Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I want socialism.

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotan
I would agree with Operation Mindcrime. I know quite a few Dutch people and they are the most liberal minded people in Europe.

Too many on this forum do NOT understand Socialism or what social policies are. The whole of the EU is socialist in some form or another, but we are still a Democracy. We have elections and we do 'kick-out' our leaders. Our Governments even change to differing political ideologies, but regardless of whether the political power in control is Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Green or Social Democrat, they ALL implement and sustain socialist policies - ie; The Welfare State.


Gordon Brown? He just walked right in....literally a dictator no approvement from the people he now has rule over...no better than if any stranger walked in and took office with no say from the public.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by Solomons]




posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Thats right. There is a huge difference between, say NorthKorea, and TheNetherlands.



Unfortunately people are too lazy to think and differentiate, so they try to use labels such as "socialism" to put everything into one pot.

I, for example, applaud the liberal attitude of the Dutch, but strictly oppose socialism. There's a massive difference.

These European countries are not "socialist", they are social.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Thank you for putting that in clear english 'cause we were hitting a wall here.....

So, now then. Cange the title of this post or close it down???

I was rather liking the discusion with my american friends on this topic..



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons

Originally posted by Wotan
I would agree with Operation Mindcrime. I know quite a few Dutch people and they are the most liberal minded people in Europe.

Too many on this forum do NOT understand Socialism or what social policies are. The whole of the EU is socialist in some form or another, but we are still a Democracy. We have elections and we do 'kick-out' our leaders. Our Governments even change to differing political ideologies, but regardless of whether the political power in control is Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Green or Social Democrat, they ALL implement and sustain socialist policies - ie; The Welfare State.


Gordon Brown? He just walked right in....literally a dictator no approvement from the people he now has rule over...no better than if any stranger walked in and took office with no say from the public.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by Solomons]


*Sigh* You obviously have NO IDEA on how the UK political system works. We do not vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for the Political Party. The same happened when Margaret Thatcher was ousted from office and John Major took over as PM ..... it is no big deal.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SailorinAZ
Yeah, life can be a beach, eh? Many of us have had similar issues during our lives, me included. Thing is though, I (personally) would rather hurl myself over a cliff before I could ever put a gun or a law up to anothers head and demand they feed, cloth, and house me. For me, involuntary socialism is an immoral issue.

Maybe we can think of a way to pay for a safety net without having to involuntarily enslave others. Suppose we add a social tax to ALL non-essential retail purchases? You want that $150 iPod? Fine, add a $300 social tax to your total. Now THAT is fair and voluntary and something I can morally sign off on. It voluntarily collects the most from those that can most afford it. And, it's moral!

Think, think, think, out of the box/cage.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
For those of you who want socialism...you need to read a book about the laws of economics. Yes...economics does have laws, just like physics and chemistry does. Have you ever heard of supply and demand determining prices? In socialism, the government decides the prices because they interfer in almost everything. This creates an inherent inefficiency in the markets. For example:

Say the government totally controlled healthcare. And they told the pharmaceutical companies, we are only paying 100 dollars for that cancer drug, not 200 dollars like you are asking for. Well there will be less pharmaceutical companies and less pushes for creating new drugs because they can barely break even with the 100 dollars/drug they are being offered not to mention the hundreds of millions that it cost to research drugs.

So the government takes over pharmaceutical companies. That is reasonable. Well there will now be one large pharmaceutical company, rather than 40 pharmaeutical companies all competing with the other ones and all independently focusing on different disorders and drugs.

Our society is then not working to the speed that it could be.

This is the fallacy to socialism. Not that it is evil, but because it is inefficient.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Yeah, life can be a beach, eh? Many of us have had similar issues during our lives, me included. Thing is though, I (personally) would rather hurl myself over a cliff before I could ever put a gun or a law up to anothers head and demand they feed, cloth, and house me. For me, involuntary socialism is an immoral issue.


You are really looking at this from a wrong perspective..Nobody is demanding. We as the people (her in the Netherlands ofcourse)believe that no man should live in the street with no roof over his head, go without food or clean clothing.
Nobody is asking but yet we CHOOSE to give...that's called being social.


Originally posted by Divinorumus
Maybe we can think of a way to pay for a safety net without having to involuntarily enslave others. Suppose we add a social tax to ALL non-essential retail purchases? You want that $150 iPod? Fine, add a $300 social tax to your total. Now THAT is fair and voluntary and something I can morally sign off on. It voluntarily collects the most from those that can most afford it. And, it's moral!


I think this a really good idea.....no wait....i don't. You have no fears about this widening the gap between rich and poor???
With 30% being held back on your pay check aren't the ones who make the most money already paying the most...



edit: i keep correcting myself......time for some COFFEE


[edit on 18/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


You cannot start NOT paying the bits of the taxes that you dont agree on. Just because, say, that you are a pacifist, you are going to tell the Government that you wont pay the defence budget part of the taxes.

I say to you to add up your annual tax bill, then add your health insurance to it - Then work out your % of your wages that you pay out.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I do not like socialism. The basic rundown of a socialist nation includes taking money from the individual in order to pay for programs that benefit the collective. This is theft of wealth. I work and earn my money. This is not your money, this is not the state's money, it is mine. To take my money away from me in order to pay for someone else's existence is wrong. If you disagree with that point, which is more philosophical, let me state this.

The taxes for these programs will be paid to the government. Nothing good has ever come from the unbridled expansion of government. The more wealth, and power to seize wealth, you give the state only works to undermine the freedom of individuals. If people want to install socialist programs then please do it at the State (as opposed to the Federal) level. That way when they pass a law in my State to pay 1/3 of my income to social programs, I can promptly move away.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


I feel any income tax is immoral, it makes us slaves. I feel we can pay for all of this on the front end. Tax all this wasteful unnecessary spending on stuff nobody really needs to survive.

Tax the heck out of everything except the necessities in life. This might also go a long way to reducing consumer spending on junk we do not really need which is furthering the rape and destruction of Earth. And, it might help to create more personal wealth too and eliminate poverty. More people may save thanspend money on unnecessary junk if it only cost more.

I think it ridiculous in this country to hear someone whine that they aren't making enough money while an iPod is hanging on their head, LOL. Nobody needs an iPod, but if one insists, tax IT good! Same with every other luxury. It will work. It's certainly more moral than saying you do not get paid for your first four months of labor every year. Such a method of revenue generation is more moral than enslaving my labor.

It's also ecologically responsible too. Think about it instead of trying to involuntarily enslaving some for the benefit of anothers.

BTW, I opted out of funding this war we're fighting in the middle east years ago when I decided to semi-retire and NOT have to pay any income tax by not earning any typical taxable income, so nah, LOL. (I'm living on my savings and have deferred all capital gains by not selling any investments) Now, the above method of taxation would fowl that up because while I'm mostly retired, I still buy the occasional toy.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea
I do not like socialism. The basic rundown of a socialist nation includes taking money from the individual in order to pay for programs that benefit the collective. This is theft of wealth. I work and earn my money. This is not your money, this is not the state's money, it is mine. To take my money away from me in order to pay for someone else's existence is wrong. If you disagree with that point, which is more philosophical, let me state this.

The taxes for these programs will be paid to the government. Nothing good has ever come from the unbridled expansion of government. The more wealth, and power to seize wealth, you give the state only works to undermine the freedom of individuals. If people want to install socialist programs then please do it at the State (as opposed to the Federal) level. That way when they pass a law in my State to pay 1/3 of my income to social programs, I can promptly move away.


Let me try to explain this ONE more time......

Socialisme meaning -> all income goes to the goverment and they decide what to do with it.
social democracy -> you give 30% of your income to help your fellow countrymen.
You people have a really hard time giving up a part of your money in order to help your neighbor don't you...??
Mine, mine,mine....maybe that's the reason your country is in the state that it is today...



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
^ You hit the nail on the head.

Canada is in a situation somewhat between the US and Social Democracy. We have some social programs like Employment Insurance (Unemployment Insurance with a retarded name), healthcare, and workers's compensation. Most of the country wants to move forward with social democracy but we haven't done anything progressive as a country since the 80s. We're stuck in a US style Reaganomics gridlock. It seemed like we were evolving but we failed to completely launch and now it seems like we're regressing.

I'm thinking of moving to a European country to get out of Canada before it totally tanks after emulating US policies. It seems like healthcare is gradually being chipped away at, even in the most socialist of provinces.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Let me try to explain this ONE more time......

Socialisme meaning -> all income goes to the goverment and they decide what to do with it.
social democracy -> you give 30% of your income to help your fellow countrymen.
You people have a really hard time giving up a part of your money in order to help your neighbor don't you...??
Mine, mine,mine....maybe that's the reason your country is in the state that it is today...


Whether it is 20%, 30%, 50% or 100%, the stealing of wealth by the government is wrong. Call it socialism, social democracy, liberalism, or whatever you want. Any way you spin it the system works against the Constitution (at least at the blanket Federal level).

Another point, I don't know or care about my neighbor. Do I think he should pay for my living expenses? No. Do I think I should pay for his living expenses? No. This is called being an individual, and it is not exclusive to one nation. If you want to buddy up with everyone and share your income, then do it. That is the great thing about having a choice in a matter. A nanny state dissolves this choice. If you have no choices then you are not free.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
You people have a really hard time giving up a part of your money in order to help your neighbor don't you...??

When you put a gun or a law to my head and demand I must, hell yeah I have a problem with that. I was not raised a slave. Ask nicely and I may and probably would, will. I do not take kindly to anyone getting up in my face making demands of me. I am not sheeple. Or a Robbing Hoodlum. I am civilized.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


I'm shocked that people would just assume let someone die in the street of starvation or go without proper medication than give up some "hard earned money". Not everyone on public assistance or Government aid are drug addicted, baby making losers as some have said to me. I was injured in a severe car accident and could not work for 8 months, it was the worst eight months of my life and 10 years later I'm still paying the price for being "out of the game" had there been some real efficient means (live on temp disability in California for 8 months, it is horrible) for me to take care of my necessities I could have avoided credit problems and legal matters that stemmed from my back surgery. Sometimes in life things happen beyond our control that put us down, should we be kicked out so others can save there money? Am i not worth more healthy and producing in the world than on the street? Seems awfully selfish and not very humane.

[edit on 18-11-2008 by Fletcher33]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Divinorumus
 


No wait....looking at it from this angle i like the idea. But that's only b'cause of the environment. People really should not be buying junk they don't need in order to trow it away after 1/2 year thus contributing to a pile of junk that is never gonna go away again.

The story of stuff

But for the tax part....why is it working so well over here??
I feel in no way enslaved and b'cause every one is paying the same there is no difference in what everybody keeps in the end. If i have a good job and make more then my neighbor and he also pays taxes them i still make more than my neighbor. With the only difference being we got free healthcare etc etc etc........



[edit on 18/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Nobody is asking but yet we CHOOSE to give...that's called being social...

...With 30% being held back on your pay check aren't the ones who make the most money already paying the most...

[edit on 18/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]


Socialized programs require an involuntary tax. Pay it or go to jail. The antithesis of freedom. We can't have it both ways.

The ideal of good health care and a home for everyone is a good thing. I think we all agree with that. It is the method of getting there that spawns the debate.

What is fair anyway? Is fair taxing one group a higher percentage than another or taxing everyone the same? Is fair taxing success, study and hard work extra? Is fair rewarding criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and grown people still living in Mommy's basement with money and benefits taken involuntarily from those who work hard and succeed?

This is likely the most complex issue that any government can face. Do they slow down progress by taking away money from the successful that would be used for investment and development and give it to those who are often unwilling to help themselves. Where and how does the word fair fit into that equation.

We complain about the guy on the corner begging for quarters and then the same people who want that outlawed want to take money from the successful and give it to them? The group who claims to want socialized programs the most, give the least according to the statistics year after year. How do we quantify that any way other than they are hoping to get their piece of that giveaway?



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I think that this socialism label is just thrown around too much and it's been given a negative label by conservatives.

What's so bad about socialism?


First, let me start by saying I voted for Obama.

Second, Socialism and Communism work in theory, but not in practice. My family came from a communist country and that country today is in shambles. People don't get the medical care or rights you refer to. Don't believe Michael Moore's movie.

I know capitalism is not perfect, but at least we can have a decent jog; have the right to buy a computer; tap into the internet and agree to disagree. That, my friend, is not possible in a socialist country.

Take Mexico, for instance. It is a socialist democracy and there couldn't be more corruption. Socialism there has created an inverted pyramid. You get my drift.

If you still don't believe me, I encourage to visit Cuba and stay for a week with a Cuban family (not at a nice hotel).


[edit on 11/18/2008 by manticore]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NettleTea
Whether it is 20%, 30%, 50% or 100%, the stealing of wealth by the government is wrong. Call it socialism, social democracy, liberalism, or whatever you want. Any way you spin it the system works against the Constitution (at least at the blanket Federal level).

Another point, I don't know or care about my neighbor. Do I think he should pay for my living expenses? No. Do I think I should pay for his living expenses? No. This is called being an individual, and it is not exclusive to one nation. If you want to buddy up with everyone and share your income, then do it. That is the great thing about having a choice in a matter. A nanny state dissolves this choice. If you have no choices then you are not free.


I take it you are pretty big fan of Darwin and his law of the strongest. B'cause if you, for any reason, would ever fall behind i'm not to sure you would still be so strong minded about this.
Then again maybe you would ,being an individual an all, you take care of your problems alone. You never need any help, from anybody ,ever.....cause that's what we humans do right....



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Is fair rewarding criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and grown people still living in Mommy's basement with money and benefits taken involuntarily from those who work hard and succeed?


Fair?...no to most people doing the "paying" it won't look fair but is it WISE to just ignore it and say "what is mine is mine". Eventually those people you choose not to help today will become a problem for your society one way or an other tomorrow. (or aren't your jails full enough??)

[edit on 18/11/2008 by operation mindcrime]





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join