54 replies to this topic

[RavenHawk]

AsteroidX, on 14 January 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Take away socialism in our government and see if these same people that complain about it can bear to watch children starve to death.

That’s historically disingenuous don’t you think?  Considering that Socialism has crept into our society now for almost a century, that by ridding us from it cold-turkey, the dependency that it has caused would create a vacuum.  And that vacuum would cause more problems.  If we didn’t have that dependency in the first place, then the children wouldn’t have to starve.  Because of Socialism we have more and more children that do starve.  Once you stop the dependency, then you can stop the hunger.  That’s the problem we face today and that is how to minimize that vacuum.

[AsteroidX]

Your talking about 350mil+ people now across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Youll never replace all socialism. I for one cant see why when we have proven technology like Lasix surgery to correct vision it cannot be applied as a socialist use rather then a the haves and have nots scenario we are currently in.

[questionmark]

AsteroidX, on 14 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Your talking about 350mil+ people now across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Youll never replace all socialism. I for one cant see why when we have proven technology like Lasix surgery to correct vision it cannot be applied as a socialist use rather then a the haves and have nots scenario we are currently in.

Shockingly, some "socialists" like the British NHS (and a few more European insurance systems) provide it free of charge

[AsteroidX]

I dont believe its included in Obamacare.

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 14 January 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

So, I guess you  live in a large multigenaration family to not need the "socialism"? Or, as in the case of the 401K you pick and choose what socialism is?

You certainly know how to present vague points???

No, I do not live in a multigenerational family and even if I did would not need Socialism.  Either way, I am an individual living in a community of individuals.  I am not a sheep in a collective.  I am occupied with doing what I do, keeping the outcome of my labor, knowing that that improves the overall condition of Society.  As opposed to having someone else determine that the fruits of my labor would benefit someone else better than myself.

A 401K is not what is Socialist.  I should be able to build a 401K without any government involvement.  But that is what they are talking about.  Taking my 401K to pay for Obamacare.  Since it didn’t register with you, I’ll insert the last part of that post of mine.  Maybe it’ll sink in the second time around??

The idea of course sounds great but like all ideas, they are like a$$holes, everybody’s got one.  This is probably one of the key reasons Socialism doesn’t work.  You always see the idea pushed forward but never much on full implementation.  The bare facts about it is that, yes of course, the worker is allowed to build up capital on their own, but when it is needed by the State, the State will take it (for the common good) and you will have no say in the matter.

If I was in a multigenerational family and the patriarch came to me and said that I needed to surrender my wealth to help grandma.  I would quietly decline, pack up grandma and leave.  In a Socialist society, I really don’t have that choice.  The government would freeze my assets and either force me to play nice or let me go without my wealth.  And probably would let grandma come with me to get rid of two mouths.

[questionmark]

RavenHawk, on 14 January 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

You certainly know how to present vague points???

No, I do not live in a multigenerational family and even if I did would not need Socialism.  Either way, I am an individual living in a community of individuals.  I am not a sheep in a collective.  I am occupied with doing what I do, keeping the outcome of my labor, knowing that that improves the overall condition of Society.  As opposed to having someone else determine that the fruits of my labor would benefit someone else better than myself.

A 401K is not what is Socialist.  I should be able to build a 401K without any government involvement.  But that is what they are talking about.  Taking my 401K to pay for Obamacare.  Since it didn't register with you, I'll insert the last part of that post of mine.  Maybe it'll sink in the second time around??

The idea of course sounds great but like all ideas, they are like a$$holes, everybody's got one.  This is probably one of the key reasons Socialism doesn't work.  You always see the idea pushed forward but never much on full implementation.  The bare facts about it is that, yes of course, the worker is allowed to build up capital on their own, but when it is needed by the State, the State will take it (for the common good) and you will have no say in the matter.

If I was in a multigenerational family and the patriarch came to me and said that I needed to surrender my wealth to help grandma.  I would quietly decline, pack up grandma and leave.  In a Socialist society, I really don't have that choice.  The government would freeze my assets and either force me to play nice or let me go without my wealth.  And probably would let grandma come with me to get rid of two mouths.

Ah, I understand, you are anti socialist because your stance is egotistical and asocial... figures.

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 14 January 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Shockingly, some "socialists" like the British NHS (and a few more European insurance systems) provide it free of charge

Hello?  Free of charge?  Nothing is for free.  Someone has to pay for it.  As Margaret Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

[RavenHawk]

questionmark, on 14 January 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

Ah, I understand, you are anti socialist because your stance is egotistical and asocial... figures.

Gawd!  And you’re a first class maroon.  I present a case and you can’t counter so you resort to personal attacks.  Classic.

[questionmark]

RavenHawk, on 14 January 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Gawd!  And you're a first class maroon.  I present a case and you can't counter so you resort to personal attacks.  Classic.

That is not a personal attack, that is a synthesis of your: as long as it works for me I am with it, as soon as it does not I am out you placed above. I am describing your state of mind, with which civilization would have never evolved.

[RavenHawk]

AsteroidX, on 14 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Your talking about 350mil+ people now across all socioeconomic backgrounds.

And that’s just one reason Socialism doesn’t work without a police state.  Once we become a police state, then it’ll work.  Watch China.  They are trying to go from a Totalitarian system to a more Capitalist system but we’ll see it won’t work unless it falls apart into smaller pieces.  They’ll have to let XinJiang and Tibet go.  A trait of independence is smaller and smaller parts.  Socialism needs more and more.

Quote

Youll never replace all socialism.

That’s what makes it a poison.  Have you seen kudzu (and other like vegetation) grow? It is an alien invasive species that replaces indigenous vegetation with itself.  It does have beneficial uses but at what cost?

Quote

I for one cant see why when we have proven technology like Lasix surgery to correct vision it cannot be applied as a socialist use rather then a the haves and have nots scenario we are currently in.

Then if you can’t pay for it other than stealing it from the haves, then we really don’t have the technology if only the haves have access to it.  But the only way to make it available is for the haves to utilize it so much that it becomes cheaper and/or teach the have nots in how to become haves.