Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
8
9
17
... LastLast
  1. #121
    All socialism means is the government takes over certain things in our society, like schools, military, and hospitals. You know, things that shouldn't be run for profit! Too many people here in America have this impression that the free market is perfect and best left alone. The brainwashing they receive from groups like the Tea Party that strongly imply that if you need the government to help you, then you aren't having a tough time finding a job or getting health care, you are just lazy. True socialism brings equality to (mostly) everyone, but leaves very little room for personal advancement.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Niteynite View Post
    True socialism brings equality to (mostly) everyone, but leaves very little room for personal advancement.
    Haha. Like schools of choice?

    http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7...6922--,00.html

    This democrat passed law completely ruined the District I graduated from and many others around urban areas. The district had just been funded millions to renovate the high school, shortly after that the schools of choice was passed. Turned the district from 80% white into 95% black, most of whom were out of district. The tax payers in our district payed MILLIONS for these people to just come in and ruin the entire school. Socialism at its finest.

    Ever heard of white flight? Its true and its sad. We cant even be safe in our own communities anymore. There are so many problems with hard drugs even in the borderline rural areas. Because of school of choice.

    Do democrats even have a heart? I mean, kids have died because of this.
    Last edited by Pat1234; 2012-07-14 at 05:14 AM.

  3. #123
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    That's a separate argument, albeit one I heavily agree on. I'm just pissed that I have to pay 25-30% b/w state and federal income tax and then I turn around and see people barking for 'free' college and 'free' healthcare to add to their food stamp collection and subsidized rent.
    I doubt you paid much at all in federal taxes.. that's what Romney disclosed..

    hell I'm in the 15% bracket (married filing jointly) and I only paid 3% after deductions..

    ---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 05:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Niteynite View Post
    All socialism means is the government takes over certain things in our society, like schools, military, and hospitals. You know, things that shouldn't be run for profit! Too many people here in America have this impression that the free market is perfect and best left alone. The brainwashing they receive from groups like the Tea Party that strongly imply that if you need the government to help you, then you aren't having a tough time finding a job or getting health care, you are just lazy. True socialism brings equality to (mostly) everyone, but leaves very little room for personal advancement.
    give me an example of a functional nation that is truly socialist.. not just a big government capitalist society like most scandinavian nations

    ---------- Post added 2012-07-14 at 05:06 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    Workplace Health and Safety regulations.
    Minimum wages.
    40 hour standard work week with overtime compensation.
    Paid vacation.

    I lean towards anarchocapitalism personally, but I do enjoy some of the finer, smaller contributions of labour-centric socialism, particularly (and exclusively) as they pertain to the rights of the individual labourer. I don't support "big union" labour though.

    EDIT: As far as the minimum wage point goes though, I think it should be enough that if somebody is paid minimum wage they should be able to subsist by working 40 hours a week, I don't support 'run-away' minimum wages that just end up driving inflation and screwing over the middle class.
    so in other words you support American capitalism? minus the bit about minimum wage which can never be a true living wage until machines can automate enough of our lives that they can make obsolete most of the jobs that currently fit into the minimum wage job category.. which creates an whole new set of problems..
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  4. #124
    I find a slight irony that some of this discussion has transgressed into a Capitalism vs Socialism/Communism. While Capitalism is pretty much a contradition of those two societies, it feels like people are saying the United States' government is Capitalism... it's a Republic the last time I checked, with capitalistic tendacies.

    While we can get into a whole discussion over which system we would prefer to live under (and if you like the form of government in your country, far be it from me to tell you that you're wrong, it's your country!), as a citizen of the US I'd prefer the country to remain a Republic. I will admit that our form of government has begun to stray from what the Founders intended, however they knew exactly what would happen. Many of the great minds behind the US Constitution didn't just make up a form of government randomly, they had studied many forms of government and decided on our special form of a Republic (attempts at Democracies, monarchies, and socialistic forms of government have been around for thousands of years). If you want true insight into what they were thinking, please feel free to read documents such as the Federalist papers to see what they really meant.

    I cannot do justice with such limited space, but I can generalize as best as possible the reasons why the Founders decided upon this form of government over things like democratic, socialistic, or authoritarian societies. I noticed quite a few posts citing the problems with all governments, and that is man can become corrupted... well, the Founders knew the governments (and the people that run the governments) tend to want to grow in power and become corrupt, hence the lengths at which the US Constitution goes to make sure the government cannot wrest the liberties of the people away. This lead to the separation of the governmental powers, checks/balances, the election system, the enumerated powers of branches of government/states/people, etc. The government is designed to be inefficient as to prevent them from assuming power over its citizens. However, even with all these systems in place, the Founders knew this system of government could still be corrupted. So what was to keep the government from doing so?

    The citizens of the United States. It is the responsibility of the US citizens to ensure that their government remains as the Republic envisioned in the US Constitution. This is why the right to vote is supposed to be the most important duty of a citizen.

    Now, I believe the US government is sliding towards a socialistic version of itself. This has been a slow process, starting over a hundred years ago, and the current result is what we have today. The two-word summation is soft despotism, feel free to look up what that is. Only the citizens of the country can rectify the situation, and those wishing for the country to degrade into a socialistic society know this. That is why tiny things have been added to the US government over the years, and while they are supposedly "for the good of the people," in the end they are a form of control. In order to prevent people from voting those in power out, the people are conditioned so that such occurrences do not happened.

    If you want the most recent version of such control, as it's a pretty popular subject now, is nationalized healthcare. Well, first and foremost, dating back as far as Plato and his version of a Utopian society, Hobbe's Leviathan, and to more modern conceptions of Communism and Socialism, the big cornerstone of control lies in the centralized control of the health and well-being of the populace by whoever ran their respective societies. While I'd recommend people read these instead of taking my word for it, their concept of healthcare always resulted in a form of control by those in charge of the society. You think rationed healthcare based on what the government deems necessary and "death panels" are new concepts? They're needed for these societies to function, and these men stated explicitly why, the summarized version being for the good of the society. However, starting as early as Plato, the forms of government failed because they would all oppress the governed people in the end. Again, I'm doing broad stroke summaries, feel free to read each individual work to get the exact details.

    I'd also like to tackle a different aspect of people's points of a socialistic society spreading the wealth and providing for everyone.

    Having been part of a government-run healthcare system before, I'll let you know right now: it does NOT give everyone healthcare as advertised. If you're even lucky enough to get healthcare (yes, you can still be denied care with nationalized healthcare), compared to private healthcare you wait much longer to receive care and the quality of care is worse. Have you ever been told by your doctor, "Well, I want to do this procedure for you since it's better and has a higher success rate, but the regulations say I can't do that for you. I can perform this other procedure for you, but it's likely a waste of time and won't work."? Guess what... I was told that. Welcome to government-run healthcare.

    The next argument that will be thrown around is how the poor cannot afford X and Y, some of which is healthcare. While it'd be easy for me to say that many cases of being "poor" are severely relative, especially in the US compared to other countries, I'll offer up my own personal experience. Yes, when growing up in the US I was poor as a child... we're talking "dinner is saltine crackers with a dab of ketchup" poor, assuming there was dinner that night. However, government didn't help my family out of poverty, our church and community did. Little by little, we worked hard and bettered our condition of living to where we are today. There was no sense of entitlement, in fact we hated receiving free things and made sure we earned what we got. No, I wasn't a criminal because of my poor upbringing, if you're wondering.

    The whole concept of people working together for the betterment of other people is very good and alive, but its place is with the people, not a government. If the government comes along and says you need something, chances are it's something you can already get, whatever your circumstances may be. In the US (and likely elsewhere), if I asked you if you would trust a politician, what would you say? Likely, one would say no. If you say no, why do you think it's a good idea to let someone you don't trust control aspects of your life?

    In closing, I'll offer a little bit of American history since it relates to the discussion at hand. When the US Constitution was being formed, there were mainly two sides to the discussion, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some may automatically think these directly translate into Republican/Democrat, but that's actually not true as the current parties have evolved quite a bit over time. The Federalists wanted a weak, centralized government while leaving the bulk of the power to the States/citizens, and the Anti-Federalists wanted more of a confederacy of States with no central government. Notice something? Both sides were in agreement that the US did not want a big, centralized government holding the majority of power (like what the US has today). Unfortunately, in socialistic societies, the government must retain most, if not all, the power over the people... which is the exact same thing as oppression, the opposite of what the country was founded upon.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2012-07-14 at 05:34 AM. Reason: clarifications
    *Since I'm tired of reposting the link:* EH vs TTL and Hybrid Tax

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post
    I find a slight irony that some of this discussion has transgressed into a Capitalism vs Socialism/Communism. While Capitalism is pretty much a contradition of those two societies, it feels like people are saying the United States' government is Capitalism... it's a Republic the last time I checked, with capitalistic tendacies.

    While we can get into a whole discussion over which system we would prefer to live under (and if you like the form of government in your country, far be it from me to tell you that you're wrong, it's your country!), as a citizen of the US I'd prefer the country to remain a Republic. I will admit that our form of government has begun to stray from what the Founders intended, however they knew exactly what would happen. Many of the great minds behind the US Constitution didn't just make up a form of government randomly, they had studied many forms of government and decided on our special form of a Republic (attempts at Democracies, monarchies, and socialistic forms of government have been around for thousands of years). If you want true insight into what they were thinking, please feel free to read documents such as the Federalist papers to see what they really meant.

    I cannot do justice with such limited space, but I can generalize as best as possible the reasons why the Founders decided upon this form of government over things like democratic, socialistic, or authoritarian societies. I noticed quite a few posts citing the problems with all governments, and that is man can become corrupted... well, the Founders knew the governments (and the people that run the governments) tend to want to grow in power and become corrupt, hence the lengths at which the US Constitution goes to make sure the government cannot wrest the liberties of the people away. This lead to the separation of the governmental powers, checks/balances, the election system, the enumerated powers of branches of government/states/people, etc. The government is designed to be inefficient as to prevent them from assuming power over its citizens. However, even with all these systems in place, the Founders knew this system of government could still be corrupted. So what was to keep the government from doing so?

    The citizens of the United States. It is the responsibility of the US citizens to ensure that their government remains as the Republic envisioned in the US Constitution. This is why the right to vote is supposed to be the most important duty of a citizen.

    Now, I believe the US government is sliding towards a socialistic version of itself. This has been a slow process, starting over a hundred years ago, and the current result is what we have today. The two-word summation is soft despotism, feel free to look up what that is. Only the citizens of the country can rectify the situation, and those wishing for the country to degrade into a socialistic society know this. That is why tiny things have been added to the US government over the years, and while they are supposedly "for the good of the people," in the end they are a form of control. In order to prevent people from voting those in power out, the people are conditioned so that such occurrences do not happened.

    If you want the most recent version of such control, as it's a pretty popular subject now, is nationalized healthcare. Well, first and foremost, dating back as far as Plato and his version of a Utopian society, Hobbe's Leviathan, and to more modern conceptions of Communism and Socialism, the big cornerstone of control lies in the centralized control of the health and well-being of the populace by whoever ran their respective societies. While I'd recommend people read these instead of taking my word for it, their concept of healthcare always resulted in a form of control by those in charge of the society. You think rationed healthcare based on what the government deems necessary and "death panels" are new concepts? They're needed for these societies to function, and these men stated explicitly why, the summarized version being for the good of the society. However, starting as early as Plato, the forms of government failed because they would all oppress the governed people in the end. Again, I'm doing broad stroke summaries, feel free to read each individual work to get the exact details.

    I'd also like to tackle a different aspect of people's points of a socialistic society spreading the wealth and providing for everyone.

    Having been part of a government-run healthcare system before, I'll let you know right now: it does NOT give everyone healthcare as advertised. If you're even lucky enough to get healthcare, compared to private healthcare you wait much longer to receive care and the quality of care is worse. Have you ever been told by your doctor, "Well, I want to do this procedure for you since it's better and has a higher success rate, but the regulations say I can't do that for you. I can perform this other procedure for you, but it's likely a waste of time and won't work."? Guess what... I was told that. Welcome to government-run healthcare.

    The next argument that will be thrown around is how the poor cannot afford X and Y, some of which is healthcare. While it'd be easy for me to say that many cases of being "poor" are severely relative, especially in the US compared to other countries, I'll offer up my own personal experience. Yes, when growing up in the US I was poor as a child... we're talking "dinner is saltine crackers with a dab of ketchup" poor, assuming there was dinner that night. However, government didn't help my family out of poverty, our church and community did. Little by little, we worked hard and bettered our condition of living to where we are today. There was no sense of entitlement, in fact we hated receiving free things and made sure we earned what we got. No, I wasn't a criminal because of my poor upbringing, if you're wondering.

    The whole concept of people working together for the betterment of other people is very good and alive, but its place is with the people, not a government. If the government comes along and says you need something, chances are it's something you can already get, whatever your circumstances may be. In the US (and likely elsewhere), if I asked you if you would trust a politician, what would you say? Likely, one would say no. If you say no, why do you think it's a good idea to let someone you don't trust control aspects of your life?

    In closing, I'll offer a little bit of American history since it relates to the discussion at hand. When the US Constitution was being formed, there were mainly two sides to the discussion, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some may automatically think these directly translate into Republican/Democrat, but that's actually not true as the current parties have evolved quite a bit over time. The Federalists wanted a weak, centralized government while leaving the bulk of the power to the States/citizens, and the Anti-Federalists wanted more of a confederacy of States with no central government. Notice something? Both sides were in agreement that the US did not want a big, centralized government holding the majority of power (like what the US has today). Unfortunately, in socialistic societies, the government must retain most, if not all, the power over the people... which is the exact opposite of what the country was founded upon.
    Great post!

    Infracted
    Last edited by Pendulous; 2012-07-14 at 06:51 AM.

  6. #126
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northwest USA
    Posts
    2,708
    awesome post Exochaft! thank you!
    the most beautiful post I have ever read.. thank you Dr-1337 http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post22624432

  7. #127
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sioux Falls, South Dakota
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by exochaft View Post

    In closing, I'll offer a little bit of American history since it relates to the discussion at hand. When the US Constitution was being formed, there were mainly two sides to the discussion, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some may automatically think these directly translate into Republican/Democrat, but that's actually not true as the current parties have evolved quite a bit over time. The Federalists wanted a weak, centralized government while leaving the bulk of the power to the States/citizens, and the Anti-Federalists wanted more of a confederacy of States with no central government. Notice something? Both sides were in agreement that the US did not want a big, centralized government holding the majority of power (like what the US has today). Unfortunately, in socialistic societies, the government must retain most, if not all, the power over the people... which is the exact same thing as oppression, the opposite of what the country was founded upon.
    That is incredibly inconvenient.

  8. #128
    Never thought I'd see the day MMO-Champ forums contained the names Plato and Hobbes in the same post.

    /salute good sir

  9. #129
    Before we try concepts of socialism on the national scale, can start somewhere small, say redistributing GPA scores on college campuses. On a 4.0 scale any people that score more then a 3.2gpa have the higher points given to those who are at the bottom of the gpa scale. How well do you think that this idea would go over with students? My hard work and effort would be given to another person who refuses to put in the same effort as I chose to do so that I can look better then lazy people just like them.

  10. #130
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Detroit mi
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaibhan View Post
    Socialism infringes on our basic human right on the pursuit of happiness. We do need an overhaul of the system but not a replacement of the system imo. The problem with your post is that it's based entirely off of theory. And in theory it would be great.
    you could also say in theory socialism is horrible, if you were one of the people who had a great idea or a person that worked their ass off to be great at something. i dont agree with socialism personally, i think hard work and great minds deserve/earn what they get. the US is borderline socialist today anyways IMO. everyone always begs for the government to do something, instead of them doing anything at all to change it. now dont get me wrong, it is very nice to have a government that is helpful but i think our government spends too much wasting money on things they shouldnt, especially considering the problems we have here and the money we spend overseas.
    Last edited by jmacphee9; 2012-07-14 at 05:53 AM.
    Intel [email protected]
    Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H-B3
    Gigabyte N560OC 1gb gpu
    Corsair 2x4gb
    Antec v2 Two Hundred
    Razer Blackwidow Ultimate
    Razer Naga

  11. #131
    Warchief Kivimetsan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    A fascistic nightmare...
    Posts
    2,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Illitti View Post
    In capitalism, the one who "wins" is the person who can manipulate the market and "play money" the best. Who do you think earns more: a person who cleans toilets 16 hours a day or a person who fiddles with his stock portfolio that he got from being born to a rich parents? Who do you think SHOULD earn more? Who do you think contributes more to the success of the society?
    That is the worst analysis of capitalism iv ever seen. Not even joking, that is trash. First of all, I am currently studying business (I wanted to be a trader) and my parents ARE NOT RICH.

    The person cleaning the toilet didn't try as hard as I did to get into uni... why is he entitlement to my wealth and property?

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Wthrmn View Post
    Before we try concepts of socialism on the national scale, can start somewhere small, say redistributing GPA scores on college campuses. On a 4.0 scale any people that score more then a 3.2gpa have the higher points given to those who are at the bottom of the gpa scale. How well do you think that this idea would go over with students? My hard work and effort would be given to another person who refuses to put in the same effort as I chose to do so that I can look better then lazy people just like them.
    I will let you know that this does already happen in some US colleges/universities to some degree. While I was working on my BS, my school's Engineering Department had this rule about grades: The highest scoring student will have their score adjusted to a perfect score, and everyone else will have their raised up by the same amount. For example, suppose the highest score on an exam was 60%, that score was raised to 100% and the rest of the class had 40% added on to their scores.

    Now, what do you think happened?

    People who did well on exams were quickly hated by their classmates. Students felt they were cheated out higher grades because someone had the nerve to score better than them on their exam. In most cases, those high-scoring students were pressured into lowering their own scores so the rest of the students could receive good marks. The end result was most of the students not even trying to do well on exams, many not learning the material they were taught (obviously some did retain it regardless).

    One year, though, there were a couple of students who refused to do poorly on their exams (they were my friends, go figure). Sure, the students got mad at them, they were bullied to some degree, called haters/racists (never really understood this one, considering mostly everyone was Caucasian, made me laugh at the absurdity though)/<insert explicatives>/etc. Even enduring all this distress, guess what happened? Most of the students (not all) started actually trying learn and do well on exams. While the outcome of exams certainly wasn't high marks for everyone, a good portion of those students did end up passing their exams legitimately.

    Now, I ask just two question:
    Which engineering class do you think would've contributed more to their field: the engineers that were given high marks because someone else did the work for him, or the engineers who earned theirs (even if their mark wasn't especially high but passable)?
    Which environment benefited the engineering students themselves the most: the one where everyone expended the least amount of effort and were given their good marks, or those that had to earn their marks?

    Sometimes the best social experiments are the ones that are never intentional.
    Last edited by exochaft; 2012-07-14 at 06:31 AM.
    *Since I'm tired of reposting the link:* EH vs TTL and Hybrid Tax

  13. #133
    Imo?

    No, it wouldn't, but with how much scare tactics are going around everytime someone wants to do something that is remotely socialist, even if it is the best option for the country, they will shoot it down out of fear. Our current system is hardly working, the only problem is trying to get the people that throw their money around to hop on board and i don't see that happening, ever.
    If you must insist on using a non-sanctioned sitting apparatus, please consider the tensile strength
    of the materials present in the object in question in comparison to your own mass volumetric density.

    In other words, stop breaking shit with your fat ass.

  14. #134
    Titan Kangodo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    12,937
    No, ofcourse it wouldn't be that bad.
    That's why many countries have socialism.

  15. #135
    Blademaster burninggundam16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    37


    <3
    Mmmmmm.

  16. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by burninggundam16 View Post


    <3
    Words cannot sum how great this picture is. Been there, Seen that.

    Too bad most of these posters wanting or insisting for Marxist society, because they are pulling different ideas from Socialism and Communism, won't know what you have posted, let alone where to find it on the map.
    Last edited by Wthrmn; 2012-07-14 at 11:07 AM.

  17. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Wthrmn View Post
    Words cannot sum how great this picture is. Been there, Seen that.

    Too bad most of these posters wanting or insisting for Marxist society, because they are pulling different ideas from Socialism and Communism, won't know what you have posted, let alone where to find it on the map.
    What most posters will also not understand is that any government system is easily corruptible.

    While American government was set up to be hard to corrupt, it is something that is still possible to corrupt, and it is on the people to do this. What I think party loyalists on either side of the spectrum, Democrat or Republican, don't seem to realize, is just how corrupted even American government has become.

    In closing, I'll offer a little bit of American history since it relates to the discussion at hand. When the US Constitution was being formed, there were mainly two sides to the discussion, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Some may automatically think these directly translate into Republican/Democrat, but that's actually not true as the current parties have evolved quite a bit over time. The Federalists wanted a weak, centralized government while leaving the bulk of the power to the States/citizens, and the Anti-Federalists wanted more of a confederacy of States with no central government. Notice something? Both sides were in agreement that the US did not want a big, centralized government holding the majority of power (like what the US has today). Unfortunately, in socialistic societies, the government must retain most, if not all, the power over the people... which is the exact same thing as oppression, the opposite of what the country was founded upon.
    What kind of power lies with the people, when we are shown two candidates to vote upon, both of whom are exactly the same (but we are lead to believe they are different in some way) and that is more or less our accepted form of government.

    Freedoms have been taken away from us under the guise of security. Socialism is in America, and both parties are promoting it, and blind party loyalty on both sides is keeping people from seeing it.

    There are both good and bad sides to everything, and we're bordering on the corrupted side of socialism, when we'd really only delved into the beneficial sides before.
    Last edited by The Batman; 2012-07-14 at 11:34 AM.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleros View Post
    What most posters will also not understand is that any government system is easily corruptible.

    While American government was set up to be hard to corrupt, it is something that is still possible to corrupt, and it is on the people to do this. What I think party loyalists on either side of the spectrum, Democrat or Republican, don't seem to realize, is just how corrupted even American government has become.



    What kind of power lies with the people, when we are shown two candidates to vote upon, both of whom are exactly the same (but we are lead to believe they are different in some way) and that is more or less our accepted form of government.

    Freedoms have been taken away from us under the guise of security. Socialism is in America, and both parties are promoting it, and blind party loyalty on both sides is keeping people from seeing it.
    What political party do you affiliate with? I would guess that you are an "Independent" or you are unaffiliated to any thing at all.

    The corruption you speak of only goes on for as long as the people buy into the "Cult of Victimology" being dependent on the government. I know how easy it is to be ignorant of this cult. It’s a cold, dark place. Enlightenment is a hard personal process that you have to figure out on your own. All is not lost, you gotta take it back.

    Yeah there are socialist ideas currently in America, and yes both parties promote those idea. There are still people on both sides who don't agree with those and fight to push these idealist back, but they are usually the ones who get demonized or scapegoated.

  19. #139
    oh, socialism makes people equal alright... equally poor.

  20. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    oh, socialism makes people equal alright... equally poor.
    When no one has anything, everyone gets to be miserable. Now that's fair.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •