Socialism is a disease! drinkingwithbob

reply to post by dzonatas

You must be one of those that tries to twist democracy into being synonymous with mob rule.

You mean an etyomologist? You must be one of those who thinks words can mean whatever you want them to mean and can change to mean whatever you think they should mean based upon your whims.

I didn't ask if you had pirated downloads or if you never paid for you stuff. If you consider what it takes to transfer all these bytes of the internet, it would never make it here and for under such values as you rant on about. The bitorrent scheme works by being able to share and load balance the workload. This is a fact you probably overlooked.

Really? Let's look at your own words again, shall we?

Better go turn off and erase your Pirate Bay downloads... or any torrent connections for that matter.

You are playing semantics, and poorly so. I certainly did not overlook the fact that you told me I better turn off and erase (my) Pirate Bay downloads. Do you have a license to back pedal?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You mean an etyomologist? You must be one of those who thinks words can mean whatever you want them to mean and can change to mean whatever you think they should mean based upon your whims.

Care to explain how you get "mob rule" out of the etymology?

You are playing semantics, and poorly so.

Your "semantic" cry is a common disease.

I certainly did not overlook the fact that you told me I better turn off and erase (my) Pirate Bay downloads.

For someone that professes etymology skills like yourself, they should know that The Pirate Bay means the world largests BitTorrent site.

reply to post by dzonatas

Care to explain how you get "mob rule" out of the etymology?

Clearly you did not even bother to look at the link I provided before making this silly remark. Well, it just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Your "semantic" cry is a common disease.

Uh-huh. This is coming from the poster who actually asked me if I wanted to explain how (I) got "mob rule" out of etymology. Is this like a comedy routine? If I asked you to define horse, would you tell me that a horse is horse, of course, of course?

For someone that professes etymology skills like yourself, they should know that The Pirate Bay means the world largests BitTorrent site.

Oh I see, now brand names are to be synonymous with words defined since time immemorial? You are desperate in your defense of socialism and so much so, that like a bad magician you drop your deck of cards and light the rabbit on fire believing this is somehow misdirection. If socialism is so noble then go be a socialist, just don't demand you have the right to me and my property in order to be one. Is that really too much to ask?

Originally posted by endisnighe
So, you bring up Norway. Hell the population of Norway 2008-4,768,212

Hell, the US has had that many people come here in the past two years.

Not really relevant to a country of over 300 Million. That is the police of the world. That has about 4.5 million federal employees directly and indirectly. Not even including the military.

Wow, we have as many federal employees as Norway has people.

Apples and Oranges.

Always apples and oranges when you forget the question.

The question was "I'm sure you folks that love the concept so should have no rpoblem telling me of a few of your favorite socialist societies that have succeeded in the world?"

It did not ask if socialism would work in the US.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Care to explain how you get "mob rule" out of the etymology?

Clearly you did not even bother to look at the link I provided before making this silly remark. Well, it just goes to show, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Search for "mob" on that page returned 0 hits. You can lead a horse to water, but the horse still can't drink if there really is no water.

At least when you pull up the Pirate Bay website, it tells you specifically that it is the world's largest BitTorrent site. There was no words needed to twist with the Pirate Bay; the water is there.

Originally posted by Dermo

Yea.. Coz Blunt Capitalism is so much better..

"You Steal from everybody productive... And keep the money for yourself"

Capitalism makes money, that stuff socialists take from capitalists and live on. What do socialists and their sister communism make? Nothing worthwhile and nothing to live on until they find some shmuck capitalist that makes enough money for everyone. Capitalism provides the freedom and prospertiy for the leftwing to complain and attack the hand that feeds them and gives the left the freedoms that they end up abusing.

reply to post by dzonatas

Search for "mob" on that page returned 0 hits. You can lead a horse to water, but the horse still can't drink if there really is no water.

Right, because a mass of "common people" demanding my private property under the authority of their majority rule isn't a mob, its just socialism!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Right, because a mass of "common people" demanding my private property under the authority of their majority rule isn't a mob, its just socialism!

Search for "majority" on that page returned 0 hits, also.

Oh well...

[edit on 19-5-2010 by dzonatas]

The problem with Socialism is that it involves money, therefore it is doomed to fail. you should view my thread on what a true utopia looks like.

Limited government, no money, stress free environment in which people are more open and social, and most of all, CHOICE to live as one pleases, in other words, choice to live IN or OUT of the system. (also choice within the system relating to what profession one wants to do, read the thread if you're curious).
Did I mention private property? (yea, your house and land actually belong to you). my system is a hybrid, or rather, the current system without money, with a few tweaks to make everything fair for everyone, a real meritocracy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 19-5-2010 by Radekus]

reply to post by dzonatas


Play all the games you want to, the etymology is clear, demos is translated from Greek to mean "common people" and Kratos is translated to mean "rule". There is no twisting of words when this is used to mean "mob rule", and the republican form of government that places limitations on democracy is in protection of the individuals inalienable rights. After all, this was your initial complaint, that republicanism is forced upon you, and all that is "forced" upon you is that you have no right to trample all over other peoples rights. This is your complaint, and yet you somehow smugly believe you have the moral high ground. Not!

reply to post by daskakik


True, small socialized systems could work. Maybe. I would have to look at the system a little closer.

Norway-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this link-Political System of Norway
Political System-

The Political System of Norway is grounded on the objectives of the parliamentary form of representative democracy. In this framework, the ruling monarch is the head of the state, while the Prime Minister enjoys the title of the head of the government. Also, Norway has a multi party system that results in coalition governments or a single party coming to power. Some of the major parliamentary parties include Norwegian Labour Party, Christian Democratic Party, Progressive Party, Liberal Party and Socialist Left Party. The existence of so many parties helps in better functioning due to the competition and oppositions that arise among the various parties.

The constitution of Norway was established on 17th May 1824 with the help of Constituent Assembly at Eidsvoll. The assembly reframed it by incorporating various amendments and by making it a constitutional monarchy. The constitution endowed to the citizens various rights such as freedom of expression and freedom to practice religion. By authorizing the Universal Suffrage in 1913, it promoted the strong democratic principles that are the basis of Norway’s political structure.

From this link-The World Factbook

The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for nearly half of exports and over 30% of state revenue. Norway is the world's third-largest gas exporter; its position as an oil exporter has slipped to seventh-largest as production has begun to decline.

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention.

From this link-Norway Tax Guide 2009 PDF

Sales ta x/value added ta x (VAT): VAT is levied on the sale of
most merchandise and services and on imported goods and services.
The VAT rate is 25% (14% on food, 8% on passenger transport, cinema
tickets and letting of rooms in hotels, motels and tourist cabins etc). Some
goods are exempt but VAT on the purchase of materials and goods is still
deductible. This also applies to exports, newspapers, certain periodicals
and international transportation. Other areas are exempt without any credit
for input tax. This is the case for health services, cultural activities and
financial services.

The general combined rate of the national and municipal income taxes is
28%.

Fringe benefits ta x (FBT): Both residents and non-residents are
taxed on fringe benefits. The value of the benefits is taxed as the top slice
of employment income. The highest marginal tax rate is 51%.

All income from capital is taxable at 28%.

In addition, social security taxes are paid. Employees pay 7.8% of gross
salary income. For self-employed individuals the rate is 11%.

Local taxes: Property taxes in some urban areas are levied at a
maximum 0.7 % of the tax value of the property.

Countries Debts

60.2% of GDP (2009 est.)
55.7% of GDP (2008 est.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, this country of 4.5 Million with a pretty good export of gas and other petroleum products, that are nationalized, is still kind of where every other socialized country's are, IN DEBT.

They are not as bad as some, but their reserves for natural resources is beginning to dwindle. I wonder how they are going to deal with THAT.

Sorry, just a cursory look at their system tells me, that even with a small country and a small population, their system is beginning to fail.

I guess the socialist utopia does not exist there EITHER.



[edit on 5/19/2010 by endisnighe]

Sorry to interrupt your arguments on how to have an argument, but...I need some schooling.

Redwookieaz says:

Too many scum trying to make their way to the top. Not enough willing to work.

From my vantage point (down near the bottom) I see a lot of very hard working people who sacrifice long hours and a lot of sweat to the point of injury, and then thrown just enough of a paycheck to keep them alive. They live one broken arm away from homelessness. The higher ups never bust a sweat, work less hours, and only risk golf injuries, but their paychecks allow for vacations, investments, luxuries and security. The fundamental problem is income inequality.

Besides helping others in the community is something people will and should be allowed to do out of the goodness of their heart. Never forced.

This is mind boggling. There are approx. 1.4 million charities in the US. Yet there are still too many people for them to handle. I guess left up to the "goodness of their heart" doesn't cut it. You're gonna love this quote. "There are more than 1.4 million charities in the United States. That's more than one charity for every 300 people. Do we really need so many?" That was from The Christian Science Monitor. www.csmonitor.com... An organization with Christ's name in the title asking if we need all these charities.

It is not however a good idea to make that sense of community governent mandated because there will always be those in a socialist setting who will not play by the rules.

There are people in every setting who don't play by the rules. Oh well let's not try to have a murder free society, because there are murders. Haven't we seen lately all the capitalists on Wall Street not playing by the rules?

That is why charity must be left up to the individual...

Then millions of Americans, elderly, the sick, and CHILDREN would perish.
www.guardian.co.uk...

you cannot force everyone to work hard and give the benefit of that hard work to others.

That is exactly what blue collar workers aka the other 95% of Americans are saying about the top 5%. Verbatim.

Also that ensures nobody will work hard because they will see no perrsonal benefit.

This is a gross misconception that I believe reflects you own personal work ethics. Again, in a less greedy, non selfish world, there would be no need for any social programs if minimum wage would keep up with the cost of living.


gdeed said...

Capitalism provides the freedom and prospertiy for the leftwing to complain and attack the hand that feeds them and gives the left the freedoms that they end up abusing.

Speaking of the "hand that feeds them", did you check that link above I left about hunger in the US? It is getting worse and it involves CHILDREN! "The number of children living in households where there were shortages of food at times, rose by nearly one-third to 17 million." Are they abusing freedom?
Capitalism is nearing an end. Why? Because it ends when one entity owns all the money. The last thirty years and certainly the last 10 have seen a funneling of wealth to the top 1% that now own 33.8% of all the money. The top 10% own 71 % of the money, and the bottom 50% scratch for a measly 2.5% of the money. Half the country trying to survive on 2.5% of the wealth. Please tell me if that stirs some outrage in you.

I am not an advocate for socialism, nor a fan of capitalism. What I am for is a society that has the will to overcome hunger, poverty, and homelessness regardless of the path to achieving it.


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."~ Mahatma Ghandi

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying," ~Pope John Paul II



[edit on 19-5-2010 by 12GaugePermissionSlip]

I'll be the first to testify that while I dislike a fully socialistic government, I like the mentality of socialism. It's why I consider myself a social libertarian.

I've dealt with the conundrum of either being a free market libertarian and a social libertarian for the longest time. Social libertarianism doesn't have to necessarily create equality but rather, as the article phrases it "equality of opportunity".

My problem with free market libertarianism is that the free market can be manipulated by those with the capital to do so. I would like to mention that I do not think a capitalistic society can not exist within a society that promotes equality of opportunity, in fact I think through promoting the equality of opportunity, capitalism can bring about the most good. Which is why I'm somewhat cautious to label myself a libertarian socialist because people think it means you can't have capitalism. This isn't the case, at least as I see it. Through promoting equality of opportunity, which the lack of such is the biggest flaw that exists within free market libertarian, capitalism can still exist.

Basically, I don't believe in any sort of "equal distribution" or distribution of wealth and goods, I believe in equal distribution of opportunity. I believe in the free....but safe, market. The free market will never be safe for the majority if it lacks fail safe features to fight against any form of monopolization of wealth and goods within a few individuals, which would bring about tyranny. But like wise, complete socialistic tendencies could potentially backpedal freedom. You need to create a balance between freedom and equality, that exists without a state to control either, that brings about the most freedom (free market principles) with the most equality (socialistic principles). And it can be done I believe. I'm sure someone will drive a bus through a hole or two through my ideas on government and how society should operate, but the fact remains any extreme is dangerous. anarcho-capitalism can bring about tyranny as can anarcho-communism.

The biggest misconception about this that people think government can't exist within an anarchist society, which is completely untrue.

The way I like to explain it is that anarchy promotes the destruction of non-consensual authority. Authority will always exist but through consensual means, and the interesting thing is that every form of consensual authority that authority not only goes both ways in certain forms but it allows one to dismiss the authority. Two lovers is a form of consensual authority. They both have forms of authority over the other. Family is a form of consensual authority. Teacher and student is a form of consensual authority. Even child and parent is a form of consensual authority. Because while the parent typically has more authority, if they go to far the child does have the ability to leave the parent (ex. emancipation). This is how I see anarchy. A society with no unwarranted authority. It's slightly paradoxical because there is no leader and yet everyone is a leader. No one has authority yet everyone has authority. It works off the belief of natural law and the common goals all humans wish to achieve. But as I said, you need to balance equality with freedom. It's very difficult to have complete equality without unwarranted authority but likewise it is difficult to have complete freedom without unwarranted authority. It requires balance.

I would like everyone to realize something.

When the government takes in money, what is the going rate for distribution do you think?

Do they actually distribute 100% 75% 50% 25%?

I would bet it is closest to the 25%.

Remember the video of asshat saying they lost 2.1 Trillion dollars in the Pentagon? Oh, everyone forgets that, because that happened a day before 9/11.

Then you have congress and agencies like the federal reserve not even knowing where the money goes or will not release the info.

Yeah, 2 million jobs created or saved.

I have some federal land for sale!

reply to post by endisnighe


Thanks for the laugh that was good. The guy is correct and even though funny he reflects the level of anger many people are feeling. I see the trolls are out in force on this thread also.

endisnighe, interesting that you point out how horrible another countries debt is at 60%.....the US debt to gdp ratio is now at 305%, according to the IMF. Keeping in mind that the IMF describes any country over 200% as "a deconstructed third world nation state".

From their site:
What “de-constructed” actually means is that a political regime in that country, or series of political regimes, have, through a long period of fraud, abuse, graft, corruption and mismanagement, effectively collapsed the economy of that country.

reply to post by pexx421


Wait, where did you get the 305%?

That does not make sense.

The US debt right now is at about 14-16 Trillion. With a GDP of approximately the same that is a debt ratio of 100-115%

Now, if you bring into the equation of future unfunded liabilities. At 120 Trillion that jumps way the hell up.

The reason I did not bring up the US of A, was because someone mentioned Norway as a socialist country that was doing well.

reply to post by SpectreDC


I agree with you 100%. I like Libertarianism but I also like Socialism. That means I support Freedom and Equality.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Socialism is fine as long as it is voluntary and doesn't steal from others against their will to sustain itself. All government socialism today does that. That's why I keep telling the socialist today if it is so great and they think everyone wants to participate then make it all voluntary and if it succeeds then you prove your point. If it doesn't then you concede it is unsustainable.

There are examples of socialism that work like the Amish and the some of the intentional communities. Still they are based on everyone pulling thier weight. I don't like labels but I am more an anarcho-capitalist. I don't agree with you that free markets allow markets to be controlled. You are not separating the control that big corps have to today from them actually having to compete instead of having thier market protected by government because they are politically connected.

The reason these corps became so big is because they used their political connections to compete unfairly in the markets and it is almost impossible for new start ups to get started much less compete because of the mountains of regulations and red tape they need to go through.

If you have a true free market where government doe not intervene the market would decide who is the best by the product or service they choose to buy and can vote with thier feet or wallets. Like the big oil companies for instance if there wasn't all this damn regulation on alternative fuels like Ethanol and Bio Diesel regional plants would spring up to compete and knock these big moguls off thier politically protected thrones. Oil companies get more government subsidies and favorable regulation then anyone which is why we have the biggest oil disaster in our history right now..


[edit on 19-5-2010 by hawkiye]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by hawkiye


Yeah, once in awhile, bob gets it all wrong.

I mainly posted this to get the humor from it.

This time though, I think he was spot on. Socializing the debt is another thing that people do not realize is a part of their system.

The individuals are stuck with the debt, where the corporations and the government never is.

Oh well. It did bring out the defenders of their system.