Forgive me if this is choppy, I've been through it several times to shorten it.
I have taken out most quotes to make this more readable.
Megaquad defends aggressive American policies in the name of profit and our apparent plans to attack socialist nations. He does so with the following
1. An erroneous equation of socialism to totalitarian government and communist economic policies.
2. Lists of failed communist nations and successful capitalist ones.
3. Flawed illustrations of socialism as a system whereby the lazy steal from the industrious.
I'll respond to these arguements as briefly as I can, then address a few quotes which show the true nature of Megaquad's beliefs.
The arguement that socialist policies are necessarily linked to totalitarianism and oppression is easily refuted. Most developed nations have
socialized education systems. America has socialized retirement insurance and the great part of its problems are that it has been robbed by
politicians who would rather give taxcuts to corporate profiteers and no-bid contracts to Halliburton in conquered nations rather than repay what they
took from that fund in the past.
Socialist programs to provide the necessities of life to people on a non-profit basis can exist in a free and democratic society and can work.
Corporate profiteering and the attendant social Darwinism in industries of necessity are the cause of what poverty and oppression there is in
otherwise successful free nations.
Venezuela is by no means doomed to tyranny because of its leftist president. The fact is that FNC raised very few legitimate questions about Chavez'
commitment to democracy. As I have pointed out, the "wrongly imprisoned" mayor they interviewed comes from a town where the police took action
against the government! You are allowing your disapproval for socialism to keep you from calling militant propaganda for what it is.
The claim that any remotely socialist nation becomes a failed state such as North Korea or Cuba is intellectually bankrupt. Mauddib's informative
reply to my earlier posts made it clear that it is the actions of a totalitarian ruler and his foreign profiteering off of Cuba's food supply which
has been a major component of that nation's failure. (Thanks Mauddib, thats how you change opinions!).
"Socialized" medical care exists in many successful nations including Britain, Canada, Japan, France, etc. It is obviously possible for the
government to help provide necessities at to more people at lower costs without compromising the liberty or economic security of the nation.
Did you know that it costs about 1000 dollars to get 4 stitches? Luckily I had insurance at the time. God help hard working people who don't have
insurance, because our government and profiteering corporations sure wont.
So here it comes back to the topic of Venezuela: They are improving access to medical care and education through socialism. They are trying to build
their nation on a system which is much criticized but by no means doomed to failure. Who are we to force them into our way of doing things when our
way is flawed too?
Finally, I would like to refute the idea that as an advocate of socialization in key industries that I wish to recieve the benefits of another man's
work for free while being lazy myself.
I think when we work in key industries we should be working for the government, which would not take a profit off the top. In return for good work we
should recieve a fair wage with which we pay for necessities- which should be government operated non-profit industries and therefore cost less. In
addition, there should be "skilled trade" bonuses to create incentives to do something more with yourself than just taking the easiest job you can
When I build ply my trade as an operating engineer and build a freeway I should work directly for the department of transportation, not for Yeager.
Yeager's profit margin increases the costs to taxpayers! Yeager's desire to increase profit margin caused the outsourcing of our aggregate plants
and put unionized American workers out of their jobs. That's bad for our economy, no matter how thin you slice it.
I advocate limited socialism to reduce costs in an effort to make the necessities universally available and keep citizens working. It's not bad for a
nation and it's certainly not grounds to attack a nation. Let's not forget, this comes back around to the thread topic of Venezuela's government.
Just because they are leaning left doesn't make them bad; it doesn't even make them wrong.
This response is already longer that I hoped, but I would like to draw attention to a pair of very telling statements about the expansionist
capitalist mindset. These show that America's brand of capitalism succeeds only because by the rape of foreigners and disregard for the well being of
class, whom Megaquad calls "lazy bums".
Should one man be allowed to dam up the flow of water to another man's property if it will turn a profit for him?
Depends to whom water belongs. If I bought it, it's mine.
This sums up what's wrong with ruthless capitalism very nicely. Megaquad believes that if you have enough money you can buy the right to take away
what another man depends on for his livelihood.
By your logic, if you and I were both farmers, I could buy up the land around your fields and build a giant shade which kept your crops from getting
sunlight almost always, and it would be OK for me to ruin your livlihood like that as well as reduce the food supply thereby starving others, just so
that I could demand a greater price for my crops?
Suppose that you had a gun, and you were walking around in a place where everybody else had a gun too. You and somebody else get into an arguement
over something stupid that is not worth a gunfight. Do you A. shoot him. B. Threaten him and hope he backs down instead of shooting you. C. Find
common ground and compromise, even if it means not getting your way 100%.
D. Call USA to shoot him and free his oppressed underlings.
So if you were in an arguement over something that was not worth a gunfight, but you had a way of getting the other person shot without risk to
yourself, you would have them killed? You sir have given the response I would expect only of a coward and a thief. I certainly hope that you gave it
out of disrespect for the analogy rather than disrespect for human rights and decency.
[edit on 7-2-2005 by The Vagabond]