Be a Supporter!

What is so bad about Socalism?

  • 3,143 Views
  • 137 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2012-12-29 19:39:53 Reply

At 12/29/12 06:16 PM, Warforger wrote: You know like Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff or say every corrupt politician ever.

Exactly. Had the government not been protecting and encouraging this sort of thievery, we'd be in a much better place.

That would be true if it were like 1924, but we get Unemployment benefits we get Social Security Benefits we get Medicare benefits etc.

Unemployment benefits are paid for by individuals and/or employers. Please, tell me how a bailout of a bank benefits my medicare. Please tell me how Bush/Obama stealing from my social security to fight wars helps me.

How about, I opt out of BOTH programs, and save for it myself. I don't need a babysitter, and I don't need someone to pay my medical and/or retirement bills. So, why should the government be allowed to take money that I earn, without my consent, for things I don't want, and even if I did, will probably never see the benefits of?

Oh god no, it would be the current situation with the Fiscal Cliff exponentially worse.

If we lived in a nation where consumers (or plebs, more accurately) had the same treatment as the CEO of GM, or corporations recieved the treatment we get, there would be no unchecked corporatism. Corporatism only gets out of hand when you remove consumers from the equation via crony capitalist policies.

So would you say that the government is greedy? Going by that logic isn't this a good thing?

The government is not a person. The government does not innovate. The government steals money, and gives to those undeserving. That's not greed, it's evil.

Not the exact same thing, if Obama was doing that then he would win West Virginia by double digits (I mean, West Virgina is deep blue, nearly every politician there is a Democrat yet Obama had no chance of winning the state because of his position on coal).

Oh it's exactly the same. Bush bailout, bad. Obama bailout, okay. And let's not over look the fact that it will soon be federal law that you buy insurance from corporations. I thought Obama was supposed to put an end to all that crony capitalism stuff. You know, making the "fat cats" pay a little more? Now he's giving them billions, and now requiring you to give insurance corporations money? Something doesn't match...

Oh and corporations are not the same thing as wealthy people. This is a basic principle you learn in economics.

So?

mothballs
mothballs
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Game Developer
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2012-12-30 00:17:46 Reply

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Isn't the basis of it taxing the rich to help out the poor? What's so bad about that? correct me if i'm wrong about that, but I've researched it and that's what usually comes up.

Anyway, the rich have plenty of money to help out the poor, I don't see what's so bad about sharing money, sure you earned it, but you're not going to help little Timmy who is your best friend's son survive his fight with a cold because his family can't afford it? I do not see what is so bad about this concept, and why people would even care if Obama is socialist or not. also, not everybody who is poor is a "lazy dirt bag" stuff happens, most people in this class work their hearts out. I know from personal experience.

So correct if I'm wrong, but what is so bad about this concept?

Let me point out a few things to the common Democrat, whose economic ideas are extremely generalized.

All in all it's not a terrible concept, and to some extent we should do this - but just as the first poster said, if we purely did this it would be disastrous. We shouldn't help those who aren't going to help themselves - we shouldn't take away money from those who work hard, run successful businesses just to give to a hobo who never worked hard in life and spends all his welfare checks on booze. However, we should help those who never had any opportunities in life and have intentions of helping themselves, getting a job, etc.

A lot of big businesses and corporations today are what drives America's economy - large distribution of goods with a lot of hiring of employees. In theory, if you tax businesses they will have less money to spend on hiring employees, thus slowing down economic growth and job growth. If you're wondering why the unemployment rate being high is such a big problem to our economy, it's because if we have less people working, we have less people paying taxes. The problem is that a lot of these big businesses end up hiring employees from other countries like India, which really hurts our economy.

This may seem like a very general answer to most of you regulars here on this forum, but I hope I answered your question OP.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2012-12-30 01:03:57 Reply

At 12/30/12 12:17 AM, mothballs wrote:

Let me point out a few things to the common Democrat, whose economic ideas are extremely generalized.

As a Democrat, I don't think my beliefs are "generalized," whatever the hell that means.

All in all it's not a terrible concept, and to some extent we should do this - but just as the first poster said, if we purely did this it would be disastrous.

Yes, we should mix the best aspects of socialism with capitalism.

We shouldn't help those who aren't going to help themselves - we shouldn't take away money from those who work hard, run successful businesses just to give to a hobo who never worked hard in life and spends all his welfare checks on booze.

What if that homeless person has a mental illness and is in need of help? We should help them.

However, we should help those who never had any opportunities in life and have intentions of helping themselves, getting a job, etc.

I agree.

A lot of big businesses and corporations today are what drives America's economy - large distribution of goods with a lot of hiring of employees. In theory, if you tax businesses they will have less money to spend on hiring employees, thus slowing down economic growth and job growth.

In theory, probably, but in practice, I don't think it happens very often. Tax rates were higher in the 1990s, but the U.S. economy flourished.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
Kel-chan
Kel-chan
  • Member since: Mar. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Animator
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2012-12-30 05:30:10 Reply

socialism is fundamentally about taking from one person to give to another using the force of gov't laws.

In the begininng is sounds good because after all the rich supposedly have vast reserves of wealth, more than they can spend in a life time so basically that should some how be stolen from them, or forced through gov't mandate under penalty of fine or arrest or seizure to be taken by the gov't and distributed to whomever the interest groups are.

The problem with this besides out right theft of property, is the old saying of "you can give a man a fish and feed him for a day or you can teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime" . Socialism is about giving the man a fish. It may help a person out in the short run but its no benefit in the long run.

Also the list of the needy is ever growing. Besides outright fraud, any body can become a political constituent and essentially lobby the political sphere for moneys.

âEUoeI have never understood why it is âEU~greedâEUTM to want to keep the money youâEUTMve earned,
but not greed to want to take somebody elseâEUTMs money.âEU

- Thomas Sowell

By helping out individuals you are essentially creating a culture of learned helplessness and irresponsibilty. This is what the social welfare "safety net" creates as an unintended consequence of goodwill. In the past wealthy people would donate some of their wealth to poor houses etc. and then use it as a tax write off. This could take care of some but was by no means able to satiate everybody's desires.

It's easy for politicians to use these classes of people to pander for votes and pretend to the populace that some how social ills and just facts of life are some how being fixed and managed by the state through the institution of a social welfare program. The problem is the longer this goes on the more advantageous it becomes to keep these systems in place.

A bribed populace is a happy populace

Unfortunately the hidden cost in socialism and "social welfare comes later down the line when at a certain point the people recieving the benefits of social welfare begins to become enormous. This cuts into the fiscal problems of the country becuase it is simply not possible to provide everyone with everything because at some level, all wealth that is created was created through production of goods or services. By taking wealth from productive members and giving it to those that are unproductive a nation begins to cease to invest in future labor and production by merely eating its own wealth through the subsidizing of the poor.

Recently Francois Hollande in france attempted to pass through a tax on the wealthy of nearly 75% of ones income over a certain level. The problem with this, is that it chases wealth out of the country. No rich person that is sane would want to stick around in a country that would take 3/4 of their wealth per annum. The net effect if they did stay is a lowering of everybody's standard of living. How? Eventually what happens when the wealthly are taxed to the point where they are no longer wealthy?

In order to continue to fund social spending the gov't must then go into debt or find the money elsewhere, or simply print it. All of these situations lead to catastrophic results which can be seen in the current financial crisis, the argentinian crisis in 2000-01, Zimbabwe Hyperinflation, Weimar Germany, etc etc.

People often forget that aside from social spending, a country also has to pay for itself and reinvest in itself. By placating the poor and subsidizing them, they are not investing that wealth in productive enterprises which would in the longer run generate more wealth over all in a society. However to most, that idea is untenable when one is poor right now, and through long term investment in a society one may only see economic prosperity in generational terms. This is assuming gov't could some how by itself pick winners and losers in a market (which is ofcourse communism) versus just letting the rich keep their money (free market capitalism)

Socialism is the very idea that theft makes right somehow. By robbing Peter to pay paul, you have increased paul's standard of living temporarily but also lowered Peter's. At some point there will be no more money left to steal from Peter, and paul will be very angry that he is not being paid. At that point socialism fails. As it has always failed. when there is no more money left to steal.

Socialism is antithetical to the idea of property rights. If the gov't or any force can essentially decree that what you "own" must be surrendered " for the good of all" then you do not own it.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - ayn rand

mothballs
mothballs
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Game Developer
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2012-12-31 23:11:34 Reply

At 12/30/12 01:03 AM, Light wrote: As a Democrat, I don't think my beliefs are "generalized," whatever the hell that means.

I wasn't saying that all Democrats have generalized views, I was saying that a lot of them do. However I agree with the rest of your post.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 00:29:54 Reply

At 12/29/12 07:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/29/12 06:16 PM, Warforger wrote: You know like Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff or say every corrupt politician ever.
Exactly. Had the government not been protecting and encouraging this sort of thievery, we'd be in a much better place.

So would you say they were protecting greed?

Unemployment benefits are paid for by individuals and/or employers.

It's paid by the government and financed by tax payers.

Please, tell me how a bailout of a bank benefits my medicare.

It kept the economy from crashing, this kept people in the higher levels of income taxes meaning the cuts don't have to be as drastic.

Please tell me how Bush/Obama stealing from my social security to fight wars helps me.

Um security?

How about, I opt out of BOTH programs, and save for it myself. I don't need a babysitter, and I don't need someone to pay my medical and/or retirement bills. So, why should the government be allowed to take money that I earn, without my consent, for things I don't want, and even if I did, will probably never see the benefits of?

This is what boggles my mind. How are welfare programs "babysitting"? It's giving people who otherwise would not have income income. Unless of course you think old people should get jobs.

Oh god no, it would be the current situation with the Fiscal Cliff exponentially worse.
If we lived in a nation where consumers (or plebs, more accurately) had the same treatment as the CEO of GM, or corporations recieved the treatment we get, there would be no unchecked corporatism. Corporatism only gets out of hand when you remove consumers from the equation via crony capitalist policies.

So you're a Libertarian Socialist? I never thought I would actually find one. Buut nice theory, if only the real world was like that.

So would you say that the government is greedy? Going by that logic isn't this a good thing?
The government is not a person. The government does not innovate.

Nope, for example we're on the internet that started out as a government project. We also have countless satellites which wouldn't have been possible had the government not invested in space exploration.

The government steals money, and gives to those undeserving. That's not greed, it's evil.

You know like military Veterans, like Seniors who paid into programs under the assumption that they'll be able to use it, also children who go to public school they're doing that too. Pure evil.

Now going back to Feoric's comment about the mental gymnastics, it appears you seriously just redefined what greed is so that it is exclusively positive and everything bad that is done for money is just evil and is not greed.

Oh it's exactly the same. Bush bailout, bad. Obama bailout, okay.

According to Economists however both were good. This is a good example of why the insulation between the popular opinion and the government was put there by the Founding Fathers, because most people don't know what they're talking about.

And let's not over look the fact that it will soon be federal law that you buy insurance from corporations. I thought Obama was supposed to put an end to all that crony capitalism stuff. You know, making the "fat cats" pay a little more? Now he's giving them billions, and now requiring you to give insurance corporations money? Something doesn't match...

That's again a bad thing for Insurance companies because now they actually have to compete. Think logically, if Insurance companies didn't have this law to force them to provide service to everyone, why would they not want to provide service for the uninsured?

Oh and corporations are not the same thing as wealthy people. This is a basic principle you learn in economics.
So?

You use the two interchangeably.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 02:15:33 Reply

At 1/1/13 12:29 AM, Warforger wrote: So would you say they were protecting greed?

Absolutely. Big money runs America, and writes the laws.

It's paid by the government and financed by tax payers.

Not in Florida it ain't

It kept the economy from crashing, this kept people in the higher levels of income taxes meaning the cuts don't have to be as drastic.

Wouldn't it have been nice if we didn't create they didn't create the problem in the first place? The economy wouldn't have crashed, just like it didn't crash at midnight tonight. That was a load of demagoug bullshit.

Um security?

From what?

This is what boggles my mind. How are welfare programs "babysitting"? It's giving people who otherwise would not have income income. Unless of course you think old people should get jobs.

Their welfare is not my responsibility. I, nor do they, need the government providing for them. They, as well as I, can provide for myself. The government should have no control over someone's financial future or choices at all.

When you rely on the government to give you shit, you're giving them permission to play with it. Case/point Medicare or SS. Millions count on the government for that money, yet are pissed when the government decides to use it elsewhere.

I for one, would much rather be in charge of myself, instead of putting my fate in the hands of some retard who can't even pass a budget. I'd rather take care of my own health, than put my well being in the hands of a murderer.

So you're a Libertarian Socialist? I never thought I would actually find one. Buut nice theory, if only the real world was like that.

No son, I'm not a socialist.

News flash: You are LIVING in the real world. You have almost no freedoms, no wealth, the govt. does what it wants, and corporations run your life. You are currently living under a tyrannical government.

Fact is, IT DOESN'T WORK. However, libertarian ideas, always work, and it's documented.

So would you say that the government is greedy? Going by that logic isn't this a good thing?
Nope, for example we're on the internet that started out as a government project. We also have countless satellites which wouldn't have been possible had the government not invested in space exploration.

A) It was never a government project. Like all "government projects" it was contracted out to the private sector.

B) Doesn't matter who thought of what, it's ALWAYS been private industry, that takes an idea and makes it reality. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made the computers and the internet what it is. Not government.

C) EVERY SINGLE PART of the space exploration equation, was made by the private sector. The satellites, the rockets, the fuel, the landers, the robots. All of it.

You know like military Veterans, like Seniors who paid into programs under the assumption that they'll be able to use it, also children who go to public school they're doing that too. Pure evil.

Are you shitting me? Military vets are treated like garbage in this country. Obama cuts their benefits so his insurance and union buddies can buy more private jets, meanwhile, our military is overseas fighting with antique weaponry. Fuck that. Those kids in public schools can't even have art classes or decent food because idiots in DC give their money to bank CEOs. Obama cut millions from medicare so his insurance tycoon pals could have a nice cushion of guaranteed customers. Don't give me that shit.

Now going back to Feoric's comment about the mental gymnastics, it appears you seriously just redefined what greed is so that it is exclusively positive and everything bad that is done for money is just evil and is not greed.

That's exactly correct. Greed makes cars. Greed put electricity in your house. Greed puts food on your table.

According to Economists however both were good. This is a good example of why the insulation between the popular opinion and the government was put there by the Founding Fathers, because most people don't know what they're talking about.

Yeah, like the idiots on Capitol Hill right now.

That's again a bad thing for Insurance companies because now they actually have to compete. Think logically, if Insurance companies didn't have this law to force them to provide service to everyone, why would they not want to provide service for the uninsured?

They have to compete? No they don't! They are GUARANTEED business now. That isn't competition, that isn't free market. That isn't even good economics. What do they have to compete with? Not each other, that's for damn sure.

You use the two interchangeably.

No I didn't.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 13:15:03 Reply

At 1/1/13 02:15 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/1/13 12:29 AM, Warforger wrote: So would you say they were protecting greed?
Absolutely. Big money runs America, and writes the laws.

Which should mean that this is a good thing right according to your logic?

It's paid by the government and financed by tax payers.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we didn't create they didn't create the problem in the first place?

So you're saying we need more regulations to prevent mismanagement by the Private sector?

The economy wouldn't have crashed, just like it didn't crash at midnight tonight. That was a load of demagoug bullshit.

Oh that's nice, but it's not really open to debate by people who don't know what they're talking about.

From what?

People who actively seek to kill you?

This is what boggles my mind. How are welfare programs "babysitting"? It's giving people who otherwise would not have income income. Unless of course you think old people should get jobs.
Their welfare is not my responsibility. I, nor do they, need the government providing for them. They, as well as I, can provide for myself. The government should have no control over someone's financial future or choices at all.

So you seriously think seniors should get jobs instead of leeching off of government programs? I have a guy who lives with me, he's a Vietnam veteran (he was in the top 1% of Navy Pilots too and was a test pilot), he's one of the people who coded the IP address, he's has alot of experience working in management, he's been fired then re-hired when he gave a harsh criticism then later his employer thought about and realized he was right, and guess what he can't find a job mostly because of his age.

When you rely on the government to give you shit, you're giving them permission to play with it. Case/point Medicare or SS. Millions count on the government for that money, yet are pissed when the government decides to use it elsewhere.

They're not that pissed because the government pays it back. But seriously, the government is at least stable in its transfer payments, if say you relied on a business to do them and it goes bankrupt you just lost all of your savings. Nothing is perfect and you're just pointing out flaws. You of course don't seem to accept flaws to your ideology.

I for one, would much rather be in charge of myself, instead of putting my fate in the hands of some retard who can't even pass a budget. I'd rather take care of my own health, than put my well being in the hands of a murderer.

Oh please Obama is at least 10000X smarter than you or anyone else on this forum. For god's sake the guy went to Harvard, I'd like to see you get into Harvard because I know damn well I can't and I know that the only people who do are those who go ahead of everyone else.

So you're a Libertarian Socialist? I never thought I would actually find one. Buut nice theory, if only the real world was like that.
No son, I'm not a socialist.

Really? Because you just talked about a society where a CEO was equal to a consumer.

News flash: You are LIVING in the real world. You have almost no freedoms, no wealth, the govt. does what it wants, and corporations run your life. You are currently living under a tyrannical government.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Fact is, IT DOESN'T WORK. However, libertarian ideas, always work, and it's documented.

Actually they've been documented to fail hard. Like you know the Great Depression and all that.

A) It was never a government project. Like all "government projects" it was contracted out to the private sector.

It started out as a government project, when they began to expand the scope of it they contracted it to the private sector.

B) Doesn't matter who thought of what, it's ALWAYS been private industry, that takes an idea and makes it reality. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made the computers and the internet what it is. Not government.

They didn't invent computers, those again were mostly government projects. They advanced them sure, but they didn't invent them.

C) EVERY SINGLE PART of the space exploration equation, was made by the private sector. The satellites, the rockets, the fuel, the landers, the robots. All of it.

That's not innovation. We were talking about innovation, if that's the case then the government created the research department which did that i.e. NASA. If the government hadn't done that then those parts would not have been made.

You know like military Veterans, like Seniors who paid into programs under the assumption that they'll be able to use it, also children who go to public school they're doing that too. Pure evil.
Are you shitting me? Military vets are treated like garbage in this country. Obama cuts their benefits so his insurance and union buddies can buy more private jets, meanwhile, our military is overseas fighting with antique weaponry. Fuck that. Those kids in public schools can't even have art classes or decent food because idiots in DC give their money to bank CEOs. Obama cut millions from medicare so his insurance tycoon pals could have a nice cushion of guaranteed customers. Don't give me that shit.

You just contradicted yourself here, before you were talking about how the government is taking money away from some people and giving it to the undeserving and now you say the government is taking enough money away from some people and giving it to the undeserving.

Now going back to Feoric's comment about the mental gymnastics, it appears you seriously just redefined what greed is so that it is exclusively positive and everything bad that is done for money is just evil and is not greed.
That's exactly correct. Greed makes cars. Greed put electricity in your house. Greed puts food on your table.

Greed also crashed the economy, greed also corrupted elections etc.

According to Economists however both were good. This is a good example of why the insulation between the popular opinion and the government was put there by the Founding Fathers, because most people don't know what they're talking about.
Yeah, like the idiots on Capitol Hill right now.

Hey, they're only like that because they need to get re-elected. If they're failing it's because it's a reflection of the nation itself.

They have to compete? No they don't! They are GUARANTEED business now. That isn't competition, that isn't free market.

You still didn't answer my point.

That isn't even good economics.

You don't know anything about economics.

What do they have to compete with? Not each other, that's for damn sure.

Yah they do, actually that's exactly what they have to do now. If they want the most customers they have to lower their rates or provide more coverage, right now they can select people who aren't sick and give them insurance while those who need it are skipped over because they'll take too much money out of it. With Obamacare they have to take in those people who are sick.

You use the two interchangeably.
No I didn't.

You quite clearly did.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 16:20:53 Reply

At 1/1/13 01:15 PM, Warforger wrote: Which should mean that this is a good thing right according to your logic?

Uhhhhh. Okay, I:'ll slow this down for you.

Greed is a key to human survival. Actually survival of every living thing, relies on greed. In the human world, from a social/economic standpoint greed has checks and balances. Companies get too greedy, maybe they start cutting costs by lowering wages, or quality of goods (say, ingredients in food). And what SHOULD happen, is the consumer or employee can take their business or labor elsewhere.

The government destroys these checks and balances, by creating monopolies, and protecting CEO's from consumers and employees.

Choice and competetion is the check for greed. In the current system, CEO's and corporations have no incentive to keep their greed in check. If they lose money, they go to DC, and lobby for new laws to make things easier for them. In a proper system, a CEO of a company would bend over backwards to make sure his product is the BEST, and to make sure his employees are the happiest they can be. Instead, now they just go to the government to get some cash, or absorb the cost in another billion dollar company they own.

So you're saying we need more regulations to prevent mismanagement by the Private sector?

No it was overregulation that encourages mismanagement. The more regulation you have, the more incentive a corporation (like Goldman Sachs or AIG or Enron) has to work their way around it. When regulations are proposed, it becomes a rat race over which company can cough up the most dough to get it written in their favor.

People who actively seek to kill you?

Like who?

So you seriously think seniors should get jobs instead of leeching off of government programs? I have a guy who lives with me, he's a Vietnam veteran (he was in the top 1% of Navy Pilots too and was a test pilot), he's one of the people who coded the IP address, he's has alot of experience working in management, he's been fired then re-hired when he gave a harsh criticism then later his employer thought about and realized he was right, and guess what he can't find a job mostly because of his age.

That sucks. Wouldn't it be nice if Obama didn't rape his pension to kill kids in Pakistan or bail out his union buddies in a AWU?

Also, for other seniors, why should I have to make up for them not investing in their future or saving their own money. Isn't that their own fault?

They're not that pissed because the government pays it back. But seriously, the government is at least stable in its transfer payments, if say you relied on a business to do them and it goes bankrupt you just lost all of your savings. Nothing is perfect and you're just pointing out flaws. You of course don't seem to accept flaws to your ideology.

Um, dude, Social Security is bankrupt, as there are currently not enough contributors to pay all the beneficiaries from the Baby Boomer period. Medicare is the same way.

Sorry, but government has proven time and time again, that if given the chance they will rob the people that are relying on them. So fuck that, shouldn't I have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to secure my own future, instead of relying on these theives?

Oh please Obama is at least 10000X smarter than you or anyone else on this forum. For god's sake the guy went to Harvard, I'd like to see you get into Harvard because I know damn well I can't and I know that the only people who do are those who go ahead of everyone else.

Anyone with money can go to Harvard. Bush went to an Ivy League school too.

Obama isn't smart. He almost makes me wonder if he's even mentally fit to serve as president. "Derp derp, how am I gonna smooth over foreign relations with the middle east? I know! I'll invade their sovereign soil without permission, assassinate people, and drone strike villages and civilians. That'll make em like us!"

Really? Because you just talked about a society where a CEO was equal to a consumer.

Exactly. That isn't what socialism is.

News flash: You are LIVING in the real world. You are currently living under a tyrannical government.
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, the government has the power to assassinate or imprison you without trial. The dollar is on the cusp of hyperinflation. And Obama kills innocent people like it's going out of style. Tyrannical.

Actually they've been documented to fail hard. Like you know the Great Depression and all that.

Actually the things that caused the great drepression stand in stark opposition to pretty much every single libertarian ideal.

It started out as a government project, when they began to expand the scope of it they contracted it to the private sector.

LOL. Coming up with an idea doesn't mean dick if you can't actually do it.

They didn't invent computers, those again were mostly government projects. They advanced them sure, but they didn't invent them.

I didn't say they invented them. You just proved my point.

That's not innovation. We were talking about innovation, if that's the case then the government created the research department which did that i.e. NASA. If the government hadn't done that then those parts would not have been made.

Yes they would have. And did. Private aviation corporations were researching space travel before NASA even existed.

You just contradicted yourself here, before you were talking about how the government is taking money away from some people and giving it to the undeserving and now you say the government is taking enough money away from some people and giving it to the undeserving.

The fuck are you talking about? You're not even making sense. The government steals from people to give money to people who didn't earn or deserve it. Try again.

Greed also crashed the economy, greed also corrupted elections etc.

Actually it was unchecked greed, and the government, that crashed the economy. The government spends the money. The government borrows.

You still didn't answer my point.

Which was...

You don't know anything about economics.

Except I do.

Yah they do, actually that's exactly what they have to do now. If they want the most customers they have to lower their rates or provide more coverage, right now they can select people who aren't sick and give them insurance while those who need it are skipped over because they'll take too much money out of it. With Obamacare they have to take in those people who

The character limit cut off part of your post, sry.

But they can't lower rates or alter what's covered because Obama's laws have told them what they can and can't cover. Where as before, they could cover ABC for XYZ price, now they must cover ABCDE. And they must increase prices (you know, basic economics here), to cover the extra risk they're taking on. Meaning now, instead of offering packages 1, 2, 3 or 4 at various price points, to suit customer needs, they can only offer the most expensive packages.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 17:28:00 Reply

At 1/1/13 04:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/1/13 01:15 PM, Warforger wrote: Which should mean that this is a good thing right according to your logic?
Uhhhhh. Okay, I:'ll slow this down for you.

Greed is a key to human survival. Actually survival of every living thing, relies on greed. In the human world, from a social/economic standpoint greed has checks and balances. Companies get too greedy, maybe they start cutting costs by lowering wages, or quality of goods (say, ingredients in food). And what SHOULD happen, is the consumer or employee can take their business or labor elsewhere.

What does cutting wages do? Also if the product seems the same or is not very different, how will consumers know that it was made with cheaper material?

The government destroys these checks and balances, by creating monopolies, and protecting CEO's from consumers and employees.

Monopolies exist without the government. Let's see, John D. Rockefeller got a monopoly in oil in the North east without any help from the government. In fact the government was responsible for breaking it up. If anything the opposite is true because it was the government who broke up monopolies and not consumers.

Choice and competetion is the check for greed. In the current system, CEO's and corporations have no incentive to keep their greed in check. If they lose money, they go to DC, and lobby for new laws to make things easier for them.

Nope because all that money comes in the form of loans, meaning they have to pay it back, and those loans are only made with strings attached, meaning say they have to get a new CEO. If anything the government forces them to correct their act where otherwise they would've just fallen and taken the economy with them.

In a proper system, a CEO of a company would bend over backwards to make sure his product is the BEST, and to make sure his employees are the happiest they can be.

Except in a Libertarian system he just has to make sure his private militia is happy as was the case in the time Libertarian economics ruled.

No it was overregulation that encourages mismanagement. The more regulation you have, the more incentive a corporation (like Goldman Sachs or AIG or Enron) has to work their way around it.

That doesn't make any sense, the regulation is there to prevent mismanagement, if it wasn't there there would still be mismanagement.

When regulations are proposed, it becomes a rat race over which company can cough up the most dough to get it written in their favor.

Do you seriously think every new regulation is written by private companies?

Like who?

Al-Qaeda, since you know they bombed the World Trade Centers.

Also, for other seniors, why should I have to make up for them not investing in their future or saving their own money. Isn't that their own fault?

You do realize it's alot more complex than that? The guy I was talking about for example got his basement flooded when he was working for his company, he took time off to go clean it up on his own and he got hospitalized after that. While he was hospitalized his company went bankrupt and he lost all his savings. On top of this medical care is expensive, as in too expensive to save up for.

Um, dude, Social Security is bankrupt, as there are currently not enough contributors to pay all the beneficiaries from the Baby Boomer period. Medicare is the same way.

Um no it's still solvent because they had raised payments in anticipation. Currently it's going to go bankrupt in about 2050 if I recall. Medicare there's a big scare that it's going to happen 2016 but that's only one or two funds that won't be able to keep pace, if they say 2016 it's probably a fear monger date as it'll probably be later than that.

Sorry, but government has proven time and time again, that if given the chance they will rob the people that are relying on them. So fuck that, shouldn't I have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to secure my own future, instead of relying on these theives?

You think the government is bad? The private sector is even worse.

Anyone with money can go to Harvard. Bush went to an Ivy League school too.

You do realize Harvard and Yale are some of the top universities in the world right?

Obama isn't smart. He almost makes me wonder if he's even mentally fit to serve as president. "Derp derp, how am I gonna smooth over foreign relations with the middle east? I know! I'll invade their sovereign soil without permission, assassinate people, and drone strike villages and civilians. That'll make em like us!"

You're barely mentally fit to type on a keyboard much less be a point of authority on the presidency. You do realize though that for one you would hate him no matter what he did and think he's an idiot for not subscribing to your idealist views and two he didn't invade any country.

Exactly. That isn't what socialism is.

A society where everyone is equal is Socialism.

Well, the government has the power to assassinate or imprison you without trial.

No it doesn't.

The dollar is on the cusp of hyperinflation.

Far from it. Hyperinflation is a rare occurrence that only happens when you do something incredibly stupid, for example in Zimbabwe they confiscated all the property of the whites and handed it to the blacks, since the whites were a big part of the econ no one wanted to trade in Zimbabwean dollars so the currency underwent hyperinflation. Belgium by comparison has had many periods where they had no government and their currency was fine so if we were to go off the fiscal cliff the dollar won't do much.

And Obama kills innocent people like it's going out of style. Tyrannical.

Source?

Actually the things that caused the great drepression stand in stark opposition to pretty much every single libertarian ideal.

Businesses expanded too much and ended up with too much excess stock. They had over expanded on their own with no government intervention. The whole thing was the failure of the free market to regulate itself.

LOL. Coming up with an idea doesn't mean dick if you can't actually do it.

They did do it and they succeeded (it was meant only for a few labs to share data easily). They handed it over to private corporations so they could develop it for civilian use.

I didn't say they invented them. You just proved my point.

No you said the government doesn't innovate, I proved you wrong.

Yes they would have. And did. Private aviation corporations were researching space travel before NASA even existed.

That's why they're in space right now I presume?

The fuck are you talking about? You're not even making sense. The government steals from people to give money to people who didn't earn or deserve it. Try again.

I was listing these people who "didn't earn or deserve it" which were veterans, seniors, kids in public schools etc. then you went off about how the government didn't give them enough money thereby contradicting everything you said before.

Actually it was unchecked greed, and the government, that crashed the economy. The government spends the money. The government borrows.

Greed is already an excess, it's too much want to the point of doing immoral acts to get it. So there's no such thing as being "overly greedy".

Which was...

That if insurance companies wanted everyone to be insured that they would've done it without any regulation.

Except I do.

You've demonstrated constantly you don't.

The character limit cut off part of your post, sry.

But they can't lower rates or alter what's covered because Obama's laws have told them what they can and can't cover. Where as before, they could cover ABC for XYZ price, now they must cover ABCDE. And they must increase prices (you know, basic economics here), to cover the extra risk they're taking on. Meaning now, instead of offering packages 1, 2, 3 or 4 at various price points, to suit customer needs, they can only offer the most expensive pac

Except because they have more customers they can.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 19:24:10 Reply

At 1/1/13 05:28 PM, Warforger wrote:
What does cutting wages do? Also if the product seems the same or is not very different, how will consumers know that it was made with cheaper material?

Cutting wages saves them money. Using cheaper ingredients...people know the difference. You can't tell the difference between sugar and aspertame?

I worked for a multi-national food corporation for years. I see the cost cutting measures in quality of products, and employee/labor. They absorb the cost because they own almost everything that's probably in your pantry and bathroom.

This type of corporatism is only possible, when the government creates legistlation that benefits industry over consumers.

Monopolies exist without the government. Let's see, John D. Rockefeller got a monopoly in oil in the North east without any help from the government. In fact the government was responsible for breaking it up. If anything the opposite is true because it was the government who broke up monopolies and not consumers.

Rockefeller actually obtained and created his monopoly through buying government seats and lobbying legislation in his favor.

And the government did not breakup monopolies. They are still rampant today.

Nope because all that money comes in the form of loans, meaning they have to pay it back, and those loans are only made with strings attached, meaning say they have to get a new CEO. If anything the government forces them to correct their act where otherwise they would've just fallen and taken the economy with them.

Um, except it doesn't get paid back. Not to mention it creates a mindset of "we can fuck people over, and we'll always get money anyway!"

Except in a Libertarian system he just has to make sure his private militia is happy as was the case in the time Libertarian economics ruled.

Um, no that isn't libertarianism at all. Libertarianism, has NEVER been practiced in the nation, except maybe for a very brief period during the nations inception and even that's debatable.

As I said, in a libertarian system, it would be paramount for a CEO to jump through hoops to make sure his employees and customers were as happy as possible.

This concept of "private militias"...that's more inline with democrats and republicans than Libertarians...in fact the very concepts run totally counter one another.

That doesn't make any sense, the regulation is there to prevent mismanagement, if it wasn't there there would still be mismanagement.

And regulation makes it worse. Case in point, the current economic crisis.

Do you seriously think every new regulation is written by private companies?

Yes. They are called lobbyists. I'm sure you're aware that former CEO's of corporations sit as head of "regulatory" agencies, right? Like the head of the FDA used to be the CEO of Tyson Chicken?

Al-Qaeda, since you know they bombed the World Trade Centers.

The Army protects me from Al-Quida. Bailouts do not.

You do realize it's alot more complex than that? The guy I was talking about for example got his basement flooded when he was working for his company, he took time off to go clean it up on his own and he got hospitalized after that. While he was hospitalized his company went bankrupt and he lost all his savings. On top of this medical care is expensive, as in too expensive to save up for.

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have robber baron insurance companies jacking up prices with impunity?

Um no it's still solvent because they had raised payments in anticipation. Currently it's going to go bankrupt in about 2050 if I recall. Medicare there's a big scare that it's going to happen 2016 but that's only one or two funds that won't be able to keep pace, if they say 2016 it's probably a fear monger date as it'll probably be later than that.

So, explain again why I am not allowed to have freedom to decide whether or not to participate.

You think the government is bad? The private sector is even worse.

Hmm.. Private sector has given me hospitals, computers, phones, fuel, food, airplanes (I'm a pilot), cars and entertainment, not to mention numerous paychecks. The government has given me war, murder and can arrest me without trial.

You do realize Harvard and Yale are some of the top universities in the world right?
You're barely mentally fit to type on a keyboard much less be a point of authority on the presidency. You do realize though that for one you would hate him no matter what he did and think he's an idiot for not subscribing to your idealist views and two he didn't invade any country.

I'm smart enough to realize killing people will not make them like you :)

BTW, Obama has invaded Libya, Yemen, Pakistan (when he murdered Bin Laden), and Somalia.

A society where everyone is equal is Socialism.

Show me a socialist society in history where that is true...30's germany? Greece? Denmark? 30's Italy? Where?

No it doesn't.

Ever heard of Guantanimo Bay?

As for assassinations, even the HUFFINGTON POST knows it's true

Oh and here's a quote from Obama's head of DNI
"Being a US citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans."

Far from it. Hyperinflation is a rare occurrence that only happens when you do something incredibly stupid, for example in Zimbabwe they confiscated all the property of the whites and handed it to the blacks, since the whites were a big part of the econ no one wanted to trade in Zimbabwean dollars so the currency underwent hyperinflation. Belgium by comparison has had many periods where they had no government and their currency was fine so if we were to go off the fiscal cliff the dollar won't do much.

Maybe not hyperinflation...but inflation at an alarming rate non the less. Brought a loaf of bread lately?

Source?
Businesses expanded too much and ended up with too much excess stock. They had over expanded on their own with no government intervention. The whole thing was the failure of the free market to regulate itself.

No, they expanded too much because they lobbied government to write laws in their favor, and look the other way (See JP Morgan, Rockefeller, et al)

They did do it and they succeeded (it was meant only for a few labs to share data easily). They handed it over to private corporations so they could develop it for civilian use.

No they didn't. You need to check your history. Companies like IBM were developing the technology WAY before the federal govt.

No you said the government doesn't innovate, I proved you wrong.

Where?

That's why they're in space right now I presume?

Exactly.

I was listing these people who "didn't earn or deserve it" which were veterans, seniors, kids in public schools etc. then you went off about how the government didn't give them enough money thereby contradicting everything you said before.

No, the veterans DO earn it (risking their lives and all). Children DO deserve it (general welfare). The government steals from them to benefit their campaign contributors.

Greed is already an excess, it's too much want to the point of doing immoral acts to get it. So there's no such thing as being "overly greedy".

And that's where consumers and employees come into the equation. However, when you take power from them to keep it in check, or having the government supporting it, you have a problem. Look around you.

That if insurance companies wanted everyone to be insured that they would've done it without any regulation.

Right. Regulation that takes away your right to choose what you purchase. Of course a company isn't going to force you to buy their shit. They can't...that's why some people are uninsured.

Question: How could they insure everyone if there was no regulation forcing people to buy?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-01 19:25:48 Reply

THEY CANNOT HAVE DIFFERENT PACKAGES BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DICTATES WHAT COVERAGE THEY CAN PROVIDE.

It's not financial, it's legal.

Knis
Knis
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 00:06:07 Reply

At 12/30/12 05:30 AM, Kellz5460 wrote: socialism is fundamentally about taking from one person to give to another using the force of gov't laws.

Again that's not even close to what socialism means.

SOCIALISM=/= welfare state


The problem with this besides out right theft of property,

Property is at least partially a positive right, ownership of natural resources is a positive right, corporate charters are a positive right and the stored wealth is a positive right. So care to explain how taxation is always theft?

..... It may help a person out in the short run but its no benefit in the long run.

Ahh, actually it is of help in the long run, here's some benefits of downward wealth redistribution;

Economic stimulus
lower crime rates
cheaper services (Pell grants etc..)
lower tax burdens
lower healthcare costs


Also the list of the needy is ever growing. Besides outright fraud, any body can become a political constituent and essentially lobby the political sphere for moneys.

Not really, at least not effectively, the poor I assure you have hired no lobbying firm.

By helping out individuals you are essentially creating a culture of learned helplessness and irresponsibilty. This is what the social welfare "safety net" creates as an unintended consequence of goodwill.

You have no idea how limited the American safety net is, do you?

In the past wealthy people would donate some of their wealth to poor houses etc. and then use it as a tax write off. This could take care of some but was by no means able to satiate everybody's desires.

Yes desiresfor hings like healthcare, food, housing, education, etc..

It's easy for politicians to use these classes of people to pander for votes and pretend to the populace that some how social ills and just facts of life are some how being fixed and managed by the state through the institution of a social welfare program. The problem is the longer this goes on the more advantageous it becomes to keep these systems in place.

Uh-huh, you do realize that many of our social ills could be solved with welfare and the mere existence of the welfare state is only a "problem" for randroids.

By taking wealth from productive members and giving it to those that are unproductive

In your world view are people who make most of their money "more productive" than those whom earn most of their money?


Recently Francois Hollande in france attempted to pass through a tax on the wealthy of nearly 75% of ones income over a certain level. The problem with this, is that it chases wealth out of the country. No rich person that is sane would want to stick around in a country that would take 3/4 of their wealth per annum.

So in your opinion things like patriotism, preference for ones culture, and oh yeah wanting to make shit tons of money are insane?

Eventually what happens when the wealthly are taxed to the point where they are no longer wealthy?

Yes because the very second you have any form of downward wealh redistribution you are domed to tax the wealthy out o existence just look at what happened nowhere never.

In order to continue to fund social spending the gov't must then go into debt or find the money elsewhere, or simply print it. All of these situations lead to catastrophic results which can be seen in the current financial crisis,

lolwhat?

Weimar Germany, etc etc.

Are you really this ignorant?

People often forget that aside from social spending, a country also has to pay for itself and reinvest in itself.

No people don't often forget that.

By placating the poor and subsidizing them, they are not investing that wealth in productive enterprises which would in the longer run generate more wealth over all in a society.

Actually the exact opposite is true, subsidizing he poor is an investment that in the long run does generate more wealth for society.

gov't could some how by itself pick winners and losers in a market (which is ofcourse communism)
Not even close
versus just letting the rich keep their money (free market capitalism)

Wrong again, both taxation and a welfare state are compatible with a free market system.

Socialism is the very idea that theft makes right somehow. blah blah blah

Again how is it theft?

Socialism is antithetical to the idea of property rights.

Not at all as again property rights are positive rights.

If the gov't or any force can essentially decree that what you "own" must be surrendered " for the good of all" then you do not own it.

Correct you don't own your taxes, that's why they are called taxes.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." - ayn rand

Stop reading inverted Stalinist propaganda.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 00:48:21 Reply

At 1/2/13 12:06 AM, Knis wrote: STUFF

See the problem is, it still requires government force or threat of force to make it happen.

So fuck it.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 01:47:30 Reply

At 12/29/12 07:28 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I tend to not believe in statistics.

Um, so, if you don't believe in the very way humans observe and report data, how can you possibly logically justify your position? It would be like if you didn't like a book you would say "It would be better as a painting." You're ignoring the way humans analyze data! What then do you believe in? That your shoelace is God of the Mountains?

Just wanted to point that out, cause I just finished Nate Silver's new book, and man, is it good.

Look, the reason socialism is bad from a very large perspective is that it kills motivation, and by extension, innovation. Humans are naturally self-interested, a la Keeping up with the Joneses. If your neighbor gets a nicer car than you, you're going together jealous and presumably work harder to get money to buy an even nicer car. Competition leads to motivation. Now, say two companies have very similar products. The motivation from the competition will push for innovation in the market, leading to better designed or even new products.

But what happens when everything's equal? Well, now your neighbor's got the same car as you, because there's only one kind of car. You're no longer jealous, which means you no longer have that competitive drive. If companies only have to make one kind of product and the government fully supports that product, why would there be innovation?

It's not that socialism is all bad. It basically boils down to "self" or "society". I personally think the pursuit of "equally" is much noble than "personal gain", but there's no right answer.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
Knis
Knis
  • Member since: Jul. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 13:31:18 Reply

At 1/2/13 12:48 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
See the problem is, it still requires government force or threat of force to make it happen.

So fuck it.

The problem is that's retarded, you have to use force to take property in the first place. that's what these psuedolibertarians fail to understand.

So you're retarded.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 14:50:00 Reply

At 1/2/13 01:31 PM, Knis wrote: The problem is that's retarded, you have to use force to take property in the first place. that's what these psuedolibertarians fail to understand.

So you're retarded.

Hmm. My property, every single thing I own, was acquired by me purchasing it. I didn't force anyone to give anything to me. I traded money (which I received from a person in exchange for services), for items or services. The goods I purchase were also produced voluntarily.

So, again, the socialist thought is flawed because it requires government forcing people to participate in things they may not want to do.

However, free markets work off of 100% voluntary action.

Not only are you incorrect, but your world view seems to be based in some sort of fictionalized universe.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 15:32:52 Reply

At 1/2/13 02:50 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Hmm. My property, every single thing I own, was acquired by me purchasing it. I didn't force anyone to give anything to me. I traded money (which I received from a person in exchange for services), for items or services. The goods I purchase were also produced voluntarily.

What about your education? That's a good in which you were given involuntarily because society deems that educated citizens is more beneficial to itself. You did not pay for it, yet you are still experiencing its benefits.

So, again, the socialist thought is flawed because it requires government forcing people to participate in things they may not want to do.

But you're already in several socialistic systems. You just haven't realized they're socialist yet.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 15:44:12 Reply

At 1/2/13 03:32 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: What about your education? That's a good in which you were given involuntarily because society deems that educated citizens is more beneficial to itself. You did not pay for it, yet you are still experiencing its benefits.

Education is no property. And education, or rather, an educated public, benefits society as a whole, therefore I have no problem paying for it. Same with roads, military, etc. I have no problem paying for something I'm going to use, or will benefit the entire nation equally.

Bank bailouts, social security, medicare, Obamacare, etc. do not benefit society equally, but rather a select few, at the cost of others, who will see no benefit.

But you're already in several socialistic systems. You just haven't realized they're socialist yet.

Socialism is stealing stealing from haves and giving to have nots. I am aware I am in these systems...because I am forced to be. That's kind of the problem I'm talking about.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 15:55:21 Reply

At 1/2/13 01:47 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:
Um, so, if you don't believe in the very way humans observe and report data..

I tend to believe in reality.

Statistics are easily, and frequently skewed

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 16:01:53 Reply

At 1/2/13 03:44 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Education is no property.

Do you value it? We may not be able to put a number on it, but if it has value and society benefits from it, then it's a good and therefore property. Otherwise, you could argue art isn't property very similarly.

And education, or rather, an educated public, benefits society as a whole, therefore I have no problem paying for it. Same with roads, military, etc. I have no problem paying for something I'm going to use, or will benefit the entire nation equally.

And if that's done by the government, as it is in most countries, then THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SOCIALSIM!

Socialism is stealing stealing from haves and giving to have nots. I am aware I am in these systems...because I am forced to be. That's kind of the problem I'm talking about.

It seems like you want to have the best of both worlds, but completely being ignorant of the system yet still want the benefits that have provided of said system. This what Obama was talking about in the full context in his "You didn't build that" speech. You can't be ignorant of the benefits socialism (government controlled markets) has already built for you.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 16:04:57 Reply

At 1/2/13 03:55 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I tend to believe in reality.

Statistics are easily, and frequently skewed

Then show me where you are getting your numbers from and how they are valid. Without the use of the scientific method and empirical data, because, as you say, is "frequently skewed".


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 16:08:24 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:01 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Do you value it? We may not be able to put a number on it, but if it has value and society benefits from it, then it's a good and therefore property. Otherwise, you could argue art isn't property very similarly.

PROPERTY:
Noun
A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
A building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them.

And if that's done by the government, as it is in most countries, then THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SOCIALSIM!

Except that every socialist government has done the polar opposite.

It seems like you want to have the best of both worlds, but completely being ignorant of the system yet still want the benefits that have provided of said system. This what Obama was talking about in the full context in his "You didn't build that" speech. You can't be ignorant of the benefits socialism (government controlled markets) has already built for you.

It has built no benefits for me. Socialist policies, as Obama, Bush, Reagan, Carter, et al, love so much, benefit a select few, in most cases CEO's and corporations, at the expense of other.

Trickle down economics. That's what socialism is. Even Marx knew that the concepts and theory of socialism and communism were humanly impossible (due to human's need for freedom and choice), and unsustainable.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 16:10:29 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:04 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
Then show me where you are getting your numbers from and how they are valid. Without the use of the scientific method and empirical data, because, as you say, is "frequently skewed".

Polls and statistics do not subscribe to the scientific method, therefore are invalid :)

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 16:22:35 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote: PROPERTY:
Noun
A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
A building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them.

A "thing belong to someone"? Could you have picked a more vague definition? A thing can be anything. If anything, you've helped prove my point: any thing can be property. So, therefore, if you don't own your own education, who does?

Except that every socialist government has done the polar opposite.

I'm not talking about political socialism, I'm talking how society as a whole has socialistic tendencies already built into itself. If you can't even see that then what do you see when you look at those markets?

It has built no benefits for me. Socialist policies, as Obama, Bush, Reagan, Carter, et al, love so much, benefit a select few, in most cases CEO's and corporations, at the expense of other.

Trickle down economics. That's what socialism is. Even Marx knew that the concepts and theory of socialism and communism were humanly impossible (due to human's need for freedom and choice), and unsustainable.

Okay then. If socialism has no benefits for you give back your education, stop driving on the roads, you're probably going to want to arm yourself because national defense isn't going to protect your ass anymore, oh, and if your house burns down, you can kiss it goodbye because the fire department isn't going to come and hose it down.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 16:25:18 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:10 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Polls and statistics do not subscribe to the scientific method, therefore are invalid :)

You still haven't shown me the data in which you're drawing your conclusions from. And you first said statistics as being invalid, not polls. There is a big difference between the two, but it seems that you can't see the difference.

Answer me this: what's it like inside that tiny head of yours?


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 17:01:41 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:22 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:
A "thing belong to someone"? Could you have picked a more vague definition? A thing can be anything. If anything, you've helped prove my point: any thing can be property. So, therefore, if you don't own your own education, who does?

I didn't pick the definition. Webster did.

I'm not talking about political socialism, I'm talking how society as a whole has socialistic tendencies already built into itself. If you can't even see that then what do you see when you look at those markets?

No it doesn't.

Otherwise, we would be a "socialist" society. And we don't. We live in a society where people sustain or at least want to sustain themselves. You very existence is a product of greed. As is mine. As is everyone's.

Sure, you have some "socialist" societies...say...the Amish...but again, they CHOOSE to be there. They are not forced by government or threats.

Okay then. If socialism has no benefits for you give back your education, stop driving on the roads, you're probably going to want to arm yourself because national defense isn't going to protect your ass anymore, oh, and if your house burns down, you can kiss it goodbye because the fire department isn't going to come and hose it down.

Um, no. Those things are not benefits of socialism.

Socialism is forced theft to benefit others. Clearly, by their very structure, schools, fire depts. etc does not apply. Socialism, is the wrong word to describe roads and public education. That's charity, or contributing to the common good. Socialism not only has nothing to do with that, but runs completely opposite to charity and the common good.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 17:04:29 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:25 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You still haven't shown me the data in which you're drawing your conclusions from. And you first said statistics as being invalid, not polls. There is a big difference between the two, but it seems that you can't see the difference.

What conclusions?

And yes, polls and statistics are virtually the same.

BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 18:13:22 Reply

At 1/2/13 05:01 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I didn't pick the definition. Webster did.

You still didn't answer my question. Who owns your education?

I'm not talking about political socialism, I'm talking how society as a whole has socialistic tendencies already built into itself. If you can't even see that then what do you see when you look at those markets?
No it doesn't.

Otherwise, we would be a "socialist" society. And we don't. We live in a society where people sustain or at least want to sustain themselves. You very existence is a product of greed. As is mine. As is everyone's.

Sure, you have some "socialist" societies...say...the Amish...but again, they CHOOSE to be there. They are not forced by government or threats.

Definition of socialism, from Webster:

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

The American education system is socialist. The highway system is socialist. The frickin' army, because it's raised by the government, is socialism. Those markets are socialist because society has deemed that those markets are best controlled by the people rather than individuals.

Let me ask you this: how do you see those markets otherwise? If the highway market in the United States isn't socialist, then what is it by definition?

Um, no. Those things are not benefits of socialism.

Socialism is forced theft to benefit others. Clearly, by their very structure, schools, fire depts. etc does not apply. Socialism, is the wrong word to describe roads and public education. That's charity, or contributing to the common good. Socialism not only has nothing to do with that, but runs completely opposite to charity and the common good.

See above. Also, you're telling me that our tax dollars, collected by the government, isn't funding our education system or public roads? How do you think our government works?


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature
BrianEtrius
BrianEtrius
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 32
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? 2013-01-02 18:21:45 Reply

At 1/2/13 05:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote: What conclusions?

And yes, polls and statistics are virtually the same.

All polls are statistics, but not all statistics are polls. Know your difference in denotation.

And you still haven't shown me your data.


New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams

BBS Signature