RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:22:12 AM)
The establishment has a vested interest in defending the rights of its citizens from those who would violate them. This includes invading armies who would violate citizens' rights to life among other things.

hisannabelle -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:22:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle the difference (at least in american opinion) being that if you are paying not to die from being bombed, it's not a handout, but if you're paying not to die from lack of emergency surgery, it is. personally, i've never understood that rationale myself ;) How is paying your own bill without the government helping you not paying..? oh, trust me, it is. i can personally vouch for that. i was talking of paying into taxes (which technically doesn't make it a free handout) - the reason why most people don't want socialism when it comes to health care, but they're just fine when it comes to insanely high budgets for national defense.

DesertRat -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:25:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord But students do take. They need to be able to justify it with what they do later. It's okay to barrow a million dollars from the bank and not give anything back for a couple of years if you can return a billion afterwards. Still, that's why I ranted about Art majors. Or drop outs. Whose life are they going to save? And whose life are you going to save? And what guarantee do I, a gainfully employed taxpayer have of that? Your word? What if you change your major to Art? Or history? Or law? And what if a slacker Art major changes course, goes to med school and finds a cure for cancer? Hell, I used to be a journalism and photography major till I changed my life and became an archaeologist. And were would be all be without...erm...archaeologists?? Or telephone sanitizers?

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:26:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle the funny thing is, there are plenty of countries that aren't falling apart that have systems based more on socialism than on capitalism. are we to assume that americans are just naturally lazy? i mean, norway does it. their economy isn't crashing because everyone's quitting their job because they want a free handout. i've never understood that argument. i understand why people don't like the idea of total socialism - but mostly socialism with enough capitalism thrown in to keep from going kaput would make me happy. hell, just being able to pay my bills and not be in more debt than i can ever possibly get out of in three lifetimes because of health and/or education would make me happy. i don't think that's asking for a whole lot. there are countries that manage it - why is the us somehow so lazy that we're incapable of actually guaranteeing a halfway decent standard of living for our citizens? You're so into nationalities and what country people are from. It's not relevant to me; it's just striking me as a bias. Still, if you want to go on about countries.. even with Bush as our leader making horrible decisions, we're still quite rich and powerful. How can it seem to you that other countries' systems are superior in light of this?

hisannabelle -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The establishment has a vested interest in defending the rights of its citizens from those who would violate them. This includes invading armies who would violate citizens' rights to life among other things. so...if we were invaded and i die, that's a bad thing, but if i'm working my ass off and still unable to afford health care and i get really sick and die, that's okay, because i am asking for a free handout if i want to live? all that says to me is my life is only valuable to the government when it suits their defense agenda. p.s. the idea that socialists want free handouts is bullshit. i would gladly pay my entire paycheck in taxes if it meant knowing that i had a house, food, education, and i didn't have to worry about what happens when something else on me breaks.

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:28:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The establishment has a vested interest in defending the rights of its citizens from those who would violate them. This includes invading armies who would violate citizens' rights to life among other things. Your assumption being that there's a genuine threat. I think you're about to dip your toes into a conversation on the basic tenets of human nature underpinning Socialism and Capitalism, i.e. move away from your OP.

hisannabelle -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord You're so into nationalities and what country people are from. It's not relevant to me; it's just striking me as a bias. Still, if you want to go on about countries.. even with Bush as our leader making horrible decisions, we're still quite rich and powerful. How can it seem to you that other countries' systems are superior in light of this? no, i'm not. my point is that you are making the argument that people are basically lazy, so socialism won't work in practice. socialism tempered with capitalism, rather than the other way around, actually DOES work in practice - there are plenty of countries that have socialist institutions whose citizens are not just all quitting their jobs and expecting a free handout. if it works there, why can't it work here? personally, i don't consider a country "rich and powerful" when it can't take care of its citizens. i don't vote so that the corporations can get rich and the president can get kickbacks. i vote for what i need as a citizen. right now, i need a government that cares enough to make sure its working-class citizens are not ill and destitute.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat And whose life are you going to save? And what guarantee do I, a gainfully employed taxpayer have of that? Your word? What if you change your major to Art? Or history? Or law? And what if a slacker Art major changes course, goes to med school and finds a cure for cancer? Hell, I used to be a journalism and photography major till I changed my life and became an archaeologist. And were would be all be without...erm...archaeologists?? Or telephone sanitizers? There's no "guarantee" of anything. If I end up not doing anything, then my life will be a waste. If I do, then it won't be. Do you honestly think we're trying to predict the future? And, yeah, if I did stop and started slacking, it would be a waste. And if an Art major suddenly went to medical school and started saving lives, he'd have made something of himself. But what's this matter? My point is about a lifestyle, not a point within in. I'm not saying, "Because I'm currently in college doing such and such, that my life is now and forever godly before all else". What I am saying is, "People who never do anything and expect others to pay for them piss me off."

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The establishment has a vested interest in defending the rights of its citizens from those who would violate them. This includes invading armies who would violate citizens' rights to life among other things. Your assumption being that there's a genuine threat. I think you're about to dip your toes into a conversation on the basic tenets of human nature underpinning Socialism and Capitalism, i.e. move away from your OP. Yeah, kinda accepting that people are more interested in socialism than my OP. Not that I can entirely blame anyone.. my OP really wasn't that interesting. The assumption is that the threat's genuine. If it's not, then it was wasted. But if it is, and the army wasn't raised, then you have France in WW2. :P

aidan -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:38:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The American fetish for fascism never ceases to amaze me. But I suppose there is a reason that our nation, like Nazi Germany before it, produces so many BDSM enthusiasts. Now, I know it's going a bit off-topic, but this post piqued my interest. What connection do you see between those two (facism and BDSM enthusiasts)?

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:40:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle no, i'm not. my point is that you are making the argument that people are basically lazy, so socialism won't work in practice. socialism tempered with capitalism, rather than the other way around, actually DOES work in practice - there are plenty of countries that have socialist institutions whose citizens are not just all quitting their jobs and expecting a free handout. if it works there, why can't it work here? personally, i don't consider a country "rich and powerful" when it can't take care of its citizens. i don't vote so that the corporations can get rich and the president can get kickbacks. i vote for what i need as a citizen. right now, i need a government that cares enough to make sure its working-class citizens are not ill and destitute. I think you're trying to read my point as what you want it to be. My point is that some lazy people want socialism so they don't have to work. The fact that this is true doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who wants socialism is lazy.. it just means some are. And a purely socialist government wouldn't work. I'm not making comments about socialism and capitalism being mixed. The only reason I even brought up pure socialism not working it because I was responding to it being brought to me. That's not what this thread is about.

hisannabelle -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:43:46 AM)
okay, then i'm still extremely lost as to what some people being lazy has to do with socialism? why bring socialism into the conversation at all? there are lazy people everywhere - that has absolutely zero to do with socialism.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:46:16 AM)
"My point is that some lazy people want socialism so they don't have to work." PS- I've overstayed my time here. Which is sort of ironic in a respect as I've been neglecting work to have a discussion on how much I hate people who are lazy. I'll just excuse this as having been an hour's reprieve on a Sunday afternoon. I may try back here once some more stuff is done, but I'm putting things off too much, particularly as I'm behind after the darn flu.

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:47:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The assumption is that the threat's genuine. I reckon the people of the Middle East hold confidence in your ability to manage their 5 kalashnikovs and 2 zepelins. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord But if it is, and the army wasn't raised, then you have France in WW2. :P Point taken. Having said this, 1939 was the age of imperialism and the Germans had some unfinished business.

hisannabelle -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:49:03 AM)
and some lazy people want capitalism so they can stay wealthy and hang out on their yacht all day at the expense of other people. this is like saying the pope is catholic. let's have a thread about that! you're right, i was reading absolutely way too much into it and trying to have a discussion - i apologize wholeheartedly. (except that most "lazy socialists" just don't want to work and see socialism as an easy way out. they don't actually give a flying fuck about socialism in and of itself - which, as my comrade in arms z mentioned earlier, makes them lazy fucks, not socialists.)

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:53:22 AM)
I think there's always going to be a threat, NG. Hell, if other countries didn't have nukes and some smaller armies, I'd rather doubt America wouldn't walk in and occupy anything that had oil. If North Korea was the only armed country, they'd take over the world. If every country disarmed, some guy would buy a couple of guns and raise a small force to take over places. If guns didn't exist, then some scientist would make one and start taking over things. If guns couldn't exist, people would still be raping and running around taking over other places with swords. If swords couldn't exist, people would just clubs and sticks. If they didn't exist, the physically strongest men would be the bosses and do whatever they wanted. I do have to run, although I'll try to get back here when I can. Probably in not too long as I think I got most of the things out of the way tommorow.. sorta depends on how long it takes me to get the new material through my thick skull.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 11:57:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle and some lazy people want capitalism so they can stay wealthy and hang out on their yacht all day at the expense of other people. this is like saying the pope is catholic. let's have a thread about that! you're right, i was reading absolutely way too much into it and trying to have a discussion - i apologize wholeheartedly. (except that most "lazy socialists" just don't want to work and see socialism as an easy way out. they don't actually give a flying fuck about socialism in and of itself - which, as my comrade in arms z mentioned earlier, makes them lazy fucks, not socialists.) They do want socialism. True, not just because it's socialism, but who in the right mind would want that? Anything we want should be for a reason. Theirs happens to be not so noble. And I could talk about how, sure, some capitalists get easy street, but that they're a smaller number.. but then that'd do one bad thing: distract this thread further from my orginial point.. people wanting hand-outs. Again, I don't have anything against socialism in its right place, as I don't have anything against capitalism in its right place. This isn't about socialism versus capitalism, and I'm not trying to make a political point. I don't give a damn about Marx nor the founding fathers for the purposes of this post. I don't care about England or the US or the Republic of Itzho in the nether reigions of some South American forest. I just don't like people not being willing to put out as much as they take in when able to. I thought that'd be a point of rather comon agreement (besides from such people who want handouts).

hisannabelle -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 12:04:33 PM)
sorry, given that the post was titled "socialism," i thought it was about socialism, not lazy fucks ;) a "this post is rhetorical; actual socialists need not reply" statement would have saved two and a half pages of pain and agony. yes, it is a point of common agreement. that's exactly what i'm saying. it's like saying the pope is catholic. the reason so many people are misunderstanding your point is because we're actually trying to have a discussion, and normally ten pages of, "i think so, too," gets a little boring. given that you included socialism, some of us misunderstood and thought you were actually trying to talk about that. i apologize for my tendency to overcomplicate things, but you're preaching to the choir here, and i didn't want to assume you were fishing for statements about how shiny and sparkly and intelligent and on-point you are ;)

luckydog1 -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 12:08:21 PM)
One thing that is evident is that if you criticise Socialism, you will get a similar response as if you had criticised Faith in some sort of Diety. There is a large difference between Socialist the adjective and Socialism a system of Political Economy. It similar to the difference between Democracy and Democratic. A Social Democracy is Capitalism with some Socialistic aspects. The Socialised Medicine in Europe is paid for by a Capitalistic Economy, and is not Socialism. Public Schools, millitary, fire depts, ect all predate Socialism and are not Socialism. Socialism adopted these things as good. America could be considered a Social Democracy in many ways, as could Europe. You can invest in corparations, move your money in and out of the nation, own property,pass property on to your heirs, start a bussiness, patent an idea in Europe. That's capitalism( a Capitalist economy) I know the kinds of Socialist you are refering to in your OP. To some people Socialism is all good things, "Cinnamon and Puppy dogs". When I was in school, the USSR was around and there were people that seriously thought that after the USSR won the Cold War, everyone would have a satisfying job and freedom and get to live in a mansion on the beach. Trying to explain that there is not enough Beach front property to go around, didn't work. Expalining that there would still have to be mines, and garbage men, ect didn't get through either. One of the underlying principles of Socialism is that the state is good and just and must be obeyed. You get assigned a job, and it must be done. Society requires it. And it quickly becomes that any Anti Social act becomes an act against the Political economy that feeds people, and is killing people (counter revolutionary). And you get results like, "The Farmers don't want to give away all their food for promises that they will get paid later (work for free), So we will eliminate them. Then there is the idea at work in this act, which has been the norm in Socialist Countries, that people are equal, ie you can wait till the farmers plant, then kill them and send in proles and students to care and harvest, and get a reasonable Harvest.. When you get into Political Socialism, you get some really bad results. I support the idea of Social Democracy (though exactly where to draw the lines is a larger debate)

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/10/2008 12:10:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle sorry, given that the post was titled "socialism," i thought it was about socialism, not lazy fucks ;) a "this post is rhetorical; actual socialists need not reply" statement would have saved two and a half pages of pain and agony. "Also, it's not about the political notion of "socialism" I'm ranting about but the reason that some people support socialist institutions." is the opening line. I thought that was clear enough. (The "reason that some people support socalist institutions" referred to "being a lazy bastard", which I thought the rest of the post made clear.) It's alright, though. quote: ORIGINAL: hisannabelle yes, it is a point of common agreement. that's exactly what i'm saying. it's like saying the pope is catholic. the reason so many people are misunderstanding your point is because we're actually trying to have a discussion, and normally ten pages of, "i think so, too," gets a little boring. given that you included socialism, some of us misunderstood and thought you were actually trying to talk about that. i apologize for my tendency to overcomplicate things, but you're preaching to the choir here, and i didn't want to assume you were fishing for statements about how shiny and sparkly and intelligent and on-point you are ;) You were trying to have a discussion. I wasn't fishing for compliments, trying to start a 10-page thread, or anything of the sort. I was just pissed off at lazy people and had a rant. I thought that was also clear. My apologies if my frustration comes through in my words. I think I'd be more tolerant if I were under less stress. Peace.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875