Define Socialism... IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

a reply to: soberbacchus

The OP asked for my definition and I'm sticking with it.

Socialism denies individual rights over the rights of the collective.



Agree or disagree.

Don't really care.



It's how I define it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

See i've tried this same thread, but i gave a definition of at the very least... what socialism is supposed to be...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

its almost always defined by history instead of what it could/should be...

Personally i don't see how i denies individual rights of the populous any more then any other system does

a reply to: Akragon

I gave an example in the first page.

We could define communism as how it should be, but isn't.


People always screw things up. Political ideology would be much easier if there weren't people.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

Socialism is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.


For example, socialized medicine.

As a smoker, under a socialized medicine program, the burden would fall on others to pay for any medical repercussions caused by my terrible habit. It would be an infringement on their individual rights caused by my actions.

Conversely, my individual rights to smoke would be infringed upon if the state dictated that my smoking placed an unnecessary financial burden on others.

So it's a state-sponsored and approved infringement of individual rights.

Smoking is just one example.

Ah... ok but the state or government does not deny your right to smoke/drink.... and repercussions of your actions are not their problem...

Except... when you get some sort of illness from your actions, you pay taxes so you're covered if something is needed to aid or ease your pain

so again... i don't see the problem

a reply to: Akragon

Should you be responsible to foot the bill for my bad habits and poor choices?

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

Socialism is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.


For example, socialized medicine.

As a smoker, under a socialized medicine program, the burden would fall on others to pay for any medical repercussions caused by my terrible habit. It would be an infringement on their individual rights caused by my actions.

Conversely, my individual rights to smoke would be infringed upon if the state dictated that my smoking placed an unnecessary financial burden on others.

So it's a state-sponsored and approved infringement of individual rights.

Smoking is just one example.

Ah... ok but the state or government does not deny your right to smoke/drink.... and repercussions of your actions are not their problem...

Except... when you get some sort of illness from your actions, you pay taxes so you're covered if something is needed to aid or ease your pain

so again... i don't see the problem

The problem is that when you look critically at who is paying the taxes and who is generating the expense, the smokers and other unhealthy people, will be using far more than they are paying in.... this is why in a free market, they pay higher insurance rates because they cost the system more.

How about one word...


Failure

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Akragon

Should you be responsible to foot the bill for my bad habits and poor choices?

Thats how it works man... that is why we pay taxes

You're free to make bad choices... whatever they might be

Now in the case where someone has something thats necessary... lets say, hip surgery, or a heart transplant in extreme cases... said person is not going to have to go bankrupt to pay their bill... they're also covered

At least in our case... the population is covered medically for the most part...

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

Socialism is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.


For example, socialized medicine.

As a smoker, under a socialized medicine program, the burden would fall on others to pay for any medical repercussions caused by my terrible habit. It would be an infringement on their individual rights caused by my actions.

Conversely, my individual rights to smoke would be infringed upon if the state dictated that my smoking placed an unnecessary financial burden on others.

So it's a state-sponsored and approved infringement of individual rights.

Smoking is just one example.

Ah... ok but the state or government does not deny your right to smoke/drink.... and repercussions of your actions are not their problem...

Except... when you get some sort of illness from your actions, you pay taxes so you're covered if something is needed to aid or ease your pain

so again... i don't see the problem

The problem is that when you look critically at who is paying the taxes and who is generating the expense, the smokers and other unhealthy people, will be using far more than they are paying in.... this is why in a free market, they pay higher insurance rates because they cost the system more.

except in any country there will always be people who are a drag on the system...

We pay according to our earnings per year...

And ya.... theres tons of people who pay nothing, and earn nothing

Socialism is where I get to take the fruits of the other mans labours without due recompense

paraphrasing Ayn Rand

a reply to: Akragon


You are more than welcome to your opinion.


But to abdicate personal responsibility by having you take care of me obligates me to reciprocate. It mandates that I have to carry your burden as much as you would carry mine.



Personal responsibility, individual freedoms would be eliminated by such a program.


And I have a hard time supporting any measure that would inhibit any freedoms.

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

Socialism is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.


For example, socialized medicine.

As a smoker, under a socialized medicine program, the burden would fall on others to pay for any medical repercussions caused by my terrible habit. It would be an infringement on their individual rights caused by my actions.

Conversely, my individual rights to smoke would be infringed upon if the state dictated that my smoking placed an unnecessary financial burden on others.

So it's a state-sponsored and approved infringement of individual rights.

Smoking is just one example.

Ah... ok but the state or government does not deny your right to smoke/drink.... and repercussions of your actions are not their problem...

Except... when you get some sort of illness from your actions, you pay taxes so you're covered if something is needed to aid or ease your pain

so again... i don't see the problem

The problem is that when you look critically at who is paying the taxes and who is generating the expense, the smokers and other unhealthy people, will be using far more than they are paying in.... this is why in a free market, they pay higher insurance rates because they cost the system more.

except in any country there will always be people who are a drag on the system...

We pay according to our earnings per year...

And ya.... theres tons of people who pay nothing, and earn nothing

Until the govt starts looking at expenditures because the taxpayers are broke and decides that they need to save money... the first thing they will start looking at is:

1) people living unhealthy lifestyles
2) the economics of huge healthcare expenditures and the elderly. In other words, if your 80 year grandma needs a new knee or heart surgery, some govt bureaucrat is going to say she has lived a full life and the cost isn't worth it.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

Socialism is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.


For example, socialized medicine.

As a smoker, under a socialized medicine program, the burden would fall on others to pay for any medical repercussions caused by my terrible habit. It would be an infringement on their individual rights caused by my actions.

Conversely, my individual rights to smoke would be infringed upon if the state dictated that my smoking placed an unnecessary financial burden on others.

So it's a state-sponsored and approved infringement of individual rights.

Smoking is just one example.

Ah... ok but the state or government does not deny your right to smoke/drink.... and repercussions of your actions are not their problem...

Except... when you get some sort of illness from your actions, you pay taxes so you're covered if something is needed to aid or ease your pain

so again... i don't see the problem

The problem is that when you look critically at who is paying the taxes and who is generating the expense, the smokers and other unhealthy people, will be using far more than they are paying in.... this is why in a free market, they pay higher insurance rates because they cost the system more.

except in any country there will always be people who are a drag on the system...

We pay according to our earnings per year...

And ya.... theres tons of people who pay nothing, and earn nothing

Until the govt starts looking at expenditures because the taxpayers are broke and decides that they need to save money... the first thing they will start looking at is:

1) people living unhealthy lifestyles
2) the economics of huge healthcare expenditures and the elderly. In other words, if your 80 year grandma needs a new knee or heart surgery, some govt bureaucrat is going to say she has lived a full life and the cost isn't worth it.

Well it seems to be working here

Our elderly are well taken care of... I should know... i take care of them...

And again, everyone is OVER taxed... so the government has plenty to spend... not to mention skim off the top

a reply to: Bluntone22

Messianic qualities

We're going on strike until Intrepid wades in!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Akragon


You are more than welcome to your opinion.


But to abdicate personal responsibility by having you take care of me obligates me to reciprocate. It mandates that I have to carry your burden as much as you would carry mine.



Personal responsibility, individual freedoms would be eliminated by such a program.


And I have a hard time supporting any measure that would inhibit any freedoms.

and again... There is no freedom you do not have in such a system

You pay taxes.... thats your only responsibility... and that covers everything that is needed

a reply to: Akragon

In a perfect world it would be so.


Unfortunately, we do not live in such.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: intrepid

Socialism is an unnecessary infringement on individual rights.


For example, socialized medicine.

As a smoker, under a socialized medicine program, the burden would fall on others to pay for any medical repercussions caused by my terrible habit. It would be an infringement on their individual rights caused by my actions.

Conversely, my individual rights to smoke would be infringed upon if the state dictated that my smoking placed an unnecessary financial burden on others.

So it's a state-sponsored and approved infringement of individual rights.

Smoking is just one example.

Ah... ok but the state or government does not deny your right to smoke/drink.... and repercussions of your actions are not their problem...

Except... when you get some sort of illness from your actions, you pay taxes so you're covered if something is needed to aid or ease your pain

so again... i don't see the problem

The problem is that when you look critically at who is paying the taxes and who is generating the expense, the smokers and other unhealthy people, will be using far more than they are paying in.... this is why in a free market, they pay higher insurance rates because they cost the system more.

OH OH, and and, back when companies actually covered health insurance for employees back when times were better AND before Obama lowered the standards for health insurances minimum requirements it was much better. But anyway, yes, when insurance was good even 20 years ago, it motivated people to find those better jobs to cover and we didn't have as much problems then. I dont think the tax dollars should cover people who could work but choose not to. I dont think socialism would be that bad if they denied benefits to those who chose not to work when they could. I understand those who are ill and can not, I honestly dont like socialism but if it were to be brought onto us like a dirty crack head whore that it is, thats what should happen...

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well Canada is Far from perfect... interestingly enough the OP is also a fellow Canadian

IF you look into how much we actually pay in Taxes, you'll see its quite the sacrifice... Though its well worth it

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Akragon


You are more than welcome to your opinion.


But to abdicate personal responsibility by having you take care of me obligates me to reciprocate. It mandates that I have to carry your burden as much as you would carry mine.


Personal responsibility, individual freedoms would be eliminated by such a program.


And I have a hard time supporting any measure that would inhibit any freedoms.

and again... There is no freedom you do not have in such a system

You pay taxes.... thats your only responsibility... and that covers everything that is needed

We need another tax revolt, ya know, the one where we can be free and not have to pay taxes on everything like it use to be, you know, every penny you earn goes right into your pocket like it should and you spend it like you please, actually owning a home after it is paid off, owning a car after it is paid, not going to prison for owing taxes like it use to be. You do know the revolutionary war started over a 2% tax increase on a breakfast beverage... People were free for quite sometime, wasn't so bad until Woodrow Wilson sold the American people to the Federal Reserve, I hope he's burning in hell for that move, just to be president, what a selfish prick he is!!!

a reply to: Akragon

And if that's what you want, you should have it.

If I ever became Canadian, I would have to accept it also.

Not all countries are the same, not all people are the same.

Enjoy!