Socialism

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by jay81
What happens if these people aren't provided for to some small extent?

Are we to assume that they are incapable of work? (Physical and mental illness are exceptions). I have a higher opinion of humans than that. All humans are capable of making a living.

Story: While I was in France last March I encountered many bums. (I wonder if socialism is to blame). Anyway, there were basically two types of bums. One, the people that performed a service, such as playing music, card tricks, etc. While I saw these people I gave them money. Why? Because they were working for it. They were putting in an EFFORT. They showed respect for me by not asking me to give them money for nothing. They knew that I worked for my money and am not going to give it away for free. Since they put in an effort and showed respect, I gave to them. Then we have the bums who sit on the side of the street and ask for money, not putting in the slightest bit of effort. Needless to say, they did get my money. Why would I give to lazy parasites like that, especially if they're young. If they had showed on initiative, if they had showed effort, I would have been happy to provide them with enough money for a meal.

I translate the same logic into how a government should deal with the poor. Effort is what matters.

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by jay81
Those who are disabled or incapacitated to some degree?

The elderly with no family to support them and insufficent funds put away to support themselves?

Where does this leave them?

Disabled people must rely on charity. One person's misfortune does not give them the right to other's lives. Charity is the answer.

As for the old people, they should have had the sense to plan for the future, so to some extent I don't feel sorry for them. Then again, some circumstances are inevitable, in which case, again, charity is the answer. The gov't doesn't have the right to force other people to support others.

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by tre14
Are we to assume that they are incapable of work? (Physical and mental illness are exceptions). I have a higher opinion of humans than that. All humans are capable of making a living.

Story: While I was in France last March I encountered many bums. (I wonder if socialism is to blame). Anyway, there were basically two types of bums. One, the people that performed a service, such as playing music, card tricks, etc. While I saw these people I gave them money. Why? Because they were working for it. They were putting in an EFFORT. They showed respect for me by not asking me to give them money for nothing. Since they put in an effort and showed respect, I gave to them. The we have the bums who sit on the side of the street and ask for money, not putting in the slightest bit of effort. Needless to say, they did get my money. Why would I give to lazy parasites like that, especially if they're young. If they had showed on initiative, if they have showed effort, I would have been happy to provide them with enough money for a meal.

I translate the same logic into how a government should deal with the poor. Effort is what matters.

Why are you referring to them as '' bums '' ?

How would welfare be distributed in your ideal system?

What kind of programs would be in place?

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by tre14
Disabled people must rely on charity. One person's misfortune does not give them the right to other's lives. Charity is the answer.

As for the old people, they should have had the sense to plan for the future, so to some extent I don't feel sorry for them. Then again, some circumstances are inevitable, in which case, again, charity is the answer. The gov't doesn't have the right to force other people to support others.

Ah, I see.

Disregard my questions in my post prior to this one if you haven't responded already, they've already been answered here.

Exactly who provides this '' charity '' and how would one rely on it for survival?

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by jay81
Why are you referring to them as '' bums '' ?

How would welfare be distributed in your ideal system?

What kind of programs would be in place?

Okay, "homeless people"

Damn pc crap.....

Welfare would not be the concern of gov't, or at least not a major concern. Private charities, private citizens, private answers.

Just look at it this way. Would you give to charity? Would you give to someone who can't eat if you can spare a few bucks? Now do you think the government should force everyone, even against their will, to donate to charity? Could this be considered freedom? Could this be considered the upholding of individual rights?

**xx0725** · 08-10-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by tre14
While you're at it, explain to me why "Marxist" have had to toy with Marx's own theories seeing as how he was wrong.

If you knew what dialectics was all about, you'd already know the answer to this question.

In fact, learning about Hegelian and Marxist dialectics would probably answer most of your questions: they are elemental components to understanding the relationship between Marxist theory and practice. The library at your local university will have *tons* of stuff on either topic (unlike objectivism).

As far as explaining the basics of socialism to you... pffft!

I'm not here to give a lecture on basic Marxist theory; I have neither the time nor patience for such an undertaking. Learn something on your own, then we'll talk.

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by tre14
Okay, "homeless people" Damn pc crap.....

Welfare would not be the concern of gov't, or at least not a major concern. Private charities, private citizens, private answers.

Just look at it this way. Would you give to charity? Would you give to someone who can't eat if you can spare a few bucks? Now do you think the government should force everyone, even against their will, to donate to charity? Could this be considered freedom? Could this be considered the upholding of individual rights?

Alright, so we'll privatize it like everything else.

Yes, I give to charity all the time and so do many people.

There are countless types of charitable institutions out there to look after the disadvantaged who people give money to.

Do they have the money to take over responsibility for these hundreds of thousands, or in some countries millions of people? Of course not, they barely have the funds to supplement the government's providings to a small portion of those in need of assistance.

This solution would require an absolutely massive shift in focus amongst the big corporations & elite from profiteering to philanthropy. Is that going to happen? Of course not.

Do you have an alternative solution? '' Charity '' isn't going to work.

**Stri8tions** · 08-10-2003, 06:28 PM

There was a time long long ago when People use to believe in the church...In this ancient past the church helped people out with charity and good will to there followers...Charity was accually standard in most religious homes...

...Now comes today when the liberals are attacking every aspect of the church and the support for religion declines every day...Less followers usually equal less people to get the main charities...

Its a very interesting connection between the loss of religion vs. the loss of charities...People should actually look up the statistics...very interesting...

My mothers church just gave 25k to a faithful member in need of a transplant...Intersting how a solid community can help its members...Its also very interesting that the vast majority of charity is given by religous people...

Note: Lets not let religion hijack this thread...This is just a single thought backed by some studies I read dealing with charity...

**xx0725** · 08-10-2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by tre14
Just look at it this way. Would you give to charity? Would you give to someone who can't eat if you can spare a few bucks? Now do you think the government should force everyone, even against their will, to donate to charity? Could this be considered freedom? Could this be considered the upholding of individual rights?

Seriously, is this your only objection to a socialist economic system?

Do you live with your parents, Tre14?

My guess is that you eat their food, sleep under their roof, **** in their toilets, etc., without paying a single dime in rent or services. My guess is that you've never had a callous, never worked for a living, never felt sweat on your brow.

And yet you are furious that someone somewhere is getting a handout.

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Stri8tions
There was a time long long ago when People use to believe in the church...In this ancient past the church helped people out with charity and good will to there followers...Charity was accually standard in most religious homes...

...Now comes today when the liberals are attacking every aspect of the church and the support for religion declines every day...Less followers usually equal less people to get the main charities...

Its a very interesting connection between the loss of religion vs. the loss of charities...People should actually look up the statistics...very interesting...

My mothers church just gave 25k to a faithful member in need of a transplant...Intersting how a solid community can help its members...Its also very interesting that the vast majority of charity is given by religous people...

Note: Lets not let religion hijack this thread...This is just a single thought backed by some studies I read dealing with charity...

Yes, let's go back to medieval times ... I don't know about you but the thought of mass starvation is enough to put me off already.

I would have thought we've evolved socially and economically since the Dark Ages.

Actually you only need to harken as far back as last night in deepest darkest Africa to see this one won't work either.

Any other solutions guys?

**xx0725** · 08-10-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Stri8tions
[B]My mothers church just gave 25k to a faithful member in need of a transplant...Intersting how a solid community can help its members...B]

Beautiful, man... That's socialism in action.

**Stri8tions** · 08-10-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by xx0725
Beautiful, man... That's socialism in action.

No thats charity in action...far from Socialism...

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Stri8tions
No thats charity in action...far from Socialism...

You guys came up with another solution yet?

There's millions of starving, squalid people rising up against us.

**xx0725** · 08-10-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Stri8tions
No thats charity in action...far from Socialism...

People coming together economically for the good of the whole -- that sounds like democratic socialism to me. Again, it felt good, didn't it?

You have to ignore the boggey-man version of socialism that Tre14 keeps pushing.

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by xx0725
People coming together economically for the good of the whole -- that sounds like democratic socialism to me. Again, it felt good, didn't it?

You have to ignore the boggey-man version of socialism that Tre14 keeps pushing.

Boogey man version? It's called the real life version. Socialism is NOT goodwill, NOT charity, NOT kindness. You want to see what real socialism is? Look at the countries that have had it. As for the parents remark, I won't say anything else since the difference is more than obvious.

Read.

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by xx0725
Beautiful, man... That's socialism in action.

Socialism in action is: slave labor camps, executions without trial, mass starvation, abolition of all freedom and all rights, expropriation of all wealth, bullet-riddled bodies fleeing to freedom, the death of individualism, police states, the sacrifice of some for many, on and on.

BTW, the 25k given for the transplant is a good example of what I'm talking about. The key here is choice. Each individual member CHOSE to give money. They weren't force or threaten, they chose to give money. Socialism would have declare that you MUST give, they would have forced you. That is what I don't agree with.

xx, if you think that church affair is socialism, then I apologize to you since it is an issue of semantics. But somehow I think you're version of socialism would led to another USSR.

**Prosauce** · 08-10-2003, 07:38 PM

Why do you hate your own country? I visit canada all the time and love it. I love how your education is practically paid for and same with medical aid.

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Prosauce
Why do you hate your own country? I visit canada all the time and love it. I love how your education is practically paid for and same with medical aid.

At the expense of whom?

It's not that bad of a country, but it isn't the best like the UN kept saying. Canada was much better back in the 60s, before Trudeau came along and socialized everything. Oh well....

Oh and try getting some surgury or a CAT scan up here. Have fun waiting 200 days on average. In Sweden the waiting line in over a year. In Alberta, our Premier has privatized some healthcare and lookey, the waiting line went from 200 to 70 days. Wouldn't you say that helps everyone?

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by tre14
Oh and try getting some surgury or a CAT scan up here. Have fun waiting 200 days on average. In Sweden the waiting line in over a year. In Alberta, our Premier has privatized some healthcare and lookey, the waiting line went from 200 to 70 days. Wouldn't you say that helps everyone?

Sounds infinitely better than nothing to me. Always private health insurance if you can afford it too.

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by jay81
You guys came up with another solution yet?

There's millions of starving, squalid people rising up against us.

Bumping this for the hardline capitalists to help me out with.

The barbarians are at the gates comrades!

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by jay81
Sounds infinitely better than nothing to me. Always private health insurance if you can afford it too.

I might settle for a two-tier conditional healthcare system. Meaning I have a choice between gov't or private HC and if I only use private, I shouldn't have to pay for public.

**tre14** · 08-10-2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by jay81
Bumping this for the hardline capitalists to help me out with.

The barbarians are at the gates comrades!

Are you talking about domestic people or foreign?

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by tre14
Are you talking about domestic people or foreign?

Domestic at this stage.

You still haven't told me what becomes of the millions who are either legitimately unable to find work for some period, the disabled or incapacitated of varying degree ... & those naughty people who just aren't trying hard enough and other miscellaneous types of people in need of assistance along with disenchanted menial workers and the anarchist and criminal element of society who decide to join in on the fun.

What becomes of them?

Mass extermination?

Doh ... there's too many of them!

**jay81** · 08-10-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by tre14
I might settle for a two-tier conditional healthcare system. Meaning I have a choice between gov't or private HC and if I only use private, I shouldn't have to pay for public.

I have both

**Prosauce** · 08-10-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by tre14
At the expense of whom?

It's not that bad of a country, but it isn't the best like the UN kept saying. Canada was much better back in the 60s, before Trudeau came along and socialized everything. Oh well....

Oh and try getting some surgury or a CAT scan up here. Have fun waiting 200 days on average. In Sweden the waiting line in over a year. In Alberta, our Premier has privatized some healthcare and lookey, the waiting line went from 200 to 70 days. Wouldn't you say that helps everyone?

Atleast your education is practically paid for.. I'm paying around 30,000 a year for my education (college.)

**Starsky** · 08-10-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by xx0725
As far as explaining the basics of socialism to you... pffft! I'm not here to give a lecture on basic Marxist theory; I have neither the time nor patience for such an undertaking. Learn something on your own, then we'll talk.

Thanks!

**Marshalll** · 08-11-2003, 12:15 AM

Utopian socialism is a beautiful thing, I believe we as a species just don't have the maturity or vision to put it into place yet. You must admit that the capitalist systems of the West are certainly not perfect, but I believe that they are the best that we can do for now. I just hope that people don't associate utopian socialism (for example the experiments with ideal, cooperative, self-sufficient communities by men such as John Stuart Mill and Louis Blanc) with murders, concentration camps, and dictators, and that we continue to evolve our society step by step.

**Marshalll** · 08-11-2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by drewbie 51
Its quite simple why socialism dosnt work, it goes against the dominant human instict, survival and self preservation, not group preservation. By nature humans are selfish, and capitalism is a form of government made for the selfish.

Humans are not naturally selfish, humans have the most highly developed social instincts of all species, and that is one reason why we're at the top of the food chain.

**tre14** · 08-11-2003, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by jay81
Domestic at this stage.

You still haven't told me what becomes of the millions who are either legitimately unable to find work for some period, the disabled or incapacitated of varying degree ... & those naughty people who just aren't trying hard enough and other miscellaneous types of people in need of assistance along with disenchanted menial workers and the anarchist and criminal element of society who decide to join in on the fun.

What becomes of them?

Mass extermination?

Doh ... there's too many of them!

I would be in favor of MINIMAL gov't assistance to people who deserve help. I am absolutely against welfare systems that provide for people no matter the circumstances. It should not be unconditional.

Anarchists? People too lazy to work even though they could? They'll get dick from me and I wouldn't support them getting anything from my gov't.

**tre14** · 08-11-2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Marshalll
Utopian socialism is a beautiful thing, I believe we as a species just don't have the maturity or vision to put it into place yet. You must admit that the capitalist systems of the West are certainly not perfect, but I believe that they are the best that we can do for now. I just hope that people don't associate utopian socialism (for example the experiments with ideal, cooperative, self-sufficient communities by men such as John Stuart Mill and Louis Blanc) with murders, concentration camps, and dictators, and that we continue to evolve our society step by step.

You're right. The West's system isn't as good as it could be because it has too many statist elements. You seriously need to pick up a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness."

http://www.celebratecapitalism.org/b...ish/index.html

Thread: Socialism

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions