AsteroidX Posted January 8, 2013 #126 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Socialism has a place in any very large population. It just makes sense. I mean Lasix eye surgery...could be offered to correct many vision problems. (This will not be included in Obama Care btw) MP3 players could be offered so everyone can enjoy music. Food Stamps: Essential to supplement foodstores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 9, 2013 #127 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Socialism has a place in any very large population. It just makes sense. I mean Lasix eye surgery...could be offered to correct many vision problems. (This will not be included in Obama Care btw) MP3 players could be offered so everyone can enjoy music. Food Stamps: Essential to supplement foodstores. It doesn't make financial sense. The reason the prices of MP3 players and cell phones and computers, hair transplants, and Lasik get cheaper over time is because they're not subsidized by government, they're subject to competitive forces of the free market which means that competitors are busy competing with one another for the best possible quality at the best possible price. The reason that food, and energy, and education get more and more expensive is because they're all subsidized. When you know you're going to sell something, you don't have to worry about the price you sell it for. You don't even have to worry about the quality of what is produced. It's someone else's money. Do you worry about someone else's money, or your own? This is the peril of government programs; it causes people not to care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 9, 2013 #128 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Yet the national health service of Britain costs half the price of the American system per capita for the same outcome. That is a definite strike for socialized provision over private provision. Sweeping statements about socialized vs private systems are meaningless without providing the real concrete evidence which shows the reality. Every case is unique unto itself and sometimes social provision is best and sometime private provision is best. Simple. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted January 12, 2013 #129 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Another trait about socialism- You can be a conservative socialist. You can also be a liberal capitalist. It is a seperate spectrum from the conservative/liberal spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 12, 2013 #130 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Yet the national health service of Britain costs half the price of the American system per capita for the same outcome. That is a definite strike for socialized provision over private provision. Sweeping statements about socialized vs private systems are meaningless without providing the real concrete evidence which shows the reality. Every case is unique unto itself and sometimes social provision is best and sometime private provision is best. Simple. Br Cornelius Any of a dozen studies I have posted in the last years will show you that it does not. As faulty as the NHS may be, their results are better. Edited January 12, 2013 by questionmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2013 #131 Share Posted January 12, 2013 The main single thing I loath in people is when they are presented with a range of options, and the evidence for their outcomes - they choose to go with the option which best fits their ideological bias. That to me is the very definition of stupidity. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted January 12, 2013 #132 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Personally, I admire people who stick to their ideogical values no matter the outcome. Laying down in front of a tank to protest peace without regard for ones life for instance. Admittedly, it isn't the smartest move, especially if the tank runs over them and flattens them, but I still respect them for their values. People who have facts and evidence put in front of them, but refuse to see anything but what fits into what they believe to be true sadden me however. But in my lifes experience, people who only look down one way of the road of life tend to get smacked by the truck of reality coming down the road from the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 13, 2013 #133 Share Posted January 13, 2013 socialism = big gvmnt. gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 #134 Share Posted January 13, 2013 socialism = big gvmnt. gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you have. Wrong. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 14, 2013 #135 Share Posted January 14, 2013 lol, i knew you'd say it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted January 14, 2013 #136 Share Posted January 14, 2013 lol, i knew you'd say it And he's correct in saying so. I don't see why socialism would automatically mean big government... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 14, 2013 #137 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) And he's correct in saying so. I don't see why socialism would automatically mean big government... lol, you don't see?? than look around, lol, or read history. show me 1 example of small socialist gvmnt Edited January 14, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted January 14, 2013 #138 Share Posted January 14, 2013 lol, you don't see?? than look around, lol, or read history. show me 1 example of small socialist gvmnt Show me one example of small capitalist government. What do you even define as small government exactly? And even if there are none, it doesn't mean that the government is big BECAUSE of socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted January 14, 2013 #139 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Well, Laos and Turkmenistan both have mostly state-controlled economies and have a smaller government cost based off their GDP compared to the US. If that is what you are using to measure the size of government. They are both have less people working for the government than the US as well. The smallest socialist government I have seen is me and my wife concerning the refrigerator. We both contribute to the refrigerator what we can and take what we need. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted January 14, 2013 Author #140 Share Posted January 14, 2013 socialism = big gvmnt. gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you have. Wrong. Wrong. First of all, ‘big gvmnt here does not mean size in number of employees or programs. It means having more and more power over the people. Given that, that is indeed what Socialism is. You still haven’t answered the other question, can you answer this one? I refer back to the definition of Socialism presented earlier in the thread. If an individual is abundant in something (i.e. more than anyone else), then according to that definition, it must be redistributed for the benefit of all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted January 14, 2013 Author #141 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) And he's correct in saying so. I don't see why socialism would automatically mean big government... How else would you see to social equality if the government isn’t used to redistribute the wealth of individuals for the benefit of all? Edited January 14, 2013 by RavenHawk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 14, 2013 #142 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Show me one example of small capitalist government. What do you even define as small government exactly? And even if there are none, it doesn't mean that the government is big BECAUSE of socialism. we are talking about socialistic gvmt. not capitalictic, don't jump off, and evade. you said, if it is sociaslist gvmt doesn't mean it is big, i ask you to show me real world example of small socialist gvmt. cuz i know you dead wrong. i lived in socialistic country for some time, i know frsthand what socialist gvmnt is, you don't. but i'm sure you strongly belive otherwise. Edited January 14, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted January 14, 2013 #143 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) we are talking about socialistic gvmt. not capitalictic, don't jump off, and evade. you said, if it is sociaslist gvmt doesn't mean it is big, i ask you to show me real world example of small socialist gvmt. cuz i know you dead wrong. i lived in socialistic country for some time, i know frsthand what socialist gvmnt is, you don't. but i'm sure you strongly belive otherwise. Aztek, I don't even believe you have the intellectual capacity to understand the practical differences between "sociaslist and capitalictic" governments. Maybe we could carry out an intellectual argument when you can at least bother to properly spell the terms you are debating. Edited January 14, 2013 by Stellar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted January 14, 2013 #144 Share Posted January 14, 2013 In a population over 300milion people some form of socialism has to exist. Or you will have to endure people starving to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 #145 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Wrong. First of all, 'big gvmnt here does not mean size in number of employees or programs. It means having more and more power over the people. Given that, that is indeed what Socialism is. You still haven't answered the other question, can you answer this one? I refer back to the definition of Socialism presented earlier in the thread. If an individual is abundant in something (i.e. more than anyone else), then according to that definition, it must be redistributed for the benefit of all? I supplied the definition of socialism - you refused to accept it insisting that Government equates to socialism. You made a fundamental mistake in defining what socialism actually was in your opening post. I pointed out your mistake - end off. Despite what you may believe, neither the USA or the EU is socialist in nature (they are strongly Capitalist and Neo-liberal and elitist) and yet they have a range of interventions which exceeds what many social democratic countries have. Social programs are only tolerated to the extent that they insulate the elites from social disturbance. If you cannot get your basic definitions right, you are incapable of engaging in a conversation about the nuances of government. Br Cornelius Edited January 14, 2013 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 14, 2013 #146 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) Aztek, I don't even believe you have the intellectual capacity to understand the practical differences between "sociaslist and capitalictic" governments. Maybe we could carry out an intellectual argument when you can at least bother to properly spell the terms you are debating. lol, i feel the same way about you. i really think my dog sees thing clearer than you, but that is not importatnt, neither of us gives a damn. so, back to topic. show me 1 example of small socialist gvmnt. that is all i asked, 1 example 5 posts ago. and you still can't give me one. Edited January 14, 2013 by aztek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 14, 2013 #147 Share Posted January 14, 2013 We have neither a capitalist system nor a socialist system; but we do have both capitalistic traits and socialistic traits. I believe the gaping chasm of difference between these traits within our system is an important topic for good, honest debate. If Ravenhawk would eat his own cooking with foreign policy as well as domestic, I could find some real agreement with him/her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted January 14, 2013 #148 Share Posted January 14, 2013 In a population over 300milion people some form of socialism has to exist. Or you will have to endure people starving to death. and we do, planty of it, it is called welfare, food stamps.... and i'm sure there is planty of other programms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE MATRIX Posted January 14, 2013 #149 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I find it funny with the utmost hilarity when Tea Partiers crow about socialism but when it comes to corporate welfare and the wallstreet bailout they remain silent. I guess its their own ideal delusions of what a free market system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted January 14, 2013 Author #150 Share Posted January 14, 2013 I find it funny with the utmost hilarity when Tea Partiers crow about socialism but when it comes to corporate welfare and the wallstreet bailout they remain silent. I guess its their own ideal delusions of what a free market system is. The TEA Partiers I know screamed at the top of their lungs over corporate welfare and the wallstreet bailout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now