[QUOTE=melonmonkey;32381395]Was the last part of the first paragraph a joke or are you actually that conceited?[/QUOTE] Silence lower being!
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381967]That's not a Libertarian, that's a Progressive. They're "Left" on the economy and "Left" on social policy. Left in terms of social policy meaning liberal, mind you.[/QUOTE]But I'm not "left" on the economy, I'm still "Right". I'm just not quite so far right.
Laissez-faire has existed, and although it was far from perfect.
I'm convinced Stalinism is pure evil. At least Marxism has good intentions, although it's much more of a fantasy.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381727]If you're a libertarian, you probably think welfare/social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance, and any of the municipal water/health services are bad. An argument I've heard quite often is that "it is not just to pick up the slack for the lazy".[/QUOTE]
I'll address this real quick, let's keep this on track. Not sure what you mean by a few so I assume. You don't need to reply, I'm giving you some basic reasons besides the one you gave.
Welfare - Charity would do it in a free market. This is shown historically before welfare programs were put in. At the turn of the 1900's charity was at its peak, many clinics opening up, non-profits that still exist today. The question is, would
Social Security - I don't understand how you could support this program when you would make a much larger return investing it into a private account.
Medicare/Medicaid - The arguments for these are different, but it is usually that regulation in the medical field allowed prices to go far beyond what they should be. The argument is that the prices wouldn't be so high in a free market, and if you look at the historical data, most people paid in cash until the government starting regulating. The other argument is that many of the liabilities doctors face discourage clinic work
Unemployment Insurance - Is this when people get laid off and pick up a check? There would be insurance programs offered on market. People who did not purchase it would know what they were risking. Though historically, most people saved their money, and that was their unemployment insurance.
Municipal Water/Air - Private business would have it in their full interest to keep their customers satisfied by providing clean water. If they don't, their customers will purchase from another source. The government does have a role in air quality, though how much is debatable, and they of course have a role in enforcing property rights. Much of the pollution in the 1900's was with the help of government.
FDA -Kills people. They delay drugs from being on the market, which results in people dying. If it takes 7 years to clear a drug that saves 1,000 lives a year, that was 7,000 lives that could have been saved.
Universal Health Care - Many of the issues listed are the same issues Canada suffers from.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32382173]Laissez-faire has existed, and although it was far from perfect.
I'm convinced Stalinism is pure evil. At least Marxism has good intentions, although it's much more of a fantasy.[/QUOTE]
The reason Stalinism is evil is mainly due to the government in question not giving any concerns to the moral or ethical impact of what they do have.
Whilst evil it does get them places rapidly, much like a sly cunning man in a criminal organisation can work his way to the top if he views humans as either tools or enemies.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32382207]Welfare - Charity would do it in a free market. This is shown historically before welfare programs were put in. At the turn of the 1900's charity was at its peak, many clinics opening up, non-profits that still exist today.[/quote]
Except that we had a time with less regulation than modern times, and charities certainly did not pick up the slack.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32382207]Medicare/Medicaid - The arguments for these are different, but it is usually that regulation in the medical field allowed prices to go far beyond what they should be. The argument is that the prices wouldn't be so high in a free market, and if you look at the historical data, most people paid in cash until the government starting regulating. The other argument is that many of the liabilities doctors face discourage clinic work.[/quote]
And before the regulation, there were plenty of elderly and poor people unable to get proper care.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32382207]Unemployment Insurance - Is this when people get laid off and pick up a check? There would be insurance programs offered on market. People who did not purchase it would know what they were risking. Though historically, most people saved their money, and that was their unemployment insurance.[/quote]
Yes, put people's very well-being at risk because you think they should have to save their money or buy insurance while out of a job.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32382207]Municipal Water/Air - Private business would have it in their full interest to keep their customers satisfied by providing clean water. If they don't, their customers will purchase from another source. The government does have a role in air quality, though how much is debatable, and they of course have a role in enforcing property rights. Much of the pollution in the 1900's was with the help of government.[/quote]
Oh yes, that's why companies are going overseas, because they just want to provide high quality products but the government is standing in their way! I cannot believe you would delude yourself to think that companies now or ever have polluted because the government forced them to.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32382207]FDA -Kills people. They delay drugs from being on the market, which results in people dying. If it takes 7 years to clear a drug that saves 1,000 lives a year, that was 7,000 lives that could have been saved.[/quote]
If by "delay drugs", you mean test them so they know whether or not you'll get a virus from it, then yes. I'd like that to stay in place.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32382207]Universal Health Care - Many of the issues listed are the same issues Canada suffers from.[/QUOTE]
Is that why they pay less per capita for their healthcare yet more people have access to it?
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;32381169]The point of the forum's description is to exemplify the tendency for people to care more about something after having discussed it. We aren't discussing them as if we want to live in them, we're weighing the positives against the negatives for both. Coming into this thread and saying that all Communists/Socialists 'can fuck themselves' is completely unwarranted. If either system were to be effective, there would be nothing wrong with the desire for the world to be unified under a single economic system.[/QUOTE]
1) I didn't say all, just the globally oriented
2) It is a part of this debate, there's no reason that either should be the ideology of the entire planet, the topic of debate was between the two ideologies, saying "If one is better than the other we should make it global" is not derailing the debate, so you can make that argument just as I can make mine.
3) Most of the people here aren't talking about communism anyway, the debate has already drifted beyond it's predefined bounds.
Thank you.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;32381379]You realize this is a debate, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and It's my position that there's no reason to denounce either since they can both exist.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381469][I]"No jobs for the less skilled, redistribution programs that only exist as a result of a manipulation of the market? Who needs 'em!"[/I][/QUOTE]
Fixed
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32381727]If you're a libertarian, you probably think welfare/social security/medicare/medicaid/unemployment insurance, and any of the municipal water/health services are bad. An argument I've heard quite often is that "it is not just to pick up the slack for the lazy".[/QUOTE]
Do you ever wonder why debates between us have become sillier lately? It's because you post garbage like this. Can I generalize your ideology?
"herr If you're a socialist, you probably think handing over market operations to an oligarchy is good because people who have gained enough political clout by pandering to the general public and making insider deals with sociopaths is a good idea"
So the government manipulated the market so that there could be poor people to provide social services to?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32382527]So the government manipulated the market so that there could be poor people to provide social services to?[/QUOTE]
The government manipulated the market either through good [i]intentions[/i], or attempting to achieve some sort of result to the benefit of more skilled laborers, they provide social services because of the damage they caused in a lot of other areas, some were created for other reasons, like social security which was never meant to actually work in practice.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32382630]The government manipulated the market either through good [i]intentions[/i], or attempting to achieve some sort of result to the benefit of more skilled laborers, they provide social services because of the damage they caused in a lot of other areas, some were created for other reasons, like social security which was never meant to actually work in practice.[/QUOTE]Not to mention that at the time social security was implemented the average lifespan was below the time that you'd actually get your money from it :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32382244]The reason Stalinism is evil is mainly due to the government in question not giving any concerns to the moral or ethical impact of what they do have.
Whilst evil it does get them places rapidly, much like a sly cunning man in a criminal organisation can work his way to the top if he views humans as either tools or enemies.[/QUOTE]
In order to establish Stalinism, you need to overthrow the country through a violent revolution. Naturally, the revolutionary government will be ruthless and uncaring from the very start.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32382663]In order to establish Stalinism, you need to overthrow the country through a violent revolution. Naturally, the revolutionary government will be ruthless and uncaring from the very start.[/QUOTE]
One may also vote in one, if the nation in question has enough voters to support such a party and how far the party is willing to go to break moral and ethical boundaries.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32382814]One may also vote in one, if the nation in question has enough voters to support such a party and how far the party is willing to go to break moral and ethical boundaries.[/QUOTE]
Communism can only exist through violent revolution according to Karl Marx. In a way, he's right, as you can never enslave a man who has known freedom.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32382873]Communism can only exist through violent revolution according to Karl Marx. In a way, he's right, as you can never enslave a man who has known freedom.[/QUOTE]
"enslave"
You're a joke.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32382873]Communism can only exist through violent revolution according to Karl Marx. In a way, he's right, as you can never enslave a man who has known freedom.[/QUOTE]
The problem with revolutions however is that most of them are top down.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32382903]"enslave"
You're a joke.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that it isn't oppressive?
-snip-
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32383068]Are you implying that it isn't oppressive?[/QUOTE]
Well that depends, are you of the mindset that taxes are inherently wrong and act only as "coercion"?
The problem is that each type are for two different kinds of people.
Laissez-faire works better for people who are self motivated and who are willing to put forth all their effort to be the best they can be (leaders)
Communism works better for people who's only goal is to get by and have a simple but happy life and be content with that (followers)
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;32383330]The problem is that each type are for two different kinds of people.
Laissez-faire works better for people who are self motivated and who are willing to put forth all their effort to be the best they can be (leaders)
Communism works better for people who's only goal is to get by and have a simple but happy life and be content with that (followers)[/QUOTE]
What about in the case of Interventionism and State Capitalism?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32383324]Well that depends, are you of the mindset that taxes are inherently wrong and act only as "coercion"?[/QUOTE]
Taxes are necessary and are perfectly fine as long as they don't particularly target certain economic classes and remain reasonable.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;32383330]The problem is that each type are for two different kinds of people.
Laissez-faire works better for people who are self motivated and who are willing to put forth all their effort to be the best they can be (leaders)
Communism works better for people who's only goal is to get by and have a simple but happy life and be content with that (followers)[/QUOTE]
Well guess which would work better for the majority based on the idea of "leaders" and "followers".
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32383324]Well that depends, are you of the mindset that taxes are inherently wrong and act only as "coercion"?[/QUOTE]
What kind of tax? Income tax is a bit nasty in that it asserts that the government is entitled to 100% of your income and they are letting you keep X%.
Libertarians are generally for use taxes like tolls. The high way systems used to be totally funded through tolls, and this is good from a Libertarian perspective because the people who pay for it are the people who use it.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32383421]Taxes are necessary and are perfectly fine as long as they don't particularly target certain economic classes and remain reasonable.[/QUOTE]
So a flat tax for everyone?
Communism would work perfectly in the world, but the greed and jealousy of mankind prevents it from working in the slightest. It would definitely work in a perfect world...
... Then again, there wouldn't be a need for government in a perfect world.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32383556]So a flat tax for everyone?[/QUOTE]
No, just a reasonable tax that doesn't target particular classes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32383651]No, just a reasonable tax that doesn't target particular classes.[/QUOTE] That depends on what you consider reasonable.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;32383651]No, just a reasonable tax that doesn't target particular classes.[/QUOTE]
A higher tax rate for wealthy people and a lower tax rate for poorer people is a tax rate that "targets" particular classes. A normalized tax rate is a "flat tax".
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;32382656]Not to mention that at the time social security was implemented the average lifespan was below the time that you'd actually get your money from it :v:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, then people started living longer due to stupid capitalism and it's medical industry
[quote=s0beit]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32382527]So the government manipulated the market so that there could be poor people to provide social services to?[/QUOTE]
... or attempting to achieve some sort of result to the benefit of more skilled laborers ...[/quote]
Back to this, to solidify my point a little:
[quote]During South Africa’s apartheid era, its racist unions were the major supporters of minimum wages for blacks. South Africa’s Wage Board said, “The method would be to fix a minimum rate for an occupation or craft so high that no Native would likely be employed.”[/quote]
[quote]Similarly, white supremacist groups in South Africa under apartheid pushed for minimum wage laws as a way to reduce black participation in the labor force. [b]The overtly racist Mine Workers Union, for example, demanded a minimum wage to protect their dominance in the workplace and openly stated: ‘The real point on is that whites have been ousted by coloured labour. It is not because a man is white or coloured, but owing to the fact that the latter is cheap … when that [minimum wage] is introduced we believe that most of the difficulties in regard to the coloured question will automatically drop out.’[/b] Similarly, the South African Wage Board, which set minimum wages in different sectors of that country’s economy beginning in 1925, ‘concentrated its wage determinations only on those areas of industry where nonwhites were in competition with whites, and made no wage determinations in areas where there was no such competition.’[/quote]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/world/africa/27safrica.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
Then you have the "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act]Davis–Bacon Act[/url]" which was basically designed specifically by racist white unions in America to prevent black Americans from working on government projects.
[quote]But it took the worldwide Great Depression -- which at its height saw one out of four Americans unemployed—to fuel the passing of the Davis–Bacon Act by a Republican Congress and a Republican President, Herbert Hoover. [b]Representative Bacon initially introduced the bill after a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans' Bureau hospital in his New York district.[2] Complaints about "negro" or "colored" labor taking federal construction jobs appear sporadically through the legislation history of both prior bills that anticipated Davis-Bacon,and Davis-Bacon itself.[/b][3] Beyond that, the legislative history of Davis-Bacon reflects a clear desire by Congress to reserve jobs on federal projects for local workers. Not only did local workers complain about non-locals taking these jobs, but Congressmen were frustrated that their efforts to bring "pork barrel" projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents.[4]
[b]Opponents to the Davis–Bacon Act have emphasized the racist intent to the law, but critics have countered that this is a red herring, claiming that the law was a [u]sincere attempt[/u] to preserve federal jobs for local workers and to maintain local wage standards against migratory workers of any race. Critics dismiss the claim that racist sentiments expressed in the legislative history were a significant factor in the passage of the act.[/b][/quote]
[quote]As noted above, it has been argued by critics that this law is a Jim Crow law, claiming that it was passed to prevent African Americans from working on government projects. [b]Congressional representative John Cochran of Missouri said that he supported the Davis–Bacon Act because he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors' employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." [5] Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he supported Davis-Bacon because "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country."[/b] [5]
Modern proponents of the law, however, argue that [i]while elements of racism may have provided some support for the bill, the major motivation was to enable a locality to protect itself economically from "a race to the bottom" in wage rates.[/i] Peter Philips and Dale Belman reviewed the legislative history of prevailing wage regulations that culminated in the Davis–Bacon Act and found that a number of the laws were in fact intended to keep out laborers of Northern European ancestry as well as out-of-area workers from the upper Great Plains. [6] In a 1971 article in Harper's, Civil Rights Activist Bayard Rustin forcefully dismissed concerns about the racial impacts of prevailing wage laws, calling them a divisive distraction from the real task of building alliances between construction workers of all races.[7][/quote]
Underlines and bolds by me
I could go on, I guess I could post this all in the other topic but since we're all here:
[url]http://hispanicpundit.com/2007/01/24/the-minority-case-against-the-minimum-wage/[/url]
If the same person is put in two parallel situations, with one being the person in possession of 10$ while the other is him but with only 5$, if we remove one dollar from the situation with the most money, we have 9$ and 4$, the one who will derive more out of it will be the 4$ man, since he is possession of less and thus has a bigger urgency for things.
Which means it's only logical to supply the man with the dollar bill, if you keep going, you'll have two men with the same amount of money.
I picked this situation because there aren't any variables such as whether one man would give more importance to money rather than the things he could buy or what each would do with it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.