Why is Socialism bad?

39 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
  • |
The reason I ask this question is because in my view, the majority of the country would benefit from socialism.

And, not just because Colin Powell says this but, yeah to some extent our tax dollars have and will always be redistributed towards things that we may not agree with.

I'm really curious to get your answers on this.

Personally, I believe that anyone that's in opposition of a presidential candidate will find a problem with any ideological belief or "ism" they may have... Even if they do agree with it.

Whether it's:

  1. Socialism
  2. Fascism
  3. Capitalism
or any other "ism" there will always be a group of people that benefit from it.

In my opinion, this is another case where something that's not meant to be negative, is being looked at that way.

Before you answer this question please keep in mind that this is a legitimate question. And, if this is the kind of question that you have a passionate answer for. Please refrain from using any insults.
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    I am not a political major, but common sense tells me one thing. In a socialist society, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything more than they have to do to get by.

    On the other hand, if you reward entreprenership and reward hard work (even if you get taxed on your wages), then there is incentive to get ahead.

    In theory it's possible socialism would work, but the one thing the proponents forget is that real people are involved.

    I'm sure there will answers much more interesting than mine though.

    Let the fun begin.



    ~Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[188685].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      I am not a political major, but common sense tells me one thing. In a socialist society, there is no incentive for anyone to do anything more than they have to do to get by.

      On the other hand, if you reward entreprenership and reward hard work (even if you get taxed on your wages), then there is incentive to get ahead.

      In theory it's possible socialism would work, but the one thing the proponents forget is that real people are involved.

      I'm sure there will answers much more interesting than mine though.

      Let the fun begin.



      ~Michael
      Thanks Michael...

      I understand your point. But even if this were a socialist society. Just how much assistance would it take to stagnate the majority.

      I just think that we would have to be talking about significant income redistribution.

      I would understand more of why so many oppose socialism if the majority of the country could make a living entirely from other people's money.

      But, what are we talking? An extra 3 or 4 grand?

      That's not very much money to get lazy over.

      Please correct me if I'm not making sense. I really am looking for a better understanding of this whole socialism thing.

      Thanks Michael

      p.s. espacecadet and SeoSupport please feel free to respond also.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[188797].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author clint48
        Marc, I have thought about Socialism in this country mainly because of the health care system we have. I think everyone needs to have health care. I don't think it would work because of what some of the others talked about, it takes away the incentive to produce.

        What I think could work is to get the Federal Government out of as much as we can and let each State Government decide what they want to do. If a State had a lot of people that believed that Socialism would work in their State then they could give it a try.

        Clint
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[188890].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author phanes
        Socialism is bad because one can not properly distribute resources without a price system. Make sure you define your terms, I belive socialism means the government owns/controls the means of production. While simple redistribution of income via tax is not total socialism. Assumeing you mean income redistribution when you say Socialism, it fails because of perverse incentives. Those with high incomes lose the incentive to produce more (and get high incentives to hide their capital), while those with low incomes lose the incentive to produce more as well.
        The reasons are many why Socialism and it's offshoots (communism, wealth redistribution, etc) fail. Out of curiosity why do you think it would be good for the country?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[188891].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[188738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author saybrah
      Originally Posted by espacecadet View Post

      Good Lord, those Katrina folks would love a Socialist society!
      hey i was a katrina folk!

      obama really put his foot in the mouth with that spread the wealth phrase lol...

      here's what is puzzling me. McCain says he will give double the child tax credit. it is that tax credit that make those that he says dont pay taxes not pay taxes. OMG that's even more socialist! and nobody on the left can't see it. man the left are slow at everything.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189025].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Emailrevealer
    If we can have limited socialism with medicare and the post office and the public library and now to "bail out "billionaire bankers we can have it to nationalize the oil companies and sell gas for 11 cents a gallon like they do in Venezuela.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189031].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Emailrevealer View Post

      If we can have limited socialism with medicare and the post office and the public library and now to "bail out "billionaire bankers we can have it to nationalize the oil companies and sell gas for 11 cents a gallon like they do in Venezuela.
      This makes no sense at all.
      1: Medicare is not socialism.I have paid into medicare for over 40 years.
      2:The post office is not socialism. it is a semi private organization run by the US government.Contrary to most public belief,NO tax dollars go to running the post office.
      3:How you throw the public library in as socialism really is beyond belief.
      4:As far as the bailout, what has been done can be undone. Your and everyone else that's not happy with the bailout needs to voice your disaproval by contacting those in charge. Of course by this I don't mean gripe and complain to your neighbors and anyone that will listen, but to contact your representatives on all levels and let them know you want tne bailout rescinded or else they will be rescinded next election.
      5:Our country no longer has the ability or the luxery of 11 cents a gallon gas,but I can remember 19 cents a gallon gas.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189425].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189039].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
      Marc

      If you believe that the government know better than you how to spend your money..

      If you are prepared to allow the government to interfere in virtually all areas of your life..

      If you believe that one of the main reasons for working is to help finance a bloated bureaucracy..

      If you believe that everyone is put on this planet to work for the good of the state, rather than themselves and their family and to continue to work until a designated retirement date (when the system decides they are of little further use)..

      If you are willing to abdicate all personal responsibility for how you live your life..

      If you would like to live in a society geared to the lowest commom denominator..

      Then socialism may be for you.

      On the other hand, if you believe that the notion of "re-distribution of wealth" is a misnomer - that, in fact, wealth is not a finite resource, like oil, but instead can be created almost infinitely by enterprising and entrepreneurial visionaries, given the right environment and that all economic progress has been as a result of this creativity..

      Then welcome to the free world, my friend.


      Frank
      Signature


      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189125].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
        Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

        Marc

        If you believe that the government know better than you how to spend your money..

        If you are prepared to allow the government to interfere in virtually all areas of your life..

        If you believe that one of the main reasons for working is to help finance a bloated bureaucracy..

        If you believe that everyone is put on this planet to work for the good of the state, rather than themselves and their family and to continue to work until a designated retirement date (when the system decides they are of little further use)..

        If you are willing to abdicate all personal responsibility for how you live your life..

        If you would like to live in a society geared to the lowest commom denominator..

        Then socialism may be for you.

        On the other hand, if you believe that the notion of "re-distribution of wealth" is a misnomer - that, in fact, wealth is not a finite resource, like oil, but instead can be created almost infinitely by enterprising and entrepreneurial visionaries, given the right environment and that all economic progress has been as a result of this creativity..

        Then welcome to the free world, my friend.


        Frank
        What you've listed above pretty much sounds like America now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189525].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
          Originally Posted by marcanthony View Post

          What you've listed above pretty much sounds like America now.
          Marc, take it from a European - no senior US politician, from either party, can seriously be described as a Socialist.


          Frank
          Signature


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189535].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author myob
            Sounds like someone needs to get a better tax accountant, stock broker, and business consultant.
            This big fat capitalistic pig can help. See my sig.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189552].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Socialism stifles creativity. Democracy lifts up and encourages (or should that be Liberty instead of Democracy?)
              It isn't one or the other.

              We are already a socialist country. And a democracy. They aren't mutually exclusive terms.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189669].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
            Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

            Marc, take it from a European - no senior US politician, from either party, can seriously be described as a Socialist.


            Frank
            Agreed

            I see Obama and Powell as being somewhere between "right of centre"
            and "centre". This is far more sensible than extreme tendencies to
            either left or right wing politics.

            Socialism is NOT communism, faschism or totalitarianism. It is quite
            practical to have a blend of socialism and capitalism which benefits
            all. This can be seen operating in various Scandinavian countries,
            Middle Eastern oil states and elsewhere .... even in here in the UK
            where some degree of Socialism protects us from the perils of
            extreme right wing Capitalism.

            These are times to take off any "blinkers", and not to re-inforce
            counter-productive extreme prejudices, if things are to change
            for the better.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189941].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

              Agreed

              I see Obama and Powell as being somewhere between "right of centre"
              and "centre". This is far more sensible than extreme tendencies to
              either left or right wing politics.

              Socialism is NOT communism, faschism or totalitarianism. It is quite
              practical to have a blend of socialism and capitalism which benefits
              all. This can be seen operating in various Scandinavian countries,
              Middle Eastern oil states and elsewhere .... even in here in the UK
              where some degree of Socialism protects us from the perils of
              extreme right wing Capitalism.

              These are times to take off any "blinkers", and not to re-inforce
              counter-productive extreme prejudices, if things are to change
              for the better.

              Good post Mike...

              To be totally accurate, W. Europe is a "democratic socialism", which is vastly different the socialism.

              While capitalism/free market is the best economic system, it is far from perfect. One example is that it relies on consumption when sometimes conservation is in the best interests.

              Also, we've already established monopolies aren't good for society, as this eliminates competition. However, it also goes against the purest definition of "free market", where only the strong survive.

              I would back socialized medicine, as I don't think health and life are a birthright only for the wealthy. The US is something like 38th in life expectancy and this is really a shame...And I think the VA works as well as the public health care system.

              I'd also consider a socialist system for energy. I think low cost, clean, US produced energy will do more for our ecoonomy and defense than any other thing. Energy is often a monopoly, you generally can't choose who supplies your home with gas and electricity, so I'll take socialism in this case above a monopoly.

              Some will disagree. But this is why it's called DEMOCRATIC socialism. We all have the right to vote on these issues, unlike a true socialistic state.

              I like more public works than social programs. Getting a new highway or bridge to get you home from work 10 minutes faster improves everyone's lifestyle, regardless of race, age, sex, wealth, etc. Building dams, highways, internet infrastructure, new energy sources, etc, create good paying jobs. I'd like to put Americans to work on projects that help all, rather than hand out food stamps.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190156].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Emailrevealer
              Originally Posted by Mike Wright View Post

              Agreed

              I see Obama and Powell as being somewhere between "right of centre"
              and "centre". This is far more sensible than extreme tendencies to
              either left or right wing politics.
              Obama's foreign policy is orchestrated by Brizinsky, a David Rockefeller Trilateralist. Certainly could not be confused with a leftist or socialist by any stretch.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[191089].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author myob
                The US is virtually a socialist society now. Many popular members of our own Congress are socialists including the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) organization. The consolidation of Socialist power will begin when Obama is elected President. This is what most Americans want.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[191560].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author DJNeufeld
                Originally Posted by Emailrevealer View Post

                Obama's foreign policy is orchestrated by Brizinsky, a David Rockefeller Trilateralist. Certainly could not be confused with a leftist or socialist by any stretch.
                ...and McCain is the Rothschild's puppet.

                We really have no real choice.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201644].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mal Keenan
        That looks like a perfect description of what the U.S has become or is fast becoming. I'm not being funny.



        Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

        Marc

        If you believe that the government know better than you how to spend your money..

        If you are prepared to allow the government to interfere in virtually all areas of your life..

        If you believe that one of the main reasons for working is to help finance a bloated bureaucracy..

        If you believe that everyone is put on this planet to work for the good of the state, rather than themselves and their family and to continue to work until a designated retirement date (when the system decides they are of little further use)..

        If you are willing to abdicate all personal responsibility for how you live your life..

        If you would like to live in a society geared to the lowest commom denominator..

        Then socialism may be for you.
        On the original question, IMHO, any system that gives the Govt. more of a roll in society has to be bad.

        I think the U.S constitution - when it is actually adhered to - has it about right. Freedom of the individual with little interference from BIG government.

        I whole heartedly believe that a society or nation gets the government it deserves. If you find a significant section of the populace want to cream of society and be molly cuddled through life then government will gladly take up that roll and run their lives.

        So, when a system of government starts moving towards socialism it is through a desire of those in power to take more control. Great if you want to be controlled, not great if you want to be free.

        Think about it. It's actually quite insane - given the mess the world is in due to those currently in power - that we turn to them for a solution. At least it is from where I'm looking.

        A socialist system would give more power NOT less - so it gets a thumbs down from me.

        When the revolution comes I think the world will do away with big central governments altogether - socialist or otherwise.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190159].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Read up on political philosophy and political history. Socialism has been tried in many forms and it all leads to one end - power of the leaders, and oppression of the individual. All individual freedoms are monitored and directed for the "good" of the collective. What you see in our little "socialized" programs isn't even a taste of real socialism.

          In socialism, there will still be a ruling class - we will just lose the power to tell them what we will and will not accept. These ruling classes will still live better than the rest - and the rest do not live better for having socialism. Socialism oppresses the will of the individual for the "greater good of all". Yeah right.

          SO what is the greater good of all? Whatever the rulers decide. Socialism does not get rid of a ruling class - it empowers it.

          Is there a religion that is decided to be the "right" one? You will attend that church and the others will not be allowed.

          Is there an ideology that is decided we should believe - your schools will teach it and reject all other ideologies.
          What job will you be assigned?

          Will you have an IQ solid enough to get the education in the field you really want to follow or be allowed to do for work what you love to do?

          What happens when you are assigned housing in the city and you are not happy unless you live in the country?

          Will your socialized medicine allow you natural treatment if you want it? LOL. Sure it will as long as what you want is the decided form of medicine. We already have a quarter of a million dying each year, and millions even more ill because of our pharmaceutical corp controlled medical education and system - and you want it MORE socialized than our present insurances and legislations have made it? Won't you love it when experimenting on you with new drugs is legalized for the benefit of ALL? LOL.

          You will be allowed to have children if you meet the qualifications of society - and you will parent only according to the dictates of that society rather than in accordance with your own conscience. Will everyone be allowed to breed or will there be socialized rules for breeding? China has those rules now - and many people here think it is atrocious, yet a socialized system will make such laws very probable here, too.

          What happens if you have an opinion that doesn't suit the prescribed social norm and you are "taken out of the society" when you voice that opinion?

          That's what socialism does - sacrifices the individual for the "benefit" of all. What benefits "all" is sometimes deadly to the individual. What do you think happens to people who are not as able to produce in socialism? You see our welfare system as an example? Wrong. Our welfare system is just one little piece of socialism within a different political structure. Take our other structure out of the picture and you get some real problems. Now that many of our rights have been taken you can already see the effects there - people are being dictated to about what drugs they will give their children if their children do not follow in accordance to the system. Those who refuse lose their children. THAT is socialism.

          Individual freedom dies in socialism. Everything you do, everything you say must be in accordance with the rules of the collective. What happens when it is decided in a socialistic society that the weak can no longer be afforded? Can you say "euthogenics"? We have seen a socialized school system evolve and aren't you impressed with the education given? In a socialized society you either live by the prescribed norm or you are toast. Just because there is a collective to "support" the individual, by no means makes the individual "safe" and "cared for".

          We can already see where the socialism that has been introduced into this society bit by bit has led us -- are ya loving it yet?
          Take the republic part away and you are looking at complete loss of individualism. Oh and we have ID's, GPS, Cameras,
          and voice recorders, and all sorts of mind control devices now to make sure that you are in accordance with all rules at all times.

          No - this country was born a republic for a reason - and that reason was that people were sick of being oppressed and abused for not wanting or being able to conform to a rulers ideas of how to live. Every socialist society, of every form has met its end because people rejected it, whether it was dictatorship or democratic socialism. We are not becoming socialized at the people's will now either - except for the will of those with absolutely no education in political structures and history. At it's best you get Russia or China - at it's worst you get Hitler. It might be also well and good to point out that even in socialized countries, the elite have always lived far better than the rest and there have always been poor which barely get enough to survive when they survive at all. Ideologies that look good on paper still fall apart when real people are putting rules and schematics into action. You can't change the basic nature of the human to fit ideologies with any form of perfection. People aren't prone to follow the rules when there is benefit for themselves in not doing so. Socialism solves nothing except oppressing the will of the individual.

          I, for one, don't want to be employed at what I am TOLD to be employed at, go to doctors which are dictated to me, eat the food which I am told to eat, be educated only in the beliefs that my society wants me to know, or live where I am told to live. I LIKE a Republic, I LIKE my individual freedoms. For those of you who prefer to be herd animals - go where there is socialism and leave the rest of us to our republic instead of ripping it out from under us. I don't believe anyone should be given the right to do so. Our forefathers understood that - and if your educational system hadn't become socialized, you would, too.

          Give me liberty..........
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190492].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author John Henderson
          One characteristic that I see whenever I look at extreme political or religious philosophies is a complete lack of flexibility or ability to adapt. Extremist politics and fundamentalist religion tend to hold one text up as THE set of rules to be obeyed, no matter what the circumstances.

          So we have Islamic extremists fighting to turn the clock back and return the world to the dark ages, rather than updating their religion to cope with the modern world. Similarly, we can see Communists still trying to make sense of society by splitting it those who "control the means of production" and those who don't, because that's how Marx saw the world in the middle of the 19th century. Of course, such a simplistic view is hopelessly outdated.

          By contrast, the modern western world's intellectual structures are adaptable and flexible;
          • our political system is democracy
          • our economic system is capitalism
          • our system for understanding the universe is positivist science
          • our legal system grows organically and is based on case law and precedent -- not rigid, unchanging rules
          So that's why I think that Communism/Socialism is bad. It's not adaptable, and cannot change to accommodate changing circumstances. To see the result of this, take a look at Cuba or North Korea.

          However, there is a difference between a socialist system and a socialised system. Health care that is state-subsidised can be described as socialised medicine, but it doesn't mean that your country is socialist.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190518].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Careygee
            Politics, Governments, Cows and Humour

            Feudalism: You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream.

            Pure Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

            Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You're both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.

            Bureaucratic Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as its regulations say you should need.

            Fascism: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

            Pure Communism: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
            Russian Communism: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

            Communism: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for you share of the milk, but it's so long that the milk is sour by the time you get it.
            Dictatorship: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

            Militarism: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
            Pure Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.
            Representative Democracy: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

            American Democracy: The government promises to give you two cows if you vote for it. After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate." The cows are set free.

            Democracy, Democrat-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being so successful. You vote politicians into office who tax your cows, which forces you to sell one to pay the tax. The politicians use the tax money to buy a cow for your neighbor. You feel good. Barbra Streisand sings for you.

            Democracy, Republican-style: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You move to a better neighborhood.

            Indian Democracy: You have two cows. You worship them.

            British Democracy: You have two cows. You feed them sheep brains and they go mad. The government gives you compensation for your diseased cows, compensation for your lost income, and a grant not to use your fields for anything else. And tells the public not to worry.

            Bureaucracy: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

            Anarchy: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows.

            Capitalism: You have two cows. You lay one off, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when she drops dead.

            Singaporean Democracy: You have two cows. The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.

            Hong Kong Capitalism (alias Enron Capitalism):
            You have two cows.
            You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute an debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows.
            The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Isands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company.
            The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.
            Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad.

            Environmentalism: You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.

            Totalitarianism: You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

            Foreign Policy, American-Style: You have two cows. The government taxes them and uses the money to buy a cow for a poor farmer a country ruled by a dictator. The farmer has no hay to feed the cow and his religion forbids him from eating it. The cow dies. The man dies. The dictator confiscates the dead man's farm and sells it, using the money to purchase US military equipment. The President declares the program a success and announces closer ties with our new ally.

            Bureaucracy, American-Style: You have two cows but you have to kill one of them because the government will only give you a license for one of them. The license requires you to sell all your milk to the government, which uses it to make cheese. The government pays lots of money to store the cheese in refrigerated warehouses. When the cheese spoils, the government distributes it to the poor. The poor get sick from the cheese, go to the emergency room, and are turned away because they have no health insurance. The President declares the program a success and reminds us that we have the finest health care system in the world.

            American Corporation: You have two cows. You sell one to a subsidiary company and lease it back to yourself so you can declare it as a tax loss. Your bosses give you a huge bonus. You inject the cows with drugs and they produce four times the normal amount of milk. Your bosses give you a huge bonus. When the drugs cause one of the cows to drop dead you announce to the press that you have down-sized, reducing expenses by 50 percent. The company stock goes up and your bosses give you a huge bonus. You lay off all your workers and move your production facilities to Mexico. You get a huge bonus. You contribute some of your profit to the President's re-election campaign. The President announces tax cuts for corporations in order to stimulate the economy.

            Japanese Corporation: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You teach the cows to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Your cows always get higher test scores than cows in the U.S. or Europe, but they drink a lot of sake.

            German Corporation: You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year and are very expensive to repair.

            Russian Corporation: You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count your cows and discover you really have five cows! You have more vodka. You count them again and discover you have 42 cows! You stop counting cows and have some more vodka. The Russian Mafia arrives and takes over all your cows. You have more vodka.

            Italian Corporation: You have two cows but you can't find them. While searching for them you meet a beautiful woman, take her out to lunch and then make love to her. Life is good.

            French Corporation: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want another cow, more vacation and shorter work weeks. The French government announces that it will never agree to your demands. You go to lunch and eat fabulous food and drink wonderful wine. While you are at lunch, the airline pilots and flight controllers join your strike, shutting down all air traffic. The truckers block all the roads and the dock workers block all the ports. By dinner time the French government announces it agrees with all your demands. Life is good.

            Political Correctness: You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is an outdated symbol of your decadent, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently-aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender. They get married and adopt a calf.

            Counterculturalism: Wow, dude, there's like . . . these two cows, man. You have got to have some of this milk.

            Surrealism: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190575].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              That's great!

              I vote for surrealism - somehow it sounds more logical!
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
              what it is instead of what you think it should be.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190619].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author marcanthony
                So, for those of you against socialism. What do you suggest is better? And Why?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190930].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DJNeufeld
        Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

        Then welcome to the free world, my friend.
        Are we really free????
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201634].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
          Originally Posted by DJNeufeld View Post

          Are we really free????
          Yes, but there's a small shipping and handling charge.




          Frank
          Signature


          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201882].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author saybrah
    im not defending those leeches but everyone down there struggling is not...

    i lost everything however since my businesses are online minus the recording studio (ouch!) all i needed was a laptop and i was off. however my focus and motivation is what even after 3 years i'm still trying to get back.

    ok here is new orleans problem that was and will always be...
    New Orleans was a wealthy but most of the income goes out. Most people in the city shopped in the richer suburbs. Half of the people that worked in the city were from Mississippi or anywhere else within 50 miles so of course that money was going out.

    So where did that leave the city. High taxes, broken schools, and people with no hope or just didn't give a ...

    The bad thing about katrina was it's timing. Like I said I built a studio personally. Everything from walls to furniture. So to lose that hurt screw the money I put into it. I also lost a lot of vintage equipment that can't be replace.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189087].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gimmick
    A human is a social being, no one wants or can live alone, evertyhing is built on social interaction, so if socialism refers to that, surely it must be a healthty view?

    The problem is power, and always has been. Power corrupts always and the idal falls sooner or later, in that sense, there is only common sense and the real world problems to solve, in the most just way. All ism:s are dangerous, why follow any of them? We are only used to do so because this world is built like that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[189841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    Yup, even London's conservative major is endorsing Obama, as have many conservative MPs

    AFP: Boris for Barack! London mayor backs Democratic hopeful

    Derek
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[190118].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author phanes
    We should give freedom a try. Our health system is far from free, our schools are far from free, go down the list the government controls about everything. I can not think of one thing a person can do that is not regulated or taxed by the government.

    Socialism has always failed, they get proped up for awhile but eventually they fail.

    Check out misesDOTorg for info on a better way than socialism.

    Why do you think socialism is any good?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[191057].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gareth
    Heres why - Psychology.

    Its really very simple - just operant conditioning. Carrot and stick.

    Capitalism is supposed to reward those who are productive and punish those who are not. Quite simple.

    The problem is that people steal, sell drugs, whore themselves, borrow for non productive activities etc which erodes the whole point of it - but this operant conditioning is why western civilization has been so productive.

    Socialism on the other hand does not do this. So socialist societies have lagged way behind and have only made much of their progress by borrowing or stealing ideas from the west.

    By the way will it matter in 40 years when a desktop PC is 1000,000 x smarter than a person and there are more robots than people ?

    The problem is some people like to confuse things.

    They like to call say a drug dealer a capitalist, or financial regulation socialist. Then there are others who have the argument "but its not somebodies fault if they are productive or unproductive".

    This is not mature. As adults we have to take resonsibility. Thats part of the ego. So socialism to some extent erodes the ego but at the same time without law and order (regulation) capitalism is open to exploitation and subversion by disfunctional individuals.

    The objective is an adaptive and psychologically functional society.

    What do I suggest is better ? You better start reading up on science / technology and toss the politics in the rubbish bin.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[191573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Abel1337
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[191578].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
      Personal Freedom without constraints is Anarchy.
      Free markets without constraints are unworkable.

      Over millenia, mankind has learnt that it is beneficial
      to group together for all kinds of reasons as societies,
      nations, empires etc. For this to work, there have to be
      common purposes, rules, laws, codes etc for the particular
      group to function without disintegrating.

      The paradox is that whilst a society or nation could
      be free, it can only achieve that by removing at least
      some freedoms from its own members or citizens. In todays
      world, for things to remain workable and functional, even
      nations have to accept less freedom ... which naturally
      impacts further upon the freedom of individuals.

      Where such societies and nations develop along markedly
      differing cultures, idealogies, dogmas, religious beliefs etc.,
      then we have many more restrictions upon personal freedoms.
      Factor into this context such things as Wealth, Greed, Power,
      Politics, Military capabilities, Politics, Propagander, Intrigue
      and countless other not exactly benign activities on the part
      of Governments and Powerful Vested Interests .... and things
      start to become rather worse for the freedom and lifestyle
      of Joe Public.

      Even the first hunter-gathers were not free and were locked
      into a relentless quest for food and mutual benefit. Fundamentally
      that situation remains the same today for the majority of people.
      Even the Wealthy, Powerful and Rulers just buy into different
      constraints upon their freedoms .... even if they do have all the toys.

      Freedom is the great Myth ... much like the American Dream!
      Its true the world over. Only people can and do change that,
      sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. It matters
      not whether their particular society or nation operates some variety
      of democracy or any other system .... any extreme version is
      doomed to failure eventually. Empires have risen and fallen throughout
      history. For once we have an opportunity to level the playing field
      to the benefit of all nations and their citizens.

      Keynesian economics incorporates the principle that economies and
      governments have to both take and give back so as to even out
      economic cycles. This has been ignored and deplored most noticeably
      in the last three decades, fundamentally bringing about the current
      parlous state of the world in geopolitical and economic terms. The
      bubble has burst. The consequences will be painful for some.

      In any society, talented entrepreneurs and innovators become
      wealthy and influential. The majority are more concerned with
      more mundane requirements of everyday life such as having
      affordable food, housing, public transport, employment, education,
      healthcare, good roads, bridges, public utilities and some degree
      of overall security for the future. This benefits any nation, its
      economy and its citizens whether implemented in the UK, the US
      or even some highly autocratic Islamic oil state. Societies by
      definition need some degree of Socialism to function properly,
      prosper and perpetuate.

      There are libraries filled with weighty books on these topics.
      Would be a good time to actually read a few of them, and
      come to the realisation that knee-jerk responses are puerile
      in this huge global downturn/recession. We have to learn
      from previous history and experiences to solve and cure these
      problems. Patching up the existing house of cards is not a
      longterm option.

      As for Faschism, the entire global banking and financial marketing
      systems are Faschists controlling and profiting from every single
      aspect of everyday life and business at great cost to ourselves
      and reasonable lifestyle expectations. Where do you think spiralling
      costs/prices and inflation arise from ... and who pays the price???

      Lol, thats more than many would read in a lifetime or take the
      time to seriously consider. Hey ho
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[192780].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author henryweston
    it's really a bad system becaues no one has their rights, government has the full power and no one care for others
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[195325].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
      Originally Posted by henryweston View Post

      it's really a bad system becaues no one has their rights, government has the full power and no one care for others
      It would be helpful to know what country and political system
      those views are based upon ??
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[195631].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
        Lol,

        don't bother to answer my last question :rolleyes:

        Just been watching election coverage on TV from Ohio.

        The general consensus from McCain supporters at two events,
        plus the considered views of older generation Americans in a
        bowling alley, is that no way are they going to let America
        become a Leninist-Marxist-Socialist nightmare like the UK/EU is.
        1950 style McCarthyism is on a roll. Thaat is straight from the
        horse's mouths .... not some "foreign opinion" of their views.

        "McCarthyism" McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        The new J McC does not seem far removed from the old J McC.
        Both play upon the "sum of all fears" of Americans for personal
        gain and power.

        I guess it must be very difficult, when programmed from birth
        to hold certain values and viewpoints and to be teamplayers,
        to reconcile that with a profoundly conflicting illusion of
        personal freedom. Homeland Security, anti-terrorism laws, FBI,
        National Guard and surveillance of citizens by every means known to
        mankind does not produce a "land of the free".

        Bipolar hardly covers it .... doh
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[198030].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    What's ironic is, Palin is the most socialist governor in the US. Alaska sends every resident a check every year, based on the amount of oil sold to the big oil companies.

    The theory is, each person in the state of Alaska owns a fair share of the state's resources. This is pure socialism. Actually, it is DEMOCRATIC socialism.

    Palin didn't start this, but she hasn't done or said anything to stop this, either. As a matter of fact, she's bragged about it in her stump speeches.

    Having said this, I agree with how Alaska views and shares the profits from their energy resources, in that they should be shared with EVERYONE EQUALLY. But for Palin to call Obama a "socialist", considering these energy checks she gives out every year, is just a little hypocritical.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201676].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Exactly Kurt. I have wondered why this hasn't been brought up in recent days because of the tax and socialism charges. I mean, she raised taxes on the oil companies and gave the citizens a tax rebate. No wonder she is so popular. She's just "spreading the wealth" as they say. Big time.

      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      What's ironic is, Palin is the most socialist governor in the US. Alaska sends every resident a check every year, based on the amount of oil sold to the big oil companies.

      The theory is, each person in the state of Alaska owns a fair share of the state's resources. This is pure socialism. Actually, it is DEMOCRATIC socialism.

      Palin didn't start this, but she hasn't done or said anything to stop this, either. As a matter of fact, she's bragged about it in her stump speeches.

      Having said this, I agree with how Alaska views and shares the profits from their energy resources, in that they should be shared with EVERYONE EQUALLY. But for Palin to call Obama a "socialist", considering these energy checks she gives out every year, is just a little hypocritical.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[201857].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PamelaH
    Hello - Pam from Canada. This forum is addictive - I'm supposed to be advertising my opp. this afternoon and instead I came by here and have spent an hour reading posts. This post particularly interests me being from Canada. This won't be an intellectual post to this subject like some of yours - I just want to give you some food for thought.

    I don't know if you know that Canada borders on socialism. A warning to all of you - don't believe Michael Moore - a Government run health care system is NOT what you want. First of all, I love how everyone (including Canadians) refer to our Health Care System as "free" - it is not free! We are one of the highest taxed countries in the world - some of that tax goes to Health Care. We pay almost 35 to 40% taxes - and if you have investments that you want to cash - you pay 35% or more to the government on them. What breeds excellence in any profession or walk of life - competition. No competition - no incentive for excellence. There is so much incompetence in our health care system, you would shudder. Am I implying that our Doctors aren't as competent as your doctors - YES. Excellent doctors have gone elsewhere. Every week there are stories of people dying due to being misdiagnosed, being let of the hospital too soon, etc. Our hospitals are short of nursing staff. Hospitals can't afford to pay for enough staff. I don't know why.

    If you need an MRI or a catscan, etc. - you'll wait months. Hopefully you don't have cancer where every day is crucial. I'm not against a Health Care System where health care is available to everyone - I don't know what the answer is. There must be a middle road. I also think choices are nice - if one can afford private health insurance where they can be assured good quality care, MRI,s, etc. that can be made available sooner, I think it would be nice for people to be able to have that choice.

    Does a form of Socialism encourage entrepreneurship and ambition - no. When you run your own business in Canada, you are taxed to death. I have a friend who tried to run a motel and the taxman was at his door constantly. He finally gave up. It was so sad.

    Another example of socialism - my Mom is in a Care Home. My Dad worked hard all his life and provided well from my Mom when he passed away. Her monthly rate in this Home is double what some are paying. Does that seem fair - yes, on one hand, it's nice that everyone can afford to be in this Home but on the other, Dad worked harder and earned more - should Mom be paying for those that didn't work as hard. Again, food for thought.

    Anyway that's my two cents worth for what it's worth. Pam
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[203360].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pcalvert
      When I first saw this I thought, "He must have been reading the Off-Topic Forum":


      'What's wrong with socialism?'
      Signature

      "If a cat sits on a hot stove, that cat won't sit on a hot stove again.
      That cat won't sit on a cold stove either." - Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[204537].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author pcalvert
      Originally Posted by PamelaH View Post

      I don't know if you know that Canada borders on socialism. A warning to all of you - don't believe Michael Moore - a Government run health care system is NOT what you want. First of all, I love how everyone (including Canadians) refer to our Health Care System as "free" - it is not free! We are one of the highest taxed countries in the world - some of that tax goes to Health Care. We pay almost 35 to 40% taxes - and if you have investments that you want to cash - you pay 35% or more to the government on them. What breeds excellence in any profession or walk of life - competition. No competition - no incentive for excellence. There is so much incompetence in our health care system, you would shudder. Am I implying that our Doctors aren't as competent as your doctors - YES. Excellent doctors have gone elsewhere. Every week there are stories of people dying due to being misdiagnosed, being let of the hospital too soon, etc. Our hospitals are short of nursing staff. Hospitals can't afford to pay for enough staff. I don't know why.

      If you need an MRI or a catscan, etc. - you'll wait months. Hopefully you don't have cancer where every day is crucial. I'm not against a Health Care System where health care is available to everyone - I don't know what the answer is. There must be a middle road. I also think choices are nice - if one can afford private health insurance where they can be assured good quality care, MRI,s, etc. that can be made available sooner, I think it would be nice for people to be able to have that choice.
      Sounds like an HMO from Hell.

      Phil
      Signature

      "If a cat sits on a hot stove, that cat won't sit on a hot stove again.
      That cat won't sit on a cold stove either." - Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[206319].message }}

Trending Topics