Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RavenHawk

Traits of Socialism

152 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

socialism = big gvmnt.

gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

socialism = big gvmnt.

gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you have.

Wrong.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by RavenHawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Stellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a population over 300milion people some form of socialism has to exist. Or you will have to endure people starving to death.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.