[QUOTE=KaIibos;37431572]big deal. superficially democratic or capitalist systems can be tainted by authoritarianism too. eg germany's third reich, china, and america (indirectly; money and high level government form a sort of feedback loop, the result of which is regardless of who the [I]citizens[/I] want running the state, the control will always rest in the money)[/QUOTE]
yes, but socialism has a much worse track record than capitalism. And are you seriously comparing America to Russia or China?
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431589]Wanting to have enough to live comfortably and support yourself and a family is fine. Wanting to hold onto every last cent, even when some of it could be put to good use, is just greedy.[/QUOTE]
I'm greedy for wanting to keep money I earn, but the government isn't greedy for wanting to use my money?
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431548]People who don't care much for getting paid as they do for keeping a stable and livable country?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I'd rather eat.
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431589]Wanting to have enough to live comfortably and support yourself and a family is fine. Wanting to hold onto every last cent, even when some of it could be put to good use, is just greedy.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. What if I want more stuff? If I want a 3rd flatscreen tv, and I can pay for it, let me have one! And it's still stealing, whether or not you have a good reason.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431598]And if I disagree with that purpose of the money? What if I think that privatized healthcare is a better option? What if I don't like some war the country's in?
The answer is all the same, it doesn't matter. I don't get to choose where in the government my tax money goes.[/QUOTE]
I will admit that it's important to know where your money is going; If I found out that 90% of the taxes I pay were going to some "kill all the Jews" millitary operation, I would be angry. I wouldn't though be angry about my money being used to set up a healthcare system, because not only do I benefit from it, but as do others, and not everyone can afford private healthcare.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431590]they actually put you inside a room, give you some hot meals, give you some books to read, help with any issues you have, then rehabilitate you back into society once you become a big boy
well, at least thats what happens in a society that funds their prison system[/QUOTE]
what? he's talking about taxation. Your argument makes no sense.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431639]I will admit that it's important to know where your money is going; If I found out that 90% of the taxes I pay were going to some "kill all the Jews" millitary operation, I would be angry. I wouldn't though be angry about my money being used to set up a healthcare system, because not only do I benefit from it, but as do others, and not everyone can afford private healthcare.[/QUOTE]
but what if someone is angry? just because you like something doesn't mean others have to.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431608]yes, but socialism has a much worse track record than capitalism[/QUOTE]
lmao
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431639]I will admit that it's important to know where your money is going; If I found out that 90% of the taxes I pay were going to some "kill all the Jews" millitary operation, I would be angry. I wouldn't though be angry about my money being used to set up a healthcare system, because not only do I benefit from it, but as do others, and not everyone can afford private healthcare.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the problem though, why not just have a non-governmental nationwide charity set up for healthcare? We all know exactly where the money goes, and we all make that choice to fund it, rather than being forced to. If the charity ends up being a big dick about it, you just don't donate. If the government is a big dick about something, you're fucked.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431672]lmao[/QUOTE]
rofl
let's make one word posts instead of using rational argument.
lol
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431590]they actually put you inside a room, give you some hot meals, give you some books to read, help with any issues you have, then rehabilitate you back into society once you become a big boy
well, at least thats what happens in a society that funds their prison system[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, Big Brother is here to help you conform.
Note: this is not 100% serious, don't be a fucking idiot.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431684]That's exactly the problem though, why not just have a non-governmental nationwide charity set up for healthcare? We all know exactly where the money goes, and we all make that choice to fund it, rather than being forced to. If the charity ends up being a big dick about it, you just don't donate. If the government is a big dick about something, you're fucked.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone is going to donate to charity because, as people in this thread have demonstrated, there are those out there who are greedy.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431598]And if I disagree with that purpose of the money? What if I think that privatized healthcare is a better option? What if I don't like some war the country's in?
The answer is all the same, it doesn't matter. I don't get to choose where in the government my tax money goes.[/QUOTE]
because the general public has a wonderful history of being misled (absolutely fucking stupid). there was alot of opposition from rich naysayers to many of the brilliant things that make the UK what it is today (ending the slave trade, public healthcare, welfare etc), but now as a result of that the standard of living is extremely high and the general intellect of the populus is flourishing.
leave what you know to yourself and what you don't know to the experts, when you disagree get together with some other people who disagree and show that you do.
treating money as the be all end all of high powers in the universe can only lead to corruption, death and misery, and once people have the ability to be as selfish as they want the living standard will drop into that of a third world country.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431608]yes, but socialism has a much worse track record than capitalism. And are you seriously comparing America to Russia or China?[/QUOTE]
correlation is not causation
and yes i am. I'm not making a direct 1:1 comparison like "china's and america's governments are just as repressive" but 1) they share characteristics of authoritarianism and 2) even if they were as different as I expect you think they are, the fact that there's anything similar at all kind of farts on the notion that socialism is naturally inclined toward authoritarianism
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431685]rofl
let's make one word posts instead of using rational argument.
lol[/QUOTE]
but your rational arguments are for a system which can only exist in a rational world
as we both demonstrate, there's at least 1 irrational person
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431705]Not everyone is going to donate to charity because, as people in this thread have demonstrated, there are those out there who are greedy.[/QUOTE]
And those exact same people don't pay taxes either. It helps to just ignore those people.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431623]Sorry, but I'd rather eat.[/QUOTE]
As if the government would tax you to hell simply because they didn't have riches of their own, though I think that situation would be solved whereas the government is detached from the economy.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37431737]but your rational arguments are for a system which can only exist in a rational world
as we both demonstrate, there's at least 1 irrational person[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand rationality. You can make rational arguments about an irrational world. All it means is that your arguments make sense, not the people. And if you reject rationality, how will we argue?
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431684]That's exactly the problem though, why not just have a non-governmental nationwide charity set up for healthcare? We all know exactly where the money goes, and we all make that choice to fund it, rather than being forced to. If the charity ends up being a big dick about it, you just don't donate. If the government is a big dick about something, you're fucked.[/QUOTE]
charity
you're fucking joking right
[quote=Wiki]The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver.[/quote]
I think "nationwide charity for healthcare" assumes WAY too much about the benevolence of the average person
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431751]And those exact same people don't pay taxes either. It helps to just ignore those people.[/QUOTE]
ignore people
who don't pay taxes
really
[QUOTE=KaIibos;37431723]correlation is not causation
and yes i am. I'm not making a direct 1:1 comparison like "china's and america's governments are just as repressive" but 1) they share characteristics of authoritarianism and 2) even if they were as different as I expect you think they are, the fact that there's anything similar at all kind of farts on the notion that socialism is naturally inclined toward authoritarianism[/QUOTE]
But it's a pretty high correlation. Every socialist nation I have ever heard of (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia) have been authoritarian. That's a 1:1 correlation, which is pretty high. Plus, the socialist revolutions that put the socialist government in place, also put the authoritarian government in place (because they were the same thing). That's not correlation, that's causation.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37431721]because the general public has a wonderful history of being misled (absolutely fucking stupid). there was alot of opposition from rich naysayers to many of the brilliant things that make the UK what it is today (ending the slave trade, public healthcare, welfare etc), but now as a result of that the standard of living is extremely high and the general intellect of the populus is flourishing.
leave what you know to yourself and what you don't know to the experts, when you disagree get together with some other people who disagree and show that you do.
treating money as the be all end all of high powers in the universe can only lead to corruption, death and misery, and once people have the ability to be as selfish as they want the living standard will drop into that of a third world country.[/QUOTE]
"Rich naysayers" happen to be in the same group as politicians, you know. There's a reason the US had a civil war, and it wasn't because a few "rich naysayers" got together, it was half the damn country and its politicians and people.
I'm not treating money as some kind of "high power", it's just one aspect of property, and more importantly, natural rights (including the right to hold property and not have that property taken from you).
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431804]But it's a pretty high correlation. Every socialist nation I have ever heard of (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia) have been authoritarian. That's a 1:1 correlation, which is pretty high. Plus, the socialist revolutions that put the socialist government in place, also put the authoritarian government in place (because they were the same thing). That's not correlation, that's causation.[/QUOTE]
actually the countries you have listed were really far-flung right-wing.
if you are actually trying to convince me that socialism is 1:1 with stalinism then you need to relearn your history
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;37431819]"Rich naysayers" happen to be in the same group as politicians, you know. There's a reason the US had a civil war, and it wasn't because a few "rich naysayers" got together, it was half the damn country and its politicians and people.
I'm not treating money as some kind of "high power", it's just one aspect of property, and more importantly, natural rights (including the right to hold property and not have that property taken from you).[/QUOTE]
in libertarianism the power of lobbyists would be extremely high, even compared to as they are now in the US. libertarianism creates money's high power, the more it is valued over basic living standards the higher power it holds;
and are you actually trying to tell me that 'rights' are now somehow objective, if you believe in natural rights then you would believe in the fact that people are born horrendously poor into poverty and death because of their [i]lack of money[/i]. libertarianism punishes people for factors that cannot control, what charity in the US is going to pay out millions upon millions for cancer treatment yearly?
[QUOTE=Patriarch;37431473]Taking your money and putting it into things that everybody can benefit from, such as healthcare, does not equal "stealing".[/QUOTE]
yes it is
it is my property
it is being taken from me without my will
how do you define theft?
if i take your property to benefit my family is that ok? plus, nobody has the obligation to help other people, that's a personal choice and not your decision to make. stop trying to control other peoples lives please
I personally believe that a mix of both Conservative and Liberal viewpoints are needed for a successful nation, so long as the two don't try to overstep each other's jurisdictions, so to speak. Something that may prove beneficial would be a mix of both conservative and liberal views in both economics and society. Too much of one view at any given time has already proven to be a bad idea (e.g. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union), but a mix should be able to balance each other out. That said, there will always be people who want to take the majority for themselves. In that situation, it should be the people who keep a close eye on the government, otherwise they might run amok.
[QUOTE=KaIibos;37431763]charity
you're fucking joking right
I think "nationwide charity for healthcare" assumes WAY too much about the benevolence of the average person
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
ignore people
who don't pay taxes
really[/QUOTE]
It was an example.
Also, why not? Try to force a rich person to pay taxes and they move themselves and/or their money away.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37431756]As if the government would tax you to hell simply because they didn't have riches of their own, though I think that situation would be solved whereas the government is detached from the economy.[/QUOTE]
How would a government possibly "detach" themselves from the economy? Where are they going to get the power to do anything? People like to be paid for their jobs.
[QUOTE=Bobie;37431827]actually the countries you have listed were really far-flung right-wing.
if you are actually trying to convince me that socialism is 1:1 with stalinism then you need to relearn your history
in libertarianism the power of lobbyists would be extremely high, even compared to as they are now in the US. libertarianism creates money's high power, the more it is valued over basic living standards the higher power it holds;
and are you actually trying to tell me that 'rights' are now somehow objective, if you believe in natural rights then you would believe in the fact that people are born horrendously poor into poverty and death because of their [i]lack of money[/i]. libertarianism punishes people for factors that cannot control, what charity in the US is going to pay out millions upon millions for cancer treatment yearly?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]The Union of Soviet [B]Socialist[/B] Republics (Russian: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик, tr. Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) abbreviated to USSR (Russian: СССР, tr. SSSR) or the Soviet Union (Russian: Советский Союз, tr. Sovetsky Soyuz), was a constitutionally [B]socialist[/B] state which existed between 1922 and 1991, ruled as a single-party state by the [B]Communist[/B] Party with its capital as Moscow.[2] A union of 15 subnational Soviet republics, in practice the Soviet Union was highly centralized. The largest ethnic group, the Russians, had political, cultural and economic Hegemony of the Union. As a result, Russian characteristics personified the country, and it was informally referred to as "Russia".[/QUOTE]
Yep, Soviet Russia was definitely not socialist. Nope. Just, you know, Ignore the name and everything. And do you even know what right-wing means? I don't think you do.
if you people believe in universal rights the first thing you should try to do is getting rid off is the government
[QUOTE=Kentz;37431842]
it is being taken from me without my will
[/QUOTE]
well guess who is going to respect your right to property in a system in which rights can be trodden upon because the government doesnt exist to protect your rights?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431804]But it's a pretty high correlation. Every socialist nation I have ever heard of (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia) have been authoritarian. That's a 1:1 correlation, which is pretty high. Plus, the socialist revolutions that put the socialist government in place, also put the authoritarian government in place (because they were the same thing). That's not correlation, that's causation.[/QUOTE]
what about canada, sweden, norway, and denmark (and arguably the left leaning latin american countries but they're still developing so it's not right to compare them to the most well-off first world nations)
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431915]Yep, Soviet Russia was definitely not socialist. Nope. Just, you know, Ignore the name and everything. And do you even know what right-wing means? I don't think you do.[/QUOTE]
next you'll be telling me that nazi germany wasn't a fascist state because they were called the national socialists right
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37431804]But it's a pretty high correlation. Every socialist nation I have ever heard of (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Yugoslavia) have been authoritarian. That's a 1:1 correlation, which is pretty high. Plus, the socialist revolutions that put the socialist government in place, also put the authoritarian government in place (because they were the same thing). That's not correlation, that's causation.[/QUOTE]
So, the difference between Libertarianism and Socialism is choosing to live in a volatile economy where dog eats dog or living in an authoritarian police state? Even if Socialism is an economic doctrine and not political, and just has the disadvantage of being paired with authoritarian states. Because the government has a monopoly on a majority of the economy doesn't mean that people can't elect who runs the government.
[QUOTE=KaIibos;37431950]what about canada, sweden, norway, and denmark (and arguably the left leaning latin american countries but they're still developing so it's not right to compare them to the most well-off first world nations)[/QUOTE]
It's called social democracy, not socialism. Social democracies are a mix of capitalism and socialism, (mixed market) which means they still promote innovation. I was arguing against full socialism, not social democracy.
[editline]27th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;37431957]next you'll be telling me that nazi germany wasn't a fascist state because they were called the national socialists right[/QUOTE]
No, because they weren't socialist. Russia was socialist, because the means of production were owned by the government, and therefore the public. How hard is it to understand?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
