Define Socialism... IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Akragon

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

Kids getting cancer is not a choice or purchasing decision.

Like I said, medical care is not responsive to capitalism. No supply and demand equation, no price elasticity, no working harder to make the cancer go away.

Medical care is independent of capitalism.

As for poor decisions. Both alcohol and cigarette taxes are (in principle if not practice) designed to off-set the additional general costs to society.

a reply to: introvert

Socialism is just one natural extension of basic human nature.

another natural extension of basic human nature is defending against theft

originally posted by: Akragon


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...

All systems need some level of socialism mixed within their political structure. When we look at PURE socialism, it fails...

a reply to: soberbacchus

Medical care is a product. It is a service.
It is a commodity.



Some seem to think it is a right.

But rights cannot be dependent on others to provide. Then it becomes an obligation or a demand.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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!

Of course... and everyone is welcome to their opinion

Personally i think the term "socialism" has a bad rap, and is mostly misunderstood... Like i said previously, its defined by history.... Even so called "socialist" countries that completely took advantage of it

IF its done right... its most definitely not a bad thing

And in certain cases where people are forced to sell their homes because of medical bills... they would be praying for it

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Akragon


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...

All systems need some level of socialism mixed within their political structure. When we look at PURE socialism, it fails...

Well i gave a definition in my own thread on this subject...

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

How does that fail... considering it has NEVER been practiced?

a reply to: Kharron

In fact, unless the country gives you free health care, free education and free other basics of life it should be illegal to be drafted, no matter what law the legislators draw up, like ours have in the past.

But there in lies the trap. Income tax was introduced to pay the Bankers interest on money created out of thin air.
Social programmes were brought in later to ease the burden after depressions. Contraction & expansions are created by the money printers.

You thinking you get those "freebies after conscription is a good thing" is the wrong way of thinking.

You are conscripted to fight Bankers wars.

It was your money to begin with.

a reply to: Resilient1

No patriot is going to lay down and let the country we fought for be hijacked by Socialism

It already has. Whilst you think of socialism as benefiting the little man you ignore the socialism of bailing out the banks.

originally posted by: Shminkee Pinkee
Hitler and the Nazis were not Socialist, To all those struggling with this, please read this, it's well written.

www.snopes.com...

a reply to: intrepid

Mind blown every time.... Nazi's were socialist, everybody knew this up until 5 years ago now liberals have changed EVERYTHING, democrats and republicans flip flopped crap... anyway, I can go on forever about the whole flip floppiness but Yes, Nazi's were socialist and what do you think socialism is...? It's big government controlling everything, your healthcare, your pockets, your mouth, your religion, your home. In the Marxist book one of the first two steps of destroying a free system is divide the people, control health care... Wow, look what Obama did, the nation has been divided for a few years and he tried to control health care.... Republicans are about small government and out of peoples homes and religion, quite the opposite of democrats. Every time Democrats come into power you know how many small business get shut down and people are scared to spend money??? A LOT!!! That's socialism for you, they do not want small business they want to control EVERYTHING, kinda like what Hitler did... I really feel like these people on here that want to believe there socialism is completely different from Nazi Germany socialism or any other ISM, communism is crazy and ill informed, and where they get the idea it's just about the people and little to no government, my god the mass manipulation... I really want to kick California out and let them set up that state as an experiment and show the rest of this country exactly what socialism does, please liberals, go move to california or any socialistic country of your choice

a reply to: xBWOMPx

And this is exactly why people give socialism a bad name...

again, defined by history... not by what i should or could be

when the ideals are given over to dictatorship... it all goes wrong

Theres no reason why a socialized government would control anything in the every day life of the individual in their country...

Perhaps democratic socialism is a better term

originally posted by: Akragon

Well i gave a definition in my own thread on this subject...

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

How does that fail... considering it has NEVER been practiced?

It fails because once you add HUMANS into the equation what looks good on paper doesn't turn out that way. Look at communism, at some point the powers are to step down, and all people are equal working equally to provide utopia for all, and what we get is basically a military dictatorship.

I do think the smaller the population the more successful social programs you can have, but as populations reach a certain size the cost become beyond anything any system can handle.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: xBWOMPx

And this is exactly why people give socialism a bad name...

again, defined by history... not by what i should or could be

when the ideals are given over to dictatorship... it all goes wrong

Theres no reason why a socialized government would control anything in the every day life of the individual in their country...

Perhaps democratic socialism is a better term

Kinda like "The Korean Social Democratic Party", Socialism has always looked good on paper but never has worked in the 170 years its been around... It gave itself a bad name.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Akragon

Well i gave a definition in my own thread on this subject...

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

How does that fail... considering it has NEVER been practiced?

It fails because once you add HUMANS into the equation what looks good on paper doesn't turn out that way. Look at communism, at some point the powers are to step down, and all people are equal working equally to provide utopia for all, and what we get is basically a military dictatorship.

I do think the smaller the population the more successful social programs you can have, but as populations reach a certain size the cost become beyond anything any system can handle.

please read my above statement...

communism and socialism are not the same thing.... so theres no point relating the two

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: xBWOMPx

And this is exactly why people give socialism a bad name...

again, defined by history... not by what i should or could be

when the ideals are given over to dictatorship... it all goes wrong

Theres no reason why a socialized government would control anything in the every day life of the individual in their country...

Perhaps democratic socialism is a better term

Kinda like "The Korean Social Democratic Party", Socialism has always looked good on paper but never has worked in the 170 years its been around... It gave itself a bad name.

Would that not be a dictatorship?

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: xBWOMPx

And this is exactly why people give socialism a bad name...

again, defined by history... not by what i should or could be

when the ideals are given over to dictatorship... it all goes wrong

Theres no reason why a socialized government would control anything in the every day life of the individual in their country...

Perhaps democratic socialism is a better term

Kinda like "The Korean Social Democratic Party", Socialism has always looked good on paper but never has worked in the 170 years its been around... It gave itself a bad name.

Would that not be a dictatorship?

my point is the fact you can add "democratic" in the name right behind socialism but it does not change what socialism is. They either end up under a dictator, communism, poor and broken but wealthy leaders or a little bit of all of it. Tell me a successful socialistic country that is not going down hill and has been around for quite awhile... None, it doesn't work, looks great on paper but it is a fantasy utopia, just like star trek

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: xBWOMPx

And this is exactly why people give socialism a bad name...

again, defined by history... not by what i should or could be

when the ideals are given over to dictatorship... it all goes wrong

Theres no reason why a socialized government would control anything in the every day life of the individual in their country...

Perhaps democratic socialism is a better term

Kinda like "The Korean Social Democratic Party", Socialism has always looked good on paper but never has worked in the 170 years its been around... It gave itself a bad name.

Would that not be a dictatorship?

my point is the fact you can add "democratic" in the name right behind socialism but it does not change what socialism is. They either end up under a dictator, communism, poor and broken but wealthy leaders or a little bit of all of it. Tell me a successful socialistic country that is not going down hill and has been around for quite awhile... None, it doesn't work, looks great on paper but it is a fantasy utopia, just like star trek

Hello... Im from Canada...

We are a socialized country for the most part... and have been for many years

Probably the one of the safest countries on the planet... and we do pretty well

except for a few people trying to steal the ice from our igloos of course

a reply to: soberbacchus

No those taxes actually aren't. If they were, all revenues would be put in a closed loop system designed to deal only with the perceived ills of those things like smoking cessation programs or health care for smokers.

But instead, states do what my state does and constantly try to sell us on increased cigarette taxes to fund children's Head Start or similar programs. Smoking and head start have nothing to do with one another in any direct cause and effect way. So when the sin tax levied on smoking actually works and less people pay that tax and there is a revenue shortfall in the program that tax was funding because there was no corresponding decrease in need for it (fewer smokers will not mean fewer kids needing head start services), the state needs to find other ways to make up that revenue meaning new taxes on everyone who voted for the increased cigarette tax figuring they didn't smoke so it would never bother them.

a reply to: Akragon

You guys also have sky high taxes on everything too.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Akragon

You guys also have sky high taxes on everything too.

Oh hell yes we do...

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: xBWOMPx

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: xBWOMPx

And this is exactly why people give socialism a bad name...

again, defined by history... not by what i should or could be

when the ideals are given over to dictatorship... it all goes wrong

Theres no reason why a socialized government would control anything in the every day life of the individual in their country...

Perhaps democratic socialism is a better term

Kinda like "The Korean Social Democratic Party", Socialism has always looked good on paper but never has worked in the 170 years its been around... It gave itself a bad name.

Would that not be a dictatorship?

my point is the fact you can add "democratic" in the name right behind socialism but it does not change what socialism is. They either end up under a dictator, communism, poor and broken but wealthy leaders or a little bit of all of it. Tell me a successful socialistic country that is not going down hill and has been around for quite awhile... None, it doesn't work, looks great on paper but it is a fantasy utopia, just like star trek

Hello... Im from Canada...

We are a socialized country for the most part... and have been for many years

Probably the one of the safest countries on the planet... and we do pretty well

except for a few people trying to steal the ice from our igloos of course

Oh hello from Canada, you do know Canada is more capitalist then socialist right? Good, glad we can clear that up. Now can anybody else tell me a socialist country (not kinda socialist) that has been around for quite awhile and not turned to garbage?