Mob burns Venezuelan man alive over $5 as justice fails

[chazus]

So why are they testing Basic Income in Europe, besides to streamline the welfare system?

That's pretty much exactly why.

In virtually every test that every country has done, it ends up costing less money to just... Give people money.. Than it does to fully fund a support system for the poor. I really don't have any desire to dig deep into it, as this isn't the thread for it, but there's plenty of research if you want to look it up. The long and short of it is, if they give people enough money for things like rent/mortgage, they end up not needing the services for welfare (or relying less on it). That administrative overhead relieved is a larger amount relieved than what they're effectively handing out.

[Docturphil]

I mean we're talking about a country whose greatest contribution to the world is CrazyBus. Are you really all that surprised?

[Aradur]

Well...it's Venezuela...i mean, what exactly did you expect?

[Kapadons]

You got it backwards, the fastest way to destroy society is provide everything for them to live without them having to work for it. If you get welfare you need to work for it, that's not too much too ask.

There is a world of difference between making sure people don't starve and providing everything for them without making them work.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Flash mobs burning people alive in public isn't uncommon in Venezuela.

Poor + uneducated + starving + almost zero government infrastructure in many parts of the country.

[Forogil]

"Inefficient" is not even cutting it. Americans pay nearly double than Europeans, to have a lower quality.

That is almost a text-book definition of inefficient.

You might want to reconnect to the definition of "socialist" in the XXIst century.

You mean I should embrace republican use of "socialist medicine" - and that Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Singapore, Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, US are all socialist countries?

I will not embrace post-truth, especially not when Venezuela and others such as J.Corbyn in the UK still cling to the old concept, and some countries have parties have yet to abandon "socialist" in their names.

However, the parties with "socialists" in their names are not in power in the top-10 countries. Coincidence?

[Donald Hellscream]

https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/866643202056613889

Absolutely brutal, what a bunch of cunts.

I wish they had accidently lit themselves on fire aswell.. Things may be dire in Venezuela but that does not excuse dousing someone in gasoline and setting them a blaze, thank god I never have to visit that place.

[Heladys]

"as justice fails"... based on what? Was he innocent?

[Akka]

That is almost a text-book definition of inefficient.

Yes, but the amount of inefficiency is gross enough to deserve several derogatory adjectives on top of that.

You mean I should embrace republican use of "socialist medicine" - and that Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Singapore, Netherlands, Ireland, Iceland, Canada, US are all socialist countries?

I will not embrace post-truth, especially not when Venezuela and others such as J.Corbyn in the UK still cling to the old concept, and some countries have parties have yet to abandon "socialist" in their names.

Actually, I'm just reminding you that "socialism" today means "welfare state", not "communism".

However, the parties with "socialists" in their names are not in power in the top-10 countries. Coincidence?

You mean Denmark with the "social democrats" who finished first in 2015, Norway with the "socialist left party" which was the second-highest party in government up to 2013, Germany with the "social democratic party" ?

[Noradin]

"as justice fails"... based on what? Was he innocent?

He wasn't convicted by a court, so yes, we have to assume he was innocent.
Maybe he was simply running late and the old man was the one commiting a crime (lying about having been mugged).

[Forogil]

Yes, but the amount of inefficiency is gross enough to deserve several derogatory adjectives on top of that.

It is within the normal for inefficient.

Actually, I'm just reminding you that "socialism" today means "welfare state", not "communism".

I understand that you have fully embraced the alternative facts.

"Welfare state" is an adequate term - and is not the same as socialism.

This is a thread about Venezuela that socialists used as an example of a socialist state in the 21st century a few years ago.

You mean Denmark with the "social democrats" who finished first in 2015,

Yes. Social democrats not socialists - so not the "Socialist People's Party" an actual smaller party in Denmark.

Norway with the "socialist left party" which was the second-highest party in government up to 2013,

Exactly. The senior partner was Labour party - not "socialists". The "socialist left party" had a short time of fame at that point - to think that they are the reason that Norway is on top of the list is ridiculous.

Germany with the "social democratic party" ?

Yes. Not "socialists". There is no longer a major party with "socialist" in the name in Germany, although "Die Linke" still has some socialist leanings.

[Akka]

I understand that you have fully embraced the alternative facts.

Wow, you're on some pretty impressive grasping at straws here just to be able to wash away the "ism". That's obsession-level of nitpicking here.

[Forogil]

Wow, you're on some pretty impressive grasping at straws here just to be able to wash away the "ism". That's obsession-level of nitpicking here.

The difference between "socialists" and "social democrats" is not just some minor nitpicking - and your original claim was all of the top-countries were "socialists" - and even with your confusion you only managed to show some shred of evidence for that in 30% of the cases.

All of the countries you listed have or have recently had a minor party called "socialists" (that actually propagated for "socialism") - in contrast to the major "social democrats" or "labour" party.

That is not just a few characters of difference - but the difference between a reformist democratic party desiring a welfare state - and a party wanting to nationalize industries - i.e. to introduce socialism (sometimes by democratic means; sometimes in other ways).

The problem in Venezuela wasn't the desire for a welfare system - but that the means of production were seized by an inept and corrupt state - i.e. the socialism part.