefit it loses from having THAT much money pumped into education (With a seemingly constant trend of falling quality combined with a necessity to increase school budgets faster than the rate of inflation) should be called into question. And we're only talking local governments, which theoretically should be easier to regulate than federal level governments.

As far as levels of welfare go, the only possible way for a society to be able to manage excessively expensive welfare states in the first place is for there to be some semblance of emergent order in production such that people can afford the kind of tax rates necessary to pay for monopolized 'public' goods. No Third world country could afford to fork over a sizable fraction of their income to pay for health, education, and government services until they've achieved a complete or partial developed nation status.

[Elfer]

I think a decent way to make post-secondary education more socialized would be to provide merit-based subsidies for a limited number of slots in particular types of programs that develop skills that are actually needed by society.

For example, if you wanted to be a civil engineer or a plumber, and you had good performance in whatever you were doing before, maybe you could get half of your tuition covered by the government. On the other hand, if you want to major in particle physics or art history, you'd have to be an intellectual superhero or pay for it yourself.

The problem we have now is that many people are just using post-secondary education as a way to stall on real life for four years, and it's started happening to the extent that many jobs will only hire people with degrees when the jobs themselves only require a high school education. The market is being flooded with unusable skills because of it, and it's a huge waste of resources.

[AndyTHL555]

At 12/9/09 09:18 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 12/8/09 08:59 PM, AndyTHL555 wrote:

I suggest you at least read what the original poster has said, not only the subject of the thread.

o.o I have no idea how I didn't see the question... but I guess I'll answer now that I've re-read the post.

Government should provide some form of free healthcare, that is available to everyone. Government should provide us with water, a few healthy meal choices, a form of education, job opportunities if needed, basic shelter, free electricity with a strict limit, free plumbing with a strict limit, clothing, banks, a basic form of home and auto insurance, and free newspapers made by the government that are very basic.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/9/09 04:06 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/8/09 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Government should be put in charge of providing the menial and unimportant things in life that don't do terrible harm to the economy and to the people at large if they are provided by a coercive monopoly. Snack foods, tennis shoes, rubber bands, card board boxes... etc.

Public goods in its formal definition (which greatly reduces the scope of the term) are (mathematically) proved to be inefficiently provided by a free market.
Nevertheless, empirical evidence shows that other goods (mostly, those with high externalities) are better provided by an entity with coercive power, as you'd call it. Just click at the links I have provided.

For one, most people have little to no idea in any situation (Or they do but it doesn't factor into their decision making) that certain actions have positive externalities, yet they none the less do the. And Something having positive externalities is a rather open ended criterion for making something public or private. That my taking showers makes me smell pleasant to those around me and conveys a positive externality would seldom constitute a valid justification for state subsidies to my showers.

Two, ALL goods fit the criteria of having a positive benefit to society if they were provided "For Free" and Universally, if it was possible to conjure these goods up at no cost what-so-ever, and this is what i assume the public goods advocates refer to when they advocate making something free and provided to all citizens regardless of the ability to pay.

However, i look at something such as Education, in which Public education is most usually more expensive (per child per year) as far as costs go, and often times of equal or even lower quality than private education. And it makes me wonder how much Utility society loses from having to have it's education provided (Albeit universally) at High prices and low quality by a monopoly.

I find neither arguments to be true; educational level's most important determinant is socioeconomic level, that's why a global view on the topic makes people believe that private education is better, since wealthier people attend private schools. Normally, public and private education have the same quality,CETERIS PARIBUS (@ adshepard :P) Actually, if you look at the top educational achievers, you'll see all public systems, that are really free, the government even pays for all the materials the children will need. And Finland does not only beat the Public Sector in the US, which is said to be underfunded, etc, but also the best private universities. There is no equality-efficiency trade-off here: it's not denying the wealthiest individuals a better educational level in favor of those who cannot afford private education: everyone is better off.
Secondly, I do not have figures on cost in the United States, but undoubtely the government is waay more efficient in the provision of higher education here: While the cheapest (read, really bad) private university costs $500 a month = $6000 a year, while top public university (read, UBA) has $1.5 billion budget for 300,000 students, $5000 a year.

As far as levels of welfare go, the only possible way for a society to be able to manage excessively expensive welfare states in the first place is for there to be some semblance of emergent order in production such that people can afford the kind of tax rates necessary to pay for monopolized 'public' goods. No Third world country could afford to fork over a sizable fraction of their income to pay for health, education, and government services until they've achieved a complete or partial developed nation status.

Not true either, those countries that have faced high economic growth have done so prior to the establishment of universal education; Argentina copied the American educational system in the late 1800s, and South Korea did the same before the export boom.
And small (measured by cost) government programs can have huge results, for example, Cuba erradicated dengue fever simply by coercion, it created penalties on those who did not made sure to have covered all water pools; in the mean time, I'm spending loads of money on repel.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/9/09 05:53 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

I find neither arguments to be true; educational level's most important determinant is socioeconomic level, that's why a global view on the topic makes people believe that private education is better, since wealthier people attend private schools. Normally, public and private education have the same quality,CETERIS PARIBUS (@ adshepard :P) Actually, if you look at the top educational achievers, you'll see all public systems, that are really free, the government even pays for all the materials the children will need. And Finland does not only beat the Public Sector in the US, which is said to be underfunded, etc, but also the best private universities. There is no equality-efficiency trade-off here: it's not denying the wealthiest individuals a better educational level in favor of those who cannot afford private education: everyone is better off.
Secondly, I do not have figures on cost in the United States, but undoubtely the government is waay more efficient in the provision of higher education here: While the cheapest (read, really bad) private university costs $500 a month = $6000 a year, while top public university (read, UBA) has $1.5 billion budget for 300,000 students, $5000 a year.

The only reason private education is typically associated with upper income individuals is because those individuals are able to paying both for the private school they're using, and the public school that they aren't using.

As for US figures, the average cost of a public school in the united states, per child, is 6,000 dollars. In my own school it's somewhere between 10K and 14K, as long island schools which are better (Only because the people living in those areas are on average, wealthier) and in Washington DC, the School District spends an average of 25K per student, which is 10K more than the most ELITE of the private schools in that area.

a 2.5K school voucher could buy a child one year at a private school that most likely out competed their public school. And that Presumably wealthier Americans are sending their children to 'elite' private schools that spend LESS per child suggests that the problem is structural, and it has nothing to do with there not being enough STATE in the mix.

Now some public schools are better than others, because no institution is purely anti-market (Not even the USSR was completely detached from market regulation) or market. The public school system in the United states has been getting, in relative standards, worse in correlation with the movement away from market regulation. In the United States the trend has been a decreasing number of school districts since the 1940s,

It was pointed out that:

* The United States spends more on education per pupil than almost any other nation-75% more than the international average for primary schools and 53% more than the international average for secondary schools.

* At the same time, our year-to-year academic achievement gains are among the lowest in the world. Among 17 OEC nations the U.S. ranks second to last.

That the US spends more per student and ends up dead last is part of the reason that High School Diplomas have become worthless,

I cannot imagine, given the

Not true either, those countries that have faced high economic growth have done so prior to the establishment of universal education; Argentina copied the American educational system in the late 1800s, and South Korea did the same before the export boom.

And, Like the US, i can imagine that the Education system began small enough to handle. If Argentina copied the American education system there is no conceivable way (Aside from the fact that Argentinean leaders do not have psychic visions of the future) they could have emulated the intellectually and financially bankrupt education system we have today, they likely copied the education system of the early 19th century which was far smaller, far less centralized, and far more publicly controled (I.E, governed by the market)

The same thing applies to European Countries. I can imagine they are more decentralized than in the united states. That people have the power to decide what school they send their child to, even if they have little to no power over what budget their child has to purchase a school, is something that the state exists SPECIFICALLY to avoid. The entire point of a state is to make it as difficult as possible to find alternatives to state services.

And small (measured by cost) government programs can have huge results, for example, Cuba erradicated dengue fever simply by coercion, it created penalties on those who did not made sure to have covered all water pools; in the mean time, I'm spending loads of money on repel.

Huge results that can be positive, but more often then not are disastrous in the slowly-but-surely-cascading fashion.

And in Cuba you could spend loads of money on Repel or pay a fine.

[Elfer]

The main issue with using all private schools is that it would be hard to achieve consistency, and we'd basically be sentencing children of low-income families to inescapable poverty.

The very fact that America spends such a huge amount on public schooling and achieves results worse than countries who spend less should be an indicator that the problem lies not with socialized education in general, but with the US specifically.

Anecdotally, here in Canada I find that in general, private schooling has a reputation no better than public schooling, and in many cases worse, as universities will sometimes find that due to the non-standard courses, people coming out of these schools lack the skills that they want applicants to have (this is partially due to the fact that there's no equivalent to the SAT, at least here in Ontario).

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/9/09 09:07 PM, Elfer wrote: The main issue with using all private schools is that it would be hard to achieve consistency, and we'd basically be sentencing children of low-income families to inescapable poverty.

In light of the Status-quo it is difficult to imagine how private education could produce a system of education for inner cities schools that is more condemning and destructive than... well, the status-quo.

The very fact that America spends such a huge amount on public schooling and achieves results worse than countries who spend less should be an indicator that the problem lies not with socialized education in general, but with the US specifically.

The problem lies in the State, the education system is probably more centralized than in any other country in the world relative to geographic alternatives. And Education in the united states, as well as health, has historically been provided at lower price and higher [relative] quality, when done through voluntary mutual aid.

Anecdotally, here in Canada I find that in general, private schooling has a reputation no better than public schooling, and in many cases worse, as universities will sometimes find that due to the non-standard courses, people coming out of these schools lack the skills that they want applicants to have (this is partially due to the fact that there's no equivalent to the SAT, at least here in Ontario).

I've heard evidence to the contrary but no specific statistics. I have to do more research on private versus public education in the worlds utopias, thus far I only have knowledge on private versus public education in America and in poorer countries such as Africa and India.

[SadisticMonkey]

As many wise liberals have pointed out, making money out of people's illnesses i.e. private healthcare is evil and the industry is in need of a government takeover.
However, do you want to know what is even more important than medical attention and drugs? FOOD
I for one find it revolting that private companies make a profit on making and selling food, and they won't provide food to those who are unable to pay for it.
I mean, hunger is an inherent, inescapable part of the human condition, and without food for only a short space of time people will DIE. It is truly sickening to think that something as essential as food is used by evil capitalists to derive a profit. This is truly exploitation at it's worse, and irrefutable evidence that the American food industry needs to be nationalised.

[Warforger]

The difference is that there are federal programs which allow people who don't have the money to pay for food, to get food, its called food stamps. The Insurance on the other hand, would be more like putting a price on someone's life "HAHA WE CAN"T GIVE YOU INSURANCE BECAUSE OF A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION" and at this point, its pretty obvious there aren't that many banks or companies you can trust as AIG and the Government deemed Invincible banks have shown us.

[Mexifry]

At 12/10/09 01:14 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: This is truly exploitation at it's worse, and irrefutable evidence that the American food industry needs to be nationalised.

Damn those Capitalists!
And those evil people who run the oxygen bars! Hoe dare they make a profit off air?? Everybody needs air and some people can't afford it!!

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/10/09 01:14 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: This is truly exploitation at it's worse, and irrefutable evidence that the American food industry needs to be nationalised.

I agree on your statements but not on your conclusion. It IS truly exploitation, but it shouldn't be nationalized - it should be expropriated by the food industry workers.

[Mexifry]

At 12/10/09 02:57 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:
I agree on your statements but not on your conclusion. It IS truly exploitation, but it shouldn't be nationalized - it should be expropriated by the food industry workers.

You do understand that SadisticMonkey was making a sarcastic statement just to fuck with you, right?

[Dawnslayer]

At 12/9/09 09:18 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 12/9/09 12:47 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: So things probably wouldn't be any better or worse without government involvement, but there are many instances where a more proactive people could improve matters by taking them into their own hands.

So basically, you're an anarchist. If Government action is irrelevant, and things could only get better with individuals being more proactive, then why have a government?

Let me rephrase that. For various reasons, government does not provide the best possible for basic needs. Also for various reasons, the people also do not provide the best possible. However, each has room to be more proactive in how they provide for these needs, which if executed correctly would result in an improved ability to offer the basics. I think one of the biggest problems is there are those on both sides who simply don't care. If they were more directly involved in such matters and put some well-placed effort into it...and now I'm just repeating myself with different words. You get the idea: not anarchy, but more involvement.

[Sajberhippien]

At 12/10/09 03:00 AM, Mexifry wrote:

At 12/10/09 02:57 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:
I agree on your statements but not on your conclusion. It IS truly exploitation, but it shouldn't be nationalized - it should be expropriated by the food industry workers.

You do understand that SadisticMonkey was making a sarcastic statement just to fuck with you, right?

Yep, though I'm not a statist so probably not to fuck with me specifically.