ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Socialism

Report this
Created by: DUKAT!!!!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 08 2013, 9:41 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>So maybe we should reform the system? Giving help to those who need it, as opposed to those who simply want it?
Who defines "need" vs. "want" ??


See... as long as the government can make those determinations, they choose who's wealth gets redistributed from/to.... usually because who's voting for them / bribing them with "political donations."


 


No... the government should not be in this business at all - privately or corporately.  The government should not be picking winners and losers.


 


We all have needs and wants, but it is our own private responsibility to try to meet/fulfill them.  As soon as we tell someoene else that they must meet our needs/wants, they become our slaves.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 08 2013, 9:49 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>Proven by whom? I've seen evidence for both methods, from countries invlolving people who both do and do not want to support themselves. And, often, both and in the same systems.
Proven by multiple studies in multiple countries.


Take a look at unemployment benefits in multiple countries - the longer the benefits last, the longer people stay unemployed, but when unemployment runs out.... all the sudden people have a job.  As unemployment benefits were expanded, more people to advantage of it.  As the time to receive unemployment benefits lengthened, so did the mean time for being unemployed.  In countries that decided to cut unemployment benefits, more and more people "miraculously" found work.


 


If people really want to address the risk of unemployment, they should be free to purchase their own unemployment insurance.


 


Take my parents for example - they have lived off government handounds for a lot of my life and they keep voting for politicians who promise them more.  They choose to do so and will do so for the rest of their lives.  They think that anyone else that has earned money owe that money to them because of "fairness."  They want others to pay for their home, car, phones, internet, satellite TV,, food, etc., but don't want to work for it..... but why work for it if you don't have to?

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 08 2013, 9:50 am

Yes, in the same way they "agree" to pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. They would not agree to pay for those things or work for, as one person put it, "less than a literal walk in the park" if they weren't FORCED to.


Individuals agree to pay for food, etc. as a result of common law, the recognition of customs that have developed over time to regulate peaceful and voluntary interaction. For example, if I don't pay for food, than I am stealing from another individual. If a steal from him, it stands to reason that he can steal from me. I don't want him to steal from me, so I won't steal from him. It's the golden rule, common curtiousy. Your statement, as written, implies the support of theft. 

What right does anyone have to claim something as their property? You can say that the Constitution grants us the right to own property but then who gave the Founders the right to draft the Constitution? Who gave the people who voted to ratify it the right to do so? Etc.


Cultural traditions, inheritance, etc... And just because someone may claim property, that does not mean they will retain that property. Property retainment is largely based on productivity in a competitive free market. The Constitution didn't create laws randomly, but is a transcription of common law, those laws that were already in play and recognized as being legitimate by society for it's benefit.  

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 08 2013, 9:54 am

Maybe employers should do more for their employees if they want people to be dependent on them instead of the government.


Maybe the government should end or at least reduce taxation, so that these businesses have more money to save and expand their business, which includes offering competitive wages to employees. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 08 2013, 10:06 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:54 am

>

>Maybe employers should do more for their employees if they want people to be dependent on them instead of the government.

>Maybe the government should end or at least reduce taxation, so that these businesses have more money to save and expand their business, which includes offering competitive wages to employees. 

>
Don't forget the cost of regulations....


What's sad is that the socialists think that business owners somehow have more money to "give" to employees than employers actually have or than employees actually earn based on the value of the work.  If I have $100 / hour total to pay 10 employees (and I'm only breaking even,) they still expect me to be able to pay 100 employees each $100/hour for a job that's only worth $2/hour.


Guess that's why we're $16.5 trillion in debt (just feds) plus the states and unfunded liabilities...  and the ProRegressives lack of math skills keep saying that it's okay and to continue.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 08 2013, 10:19 am

Don't forget the cost of regulations....


For sure. Taxation and the cost of regulations are one in the same in my book. It infuriates me how political entrepreneurs will hijack legislation and impose regulations on their market competitors (while exempting themselves) to drive their competition out of business. When entering into the free market, the biggest advantage to new businesses is offering their services at lower prices, as opposed to their established competition. Taxation hinders this ability, and the cost of regulations adds to it.


I'm angered right now at my own place of work, because of government mandated regulations that require a break if working so many scheduled hours. Even though I'm not scheduled, I still have to go on an inconvenient  break or risk discompensation.  

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 3:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:38 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>What force?
government is force.  Taxation is done by the government, and if you don't pay...


"The government is force?" Are you an anarchist?

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 3:53 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:41 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>So maybe we should reform the system? Giving help to those who need it, as opposed to those who simply want it?
Who defines "need" vs. "want" ??

See... as long as the government can make those determinations, they choose who's wealth gets redistributed from/to.... usually because who's voting for them / bribing them with "political donations."

 

No... the government should not be in this business at all - privately or corporately.  The government should not be picking winners and losers.

 

We all have needs and wants, but it is our own private responsibility to try to meet/fulfill them.  As soon as we tell someoene else that they must meet our needs/wants, they become our slaves.


"Need" should, in most cases, be obvious. Someone who is mentally and/or physically disabled, and therefore lacks the ability to work, cannot be expected to work. A welfare system should exist to provide for them, as they cannot provide for themselves. Without one, they would be forced to depend on hand-outs, which in truth are few and far between (especially for those without the mental capacity to find them), which would often be a death sentence.


I'd even say that people who aren't working due to economic crises, such as we are facing now, are in need, and should recieve benefits, so long as they can prove that they are actively seeking employment.


On the other hand, anyone who can work, but simply doesn't want to, should recieve nothing.

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 3:56 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:49 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>Proven by whom? I've seen evidence for both methods, from countries invlolving people who both do and do not want to support themselves. And, often, both and in the same systems.
Proven by multiple studies in multiple countries.

Take a look at unemployment benefits in multiple countries - the longer the benefits last, the longer people stay unemployed, but when unemployment runs out.... all the sudden people have a job.  As unemployment benefits were expanded, more people to advantage of it.  As the time to receive unemployment benefits lengthened, so did the mean time for being unemployed.  In countries that decided to cut unemployment benefits, more and more people "miraculously" found work.

 

If people really want to address the risk of unemployment, they should be free to purchase their own unemployment insurance.

 

Take my parents for example - they have lived off government handounds for a lot of my life and they keep voting for politicians who promise them more.  They choose to do so and will do so for the rest of their lives.  They think that anyone else that has earned money owe that money to them because of "fairness."  They want others to pay for their home, car, phones, internet, satellite TV,, food, etc., but don't want to work for it..... but why work for it if you don't have to?


I ask again, proven by whom? Show me studies.

Irina Galliulin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 38

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 6:10 am

Socialism work perfect, had us replicators. Nobody starv or need job. No money, people like brothers, socialism be utopia.

jeanluckirk737

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 56

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 6:30 am

I live in the UK, and I'm a sociolist. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE MONARCHY INFURIATES ME?


jeanluckirk737

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 56

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 6:33 am

Quote: Irina Galliulin @ Feb. 09 2013, 6:10 am

>

>Socialism work perfect, had us replicators. Nobody starv or need job. No money, people like brothers, socialism be utopia.

>


I AGREE


"Who am I to argue with the captain of the Enterprise?"- Kirk to Picard. 2371.

Mason330

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 7:17 am

To sacrfice one's freedoms and liberties for the sake of government makes no sense.  Small Government = More Freedom.


Kirk out.

jcan1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 9:33 am

Why is it one way or the other?  I did not vote because I believe just a little bit of socialism is a good thing.  100% socialism is terrible, and 100% Capitalism is worse. Examples like Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, and SS Disability are straigh up socialist programs that actually help.  The advantage of these is that they keep the old, sick, and dying people off of our streets, while also helping to put a curb to things like the flu or more serious illnesses that are easily spread.  At the same time, regulated Capitalism is good to, as it funds the social programs, inspires innovation, talent, and skill.  It also encourages people to work.  People keep trying to tell me that the two are incompatable, yet it has worked in the U.S. for the last 100 years.  There is always such a thing as going to far.  America has become the land of extremes, and it won't work well for us to be either 100% Capitalism or 100% socialism.  This is why our government is designed the way it was.  It encourages open debate so that we the people can decide what is good and what isn't with each individual bill.   As I said earlier, America is a land of extremes, so many people do not understand this middle ground.  Its the extremism that causes polls like this, and encourages hatred and intolorence of people with other view points.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46303

Report this Feb. 09 2013, 9:34 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 3:49 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:38 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:50 am

>

>

>What force?
government is force.  Taxation is done by the government, and if you don't pay...

"The government is force?" Are you an anarchist?

Obviously not!  If you actually read what I write, you'll see that support very limited (Constitutional) government.  Anarchy doesn't lead to liberty.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum