It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

page: 19
37
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp



The free market solution is to not buy from them anymore, abstinence is an incredibly effective tool


That sounds good in theory until you have to abstain from a monopoly. What do you do if someone has a monopoly on something required to sustain life, such as medicine?

Abstinence could mean death, correct?


Well, to complete the hypothetical situation, nobody would want to appear to be withholding lifesaving remedies as their reputation and future endeavors now entirely depend upon their perceived behavior instead of the state so, they would likely be far more generous than under the current regulatory model.

Now, there must be some exceptions to this but, I can't think of any and I am really trying.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
What went wrong here ....

Venezuela: “We’re Scared To Go Into The Streets And Look For Food, The Crime Here Is Killing Us



Anarchy.


Socialism.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I'm asking if you enjoy the benefits of what the collective wealth of the people can provide?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp



The free market solution is to not buy from them anymore, abstinence is an incredibly effective tool


That sounds good in theory until you have to abstain from a monopoly. What do you do if someone has a monopoly on something required to sustain life, such as medicine?

Abstinence could mean death, correct?


Well, to complete the hypothetical situation, nobody would want to appear to be withholding lifesaving remedies as their reputation and future endeavors now entirely depend upon their perceived behavior instead of the state so, they would likely be far more generous than under the current regulatory model.

Now, there must be some exceptions to this but, I can't think of any and I am really trying.


Socialized health care where it is illegal to practice medicine outside the auspices of the state?

The state doesn't want to appear to be withholding life-saving treatment, but the very latest treatments are often too expensive for the system to hand out, so the studies often factor in criteria such as "cost effectiveness" in order to justify not handing out the best available, and it's illegal for you to go it alone ... so ...



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
What went wrong here ....

Venezuela: “We’re Scared To Go Into The Streets And Look For Food, The Crime Here Is Killing Us



Anarchy.


Socialism.


That's not socialism.

That's anarchy.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



nobody would want to appear to be withholding lifesaving remedies as their reputation and future endeavors now entirely depend upon their perceived behavior instead of the state so, they would likely be far more generous than under the current regulatory model


If they had a monopoly, why would they have to care about how they are perceived? You have to assume they would care for that line of thinking to work.

Also, if we continue down that road, abstaining could be used as a means of extortion against the monopoly.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
What went wrong here ....

Venezuela: “We’re Scared To Go Into The Streets And Look For Food, The Crime Here Is Killing Us



Anarchy.


Socialism.


That's not socialism.

That's anarchy.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: greencmp



nobody would want to appear to be withholding lifesaving remedies as their reputation and future endeavors now entirely depend upon their perceived behavior instead of the state so, they would likely be far more generous than under the current regulatory model


If they had a monopoly, why would they have to care about how they are perceived? You have to assume they would care for that line of thinking to work.

Also, if we continue down that road, abstaining could be used as a means of extortion against the monopoly.


Yes, that's why journalism and a corresponding interest among the population in it is necessary.

Free everything and it all works.

The cost not to is mounting.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer

I'm asking if you enjoy the benefits of what the collective wealth of the people can provide?



Police, fire, military, roads?

They aren't benefits.

They are services I pay for.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
What went wrong here ....

Venezuela: “We’re Scared To Go Into The Streets And Look For Food, The Crime Here Is Killing Us



Anarchy.


Socialism.


Considering that socialism is a model in which the means of production is collectively owned and anarchy is the lack of any model, anarchy does not equal socialism.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen
What went wrong here ....

Venezuela: “We’re Scared To Go Into The Streets And Look For Food, The Crime Here Is Killing Us



Anarchy.


Socialism.


Considering that socialism is a model in which the means of production is collectively owned and anarchy is the lack of any model, anarchy does not equal socialism.


Venezuela is a socialist country, when it fails, it fails like this.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

But nothing is guaranteed. Again, you have to rely on assumptions and purity of intent to make it viable.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer

I'm asking if you enjoy the benefits of what the collective wealth of the people can provide?



Police, fire, military, roads?

They aren't benefits.

They are services I pay for.



They are services WE pay for....you socialist.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer

I'm asking if you enjoy the benefits of what the collective wealth of the people can provide?



Police, fire, military, roads?

They aren't benefits.

They are services I pay for.



Correction, they are services we all pay for. Welcome to Socialism.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Obama.Care ACA is Socialism.

The law requires and mandates insurance companies to spend 80% - 85% of premium money on medical expenditures (claims).

But the only way that happens is when somebody with a policy goes to a doctor and the doctor submits a claim.

In the meantime, the "Patient" must also pay big deductibles for most services.

If people don't go to the doctor, the system gets financially bottle-necked.




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Perhaps I missed the original premise of your remarks. I thought you were saying anarchy equals socialism.

My bad.
edit on 9-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Stay out of my head introvert!!!




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
...
Violence begets violence, it is only when the state conducts it that armed monopolization is possible. Otherwise, we compete on the merits of our products and services.


That's the main problem that has always caused certain companies to become monopolies. When government gets involved in the markets, the government plays favorites. It was the government who played favorite with railroad companies and against the common people starting in the 1800s, to the point that the U.S. Army was used in many instances against the common people and to help railroad companies which had disputes with people and their properties.

There is no way that anyone can deny that apart from implementing the Federal Reserve, regulations on businesses starting in 1913 were part of the reason for the Great Depression.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

One big difference, the goal of every corporation is to profit. so they are conceived in greed and only through greed can they grow.

The government does more for it's people than do our corporations, the only reason our Government is so screwed up is the filthy rich hijacked it.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join