Socialism, why not?

[ian hacktorp]

4 hours ago, and then said:

I believe that preventative health care should be available as well as emergent care.  Everything else should be the responsibility of the people who need the care.

I like this.  Along the same line of thinking, it would be good to make healthy food much more available in places where so many people now must eat out of vending machines and convenience stores.

[+and-then]

53 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

I like this.  Along the same line of thinking, it would be good to make healthy food much more available in places where so many people now must eat out of vending machines and convenience stores.

This is exactly my point.  To truly reform our health care in this country we'd have to take a holistic approach that included serious tort reform, education in nutrition from an early age, a system of incentives for those who keep themselves healthy as well as those who show serious improvement in conditions that are patient dependent.  For example, improving cholesterol and sugar issues by diet and exercise or voluntarily stopping smoking or drinking to excess.  If the people were motivated to do this in a community wide effort and they CHOSE to change their behaviors then everyone can be better off in a few years.  Slamming them with extra taxes or trying to shame them into conforming would not work.  It would have to be from a sense of motivation and community spirit.  The current system cannot be fixed in a piecemeal fashion.  So long as attorneys can become wealthy off the mistakes of physicians, the system will never really be reformed.  I'm not saying that bad doctors shouldn't be held liable for carelessness.  I'm just saying that the profit incentive for the legal profession needs to be seriously curtailed.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Likely Guy said:

I live in a socialist country called Canada, it's based on "Peace,Order and Good Governance";

Well, all nations are.  It just depends on how that is imposed on the people.  A Socialist nation has basically two ways to do it.  Either it can go with a police state and crack down on the people or it can use dole to create a gilded cage.  I’m a fan of neither and I must say that it is getting too close to the later in this nation for my tastes.  Antifa and anti-Trump sentiment is the mine canary for this.

 

We're not a failed state.

Give it time.  If you follow how Europe is going, it’ll be sooner than later.

 

We've had a very healthy discussion about who we are for a few generations now.

That never stops.  Or it shouldn’t.

 

We are a small country (demographically) with potential and great ambition. We are not, by any means perfect,

If your nation wants to preserve that potential and ambition, then in a generation or two, it will move away from Socialism.

 

and deserve a discussion (and reconciliation) as to how we treated our First Nations people.

OK??  Yes, our treatment of the Native American has been horrible but no different than any other conqueror over the conquered.  Civilization is built on this premise.  What is worse is as what Dark Grey has stated in that the long-term welfare programs have decimated the Native American culture more than all the wars.

 

I have faith in our immigrant selection services.

Do you require assimilation?  Assimilation includes relinquishing all loyalty to any previous institution or nation.

 

I love my country,

I know you do.  I respect that.

 

and I have the greatest hope for our newest Canadians.

If they reject assimilation, then they aren’t your newest Canadians.  They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

[toast]

It does not require to switch a country`s system to (the wole package of) Socialism to make it social for all of its citizens. Also in capitalistic systems It should be standard that basic needs like housing and healthcare are also granted to the ones with very low or zero income. In addition, prices for home related energy (except vehicle fuels) and drinking water supply should be controlled and regulated by the government, or rather, best case scenario, be produced and distributed by country/county owned and driven companies, if possible.

[+ouija ouija]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If they reject assimilation, then they aren’t your newest Canadians.  They are wolves in sheep's clothing.

I have always maintained this ^ ^ with regard to any country. If you take in too many immigrants and asylum seekers, and you take them in too quickly you are constructing a ticking time-bomb. When the chips are down, people will always support their country of birth against their adopted home ...... no matter how well they appear to have been 'assimilated'. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

I've been having a discussion with a friend who dreams of living in a socialist/communist utopia, where everyone has everything they need (especially the right to healthcare and housing) and where people are treated equally.  Can such a system exist?  If so why would we be opposed to it?  In the past all other examples of this system, regardless of intention have turned repressive.  Does this have to happen?  Why or why not?  He feels this is the real path to social equality, what's wrong or right about that?

Opinions?

It doesn't work in Star Trek, let alone reality. 

Trek is supposed to be a socialist utopia, as Picard says no one works for the need to work, they work out of passion. Except the only job that has any future is the military (Starfleet). You have people who aren't military, but they're literally  perceived as cranks or eccentrics (even by their own family, Joseph Sisko for example). Non-Starfleet scientists exist, but they're dangerous cranks who need the military scientists to fix their problems.

theres also the whole "how we treat AI" (ie third class citizens) they're literally property despite at least three of them proving sentience (Data, Moriarty and the EMH). It took Data decades to prove his citizenship status, and the impetus for that was someone saying "we want to dismantle you". 

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

7 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

Who said I oppose all Socialism? Universal health care is great, but like Communism it needs to be implemented perfectly to really  reap the most benefit. That simply has not been done in Canada. Instead, we have UK-lite where the taxes are not insane, but insane enough to choke out middle class families.

"Universal" means everyone and that means you and I paying for the strain on the system from others' unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, etc.

No competition for health care means no lower prices, increased quality or any deviation from what the Federal budget dictates. It means losing good Doctors to the US because they stand to make whatever the market there will allow, which is usually much more than the Government of Canada is willing to pay. Finally, it means less innovation. The real shining light of the free market. Canadian Doctors and Universities have made some great breakthroughs but nothing compared to the privately funded facilities South of the border.

I like the benefits of having that "safety net", sure. But for as often as I've needed it, I would rather save all that tax money and have health insurance. At least then I'd be paying for my health and only my health, not the poor choices of others.

I understand perfectly well what universal means.  I also understand that what you are saying is as one who has for your entire life had the fundamental right to healthcare. I do not believe you would give it up now and I especially believe that you would not give it up a should you ever experience an unexpected medical event.

[acute]

All computer modelling done on the subject shows that capitalism will eventually collapse. It requires endless resources, continuous growth in profits, and Third World countries to sell to.

An alien civilization more advanced than ours (landing later today, folks!) would be astonished that we have a planet on which people starve to death if they don't have the appropriate bits of paper, plastic, or metal in their pockets.

After capitalism falls, I hope a more fair and compassionate structure emerges eventually.  I don't know which current political system it will resemble, but I hope it is based on need, not greed.

Humans and humanity still have a long way to go.

[Essan]

16 hours ago, OverSword said:

I've been having a discussion with a friend who dreams of living in a socialist/communist utopia, where everyone has everything they need (especially the right to healthcare and housing) and where people are treated equally.  Can such a system exist?  If so why would we be opposed to it?  In the past all other examples of this system, regardless of intention have turned repressive.  Does this have to happen?  Why or why not?  He feels this is the real path to social equality, what's wrong or right about that?

Opinions?

The problem can been seen on the news every day: doesn't matter what some people have, they always want more ..... (as Springsteen sang: "poor man wannabe rich, rich man wannabe king, king ain't satisfied till he owns everything" ) .   And they can only have more if others have less.

The irony that, as a whole, such people are amongst the most miserable, unhappy people in history, is entirely lost on them  (happiness doesn't come from having more than everyone else, it comes from understanding what you really need, and being content with just that).  

We can't have a socialist/communist utopia until we cure money addiction

[Sweetpumper]

U.S. Open champ is asked if she’s hungry to win more titles — then demonstrates why capitalism works

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/09/13/u-s-open-champ-is-asked-if-shes-hungry-to-win-more-titles-then-demonstrates-why-capitalism-works/

[+OverSword]

11 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

For the first part there is no such thing as a man made "utopia".. It is, and of itself,an impossibility..

To even suggest a viable alternative, is equable laughable.

Why is suggesting a viable alternative laughable?

[toast]

12 hours ago, Dark_Grey said:

"Universal" means everyone and that means you and I paying for the strain on the system from others' unhealthy lifestyle, obesity, smoking, etc. No competition for health care means no lower prices, increased quality or any deviation from what the Federal budget dictates.( ...)

But there can be competition and I will explain it by the German health insurance system. In general, each individual must have a health insurance. The insurance rate (at the insurance funds)  is at 14,6% (plus up to 1,5%) of the gross income and the employer have to pay 7,3% of it. The health insurance funds are corporations under public law and actually we have 113 of them here in Germany and they are, of course, in competition to each other as users are free to select the one they want based on the add-ons that will fit the users request, for example free of charge acupuncture or whatever. The 2nd option are private health insurance companies but its a bad deal. If you are young and healthy, the rate percentage is below 14,6% but the annual increase factor isnt limited as the increase factor of the insurance funds. Example, I was self employed in the 90s and started with a monthly rate of 220DM and within 10 years the rate went up to 650, despite the fact that I didnt requested doctors help very often.

Quote

 At least then I'd be paying for my health and only my health, not the poor choices of others.

But there are also ppl who might be more healthier than you and the "smokers" money will also be used in case you need medical help. Its the social principle thats doing the trick here.

[+OverSword]

One barrier to making the USA more socialist leaning is the current debt accumulated by the government.  20 trillion dollars now with Trumps raising of the debt ceiling.  That is a debt of around 66k to each man woman and child in the USA and it's getting larger every day.  I don't see how a sustainable welfare state can be instituted under the current conditions even if we thought it was a good idea.

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, acute said:

An alien civilization more advanced than ours (landing later today, folks!) would be astonished that we have a planet on which people starve to death if they don't have the appropriate bits of paper, plastic, or metal in their pockets.

That's a laugh.  Alien cultures would also work off of a principal of profits and losses.  They would keep and invest in that which brought them prosperity and cut that which was a drain on the system.  It is the way of nature.  The truth is that every system is a capitalistic system, the difference is do you have a system which works from the bottom up or the top down?  In other words is your system based a central control (socialism) or market demand (capitalism) 

[Dark_Grey]

39 minutes ago, toast said:

But there are also ppl who might be more healthier than you and the "smokers" money will also be used in case you need medical help. Its the social principle thats doing the trick here.

True. I do agree that anyone should be able to get medical help, regardless of income. But isn't that already the case? If you get shot in the gut, the hospital won't turn you away just because you don't have insurance. They stitch you up and then begin the paperwork

[preacherman76]

Here is a great explanation as to why this question is even still asked. Poor radical left wing educations.

[preacherman76]

33 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's a laugh.  Alien cultures would also work off of a principal of profits and losses.  They would keep and invest in that which brought them prosperity and cut that which was a drain on the system.  It is the way of nature.  The truth is that every system is a capitalistic system, the difference is do you have a system which works from the bottom up or the top down?  In other words is your system based a central control (socialism) or market demand (capitalism) 

I think this comment really gets to the heart of the matter. A system that works from the bottom up I think is flawed in thinking society can provide a situation where outcome is equal. Not opportunity, but outcome. Of course the answer is no.

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I think this comment really gets to the heart of the matter. A system that works from the bottom up I think is flawed in thinking society can provide a situation where outcome is equal. Not opportunity, but outcome. Of course the answer is no.

I agree a bottom up system does not provide equal outcome because people with better ideas,a greater work ethic, etc..will have better results.  A top down system will provide a mediocre outcome for all (except those running things) and will be inefficient and usually end in a repressive dictatorship.

[aztek]

i have no doubts 70% of all diseases can be eliminated with proper diet, and life style. hypertension, and diabetics type 2,  are both major floodgates for more illnesses, both of them in 99% cases something people get due to poor diet, and lack of exercises. however medical cartel needs sick people, it needs to keep them sick.  

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, aztek said:

i have no doubts 70% of all diseases can be eliminated with proper diet, and life style. hypertension, and diabetics type 2,  are both major floodgates for more illnesses, both of them in 99% cases something people get due to poor diet, and lack of exercises. however medical cartel needs sick people, it needs to keep them sick.  

 ...Not really relevant to the topic, but, I generally agree.

[preacherman76]

54 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I agree a bottom up system does not provide equal outcome because people with better ideas,a greater work ethic, etc..will have better results.  A top down system will provide a mediocre outcome for all (except those running things) and will be inefficient and usually end in a repressive dictatorship.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't feel I have had a mediocre outcome. And I'm lower middle class at best. My basic needs are met, and there is nothing to stop me if I decided this isn't good enough from going out and getting whatever it is I think I'm lacking. 

Im honestly confused about the dictatorship thing. Those usually come from communist countries. People who started with the bottom up theory. What do you you mean by that? Could you clarify?

Edited September 13, 2017 by preacherman76

[AnchorSteam]

 

"The path to Communism, is Socialism."  - Lenin 

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't feel I have had a mediocre outcome. And I'm lower middle class at best. My basic needs are met, and there is nothing to stop me if I decided this isn't good enough from going out and getting whatever it is I think I'm lacking. 

Im honestly confused about the dictatorship thing. Those usually come from communist countries. People who started with the bottom up theory. What do you you mean by that? Could you clarify?

Preacherman, all economic systems are capitalist/resource based. 

The difference between a left and a right is whether the system is run from the top down, in which people at the top decide how much needs to be produced and distributed, and in which the top power collects heavy taxes to finance everyone's needs equally, in other words socialism, or a bottom up system in which production and values assigned to resources/products are determined by supply and demand. 

It's seems pretty obvious to me why one is superior to the other and yet no matter how many people are killed in death camps by socialists people that think they are smart think that socialism is the answer to our problems.

[aztek]

perpetual motion machine, why not? that and socialism has one main thing in common, they both always fail.

Edited September 13, 2017 by aztek

[RavenHawk]

8 hours ago, acute said:

All computer modelling done on the subject shows that capitalism will eventually collapse.

Is that the same computer modelling that shows that Man is creating climate change?

 

It requires endless resources, continuous growth in profits, and Third World countries to sell to.

If Capitalism doesn’t do it then what will?  Socialism needs some kind of source to steal from.  Without Capitalism, Socialism would be destitute.  It would have to murder more of its people.

 

An alien civilization more advanced than ours (landing later today, folks!) would be astonished that we have a planet on which people starve to death if they don't have the appropriate bits of paper, plastic, or metal in their pockets.

I would imagine that aliens would understand what currency represents.  Most Socialists don’t understand what money and wealth are.  They would be astonished why people would allow themselves to be left out of the loop.

 

After capitalism falls, I hope a more fair and compassionate structure emerges eventually.  I don't know which current political system it will resemble, but I hope it is based on need, not greed.

Capitalism was the apple that allowed Man to become aware.  It is the next step up in the evolutionary chain.  Socialism is the dinosaur here and will eventually go extinct.  We are seeing its death pangs.  So tell me what is more fair and compassionate?  A system that enslaves the populace into a gilded cage imposing equality on them, turning the people into a collective of cogs?  And the level of equality is the lowest common denominator, except for the party leaders, of course.  Or a system that encourages innovation, creativity, and individualism?  This may mean going hungry or homeless temporarily but whatever you produce is yours and no one else’s.  It is the expression of the Invisible Hand which is greed, self-interest, or advantage.  We all use greed.  The bread-winner of the family is greedy because he wants the best for his family.  The single guy is greedy because he wants that muscle car.  Our society is guided by greed.  But like everything, moderation is the rule of thumb.  We need to return to the days of the Puritan and setup stocks to hold those that allow greed to run amok.  Set the bar low enough so that eventually everyone experiences humility.

 

Humans and humanity still have a long way to go.

Yes we do.  Man will eventually shed the rags that he began in and will advance more into the light.