American Socialism, What's It All About?: A Fireside forum with i_am_undead and VikingRhetoric!
- Thread starter i_am_undead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
[quote/]Well...This is how America tends to be seen from over here in Blighty.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI
And I can't even drive, so Beamers/Fords get replaced by a nice reliable Mini.[/quote]
I'm not going to bother with the rest of this thread, but did you notice the only time they didn't say "fuck yeah" was when he said books?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI
And I can't even drive, so Beamers/Fords get replaced by a nice reliable Mini.[/quote]
I'm not going to bother with the rest of this thread, but did you notice the only time they didn't say "fuck yeah" was when he said books?
First point as to the OP: socialism /=/ communism.
Secondly, the USA, socialist? (even european socialist?) Hahahahaha. The liberal party in the US would be considered conservative in most european social democracies.
Insofar as the role of government in healthcare, etc. The entire point of universal healthcare is to a) Generate a wide risk pool and b) Lower costs. Any comparison of statistics between the healthcare outcomes in the US and other 1st world countries that (unlike the US) have universal healthcare would demonstrate these points. Much as there is a social good in requiring people to buy car insurance to make sure nobody gets screwed by having an accident.
Secondly, the USA, socialist? (even european socialist?) Hahahahaha. The liberal party in the US would be considered conservative in most european social democracies.
Insofar as the role of government in healthcare, etc. The entire point of universal healthcare is to a) Generate a wide risk pool and b) Lower costs. Any comparison of statistics between the healthcare outcomes in the US and other 1st world countries that (unlike the US) have universal healthcare would demonstrate these points. Much as there is a social good in requiring people to buy car insurance to make sure nobody gets screwed by having an accident.
Here's a system for ya: Imperialism/colonialism(from Europe, not the US, we screwed up) with some modern scruples(no racism, just superiority). Oppression or not, the Empire system(if only with the British and the Dutch) worked, uniting swaths of the globe and modernizing them too.
Anyway, for the ratings system, I say that there needs be a little more explanation to the clueless parents so that you don't get their nice little kids playing Halo. Some are quicker on the uptake(my parents included, but to the parent populace at large, there needs to be some forethought, and explaining of the ratings. Plus giving a damn helps...
Anyway, for the ratings system, I say that there needs be a little more explanation to the clueless parents so that you don't get their nice little kids playing Halo. Some are quicker on the uptake(my parents included, but to the parent populace at large, there needs to be some forethought, and explaining of the ratings. Plus giving a damn helps...
At the initial outlook, America was founded with core principles, some of which related to large strands of Liberalism. Recently in the last thirty years, the social movements have had a certain side effect which results in a departure from the independent idealistic thoughts of our founding father's America, such that the holes in this society caused by divides of this socialism are filled with the fascist undertones we see daily.
oh wait that might just be mass effect i'm on a holiday... undertones huh
oh wait that might just be mass effect i'm on a holiday... undertones huh
The problem with Imperialism is that it is harmful to democracy.
To put it quite simply, most men and women are not willing to go abroad and be killed by unfriendly strangers just so the British Empire can control X resource.
Furthermore, Imperialism leads the arbitrary rule of a colonial elite over the subjugated people, a situation which has *always* led to racism to justify this situation, and has, as mentioned, harmful effects on the democratic body politic.
You say that the United Sates "screwed" up Imperialism, but they are not unique in this respect, every country in the modern era that has gone on the road to empire has suffered the same consequences. The experience of the British in India, the French in Indonesia, the Germans in their African colonies, etc etc.
To put it quite simply, most men and women are not willing to go abroad and be killed by unfriendly strangers just so the British Empire can control X resource.
Furthermore, Imperialism leads the arbitrary rule of a colonial elite over the subjugated people, a situation which has *always* led to racism to justify this situation, and has, as mentioned, harmful effects on the democratic body politic.
You say that the United Sates "screwed" up Imperialism, but they are not unique in this respect, every country in the modern era that has gone on the road to empire has suffered the same consequences. The experience of the British in India, the French in Indonesia, the Germans in their African colonies, etc etc.
Any system of government leads to unity, that's why we created them. Well, at least their intended to bring about unity. Some like Imperialism seek to bring everyone under one banner, and may very well succeed at it, but then they begin to change social aspects of life. When your leader is as plutocratic and detached as the Victorians or the Romans, it's easy to form an "us against them" metnality. Same thing for the rulers too, it just alters how people view the world.Imperator_2 said:
You know what? It's better then worthless little nations constantly locked in a power struggle. What's the use of going independent if things go downhill from there?!
And anyway, there is NO country that's a true democracy: The US itself is a republic, and a corrupted one at that. Now, read the case of Vermont's cause for a modern secession, and see for yourself the potential for this...
And anyway, there is NO country that's a true democracy: The US itself is a republic, and a corrupted one at that. Now, read the case of Vermont's cause for a modern secession, and see for yourself the potential for this...
"You know what? It's better then worthless little nations constantly locked in a power struggle. What's the use of going independent if things go downhill from there?! "
Strawman fallicy. Or perhaps False Dilemma. Our choices are not "Be an empire" or "be a tiny worthless country."
"And anyway, there is NO country that's a true democracy: The US itself is a republic, and a corrupted one at that. Now, read the case of Vermont's cause for a modern secession, and see for yourself the potential for this..."
Well, yes, but as Winston Churchill said (I may be paraphrasing here) "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
In other words, Human Beings, being imperfect, do not have it in them to run perfect governments. Modern democracy (which yes, is a republic, or sometimes called a representative democracy) is also imperfect and prone to certain failures, of which the US demonstrates many. However, because it is a democracy, it is capable of peaceful institutional change as a matter of course, and very few other systems can achieve this.
Strawman fallicy. Or perhaps False Dilemma. Our choices are not "Be an empire" or "be a tiny worthless country."
"And anyway, there is NO country that's a true democracy: The US itself is a republic, and a corrupted one at that. Now, read the case of Vermont's cause for a modern secession, and see for yourself the potential for this..."
Well, yes, but as Winston Churchill said (I may be paraphrasing here) "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
In other words, Human Beings, being imperfect, do not have it in them to run perfect governments. Modern democracy (which yes, is a republic, or sometimes called a representative democracy) is also imperfect and prone to certain failures, of which the US demonstrates many. However, because it is a democracy, it is capable of peaceful institutional change as a matter of course, and very few other systems can achieve this.
Not all power struggles are bad. Sure, an arms race is a bit inconvienent but if WorthlessLil'Nation A and WL'N B are trying to compete for trade, then they focus on building their infrastructure up, trying to make new products, or better accomodating foreign customers. Competition is one of the best things about capitalism. It ensures that the third party customer can choose the best.Imperator_2 said:
Besides, unity has been a pretty tricky goal throughout human history. The Nazis wanted racial unity, the Soviets wanted class unity, it just doesn't mix well with human nature. It mixed especially poorly in an empire like the British. The racial boundary between the Indians and the British was very deep-seated. They all could point to the same flag and salute, but their society was pretty well divided. Not real unity at all.
Grumble...
Well you must admit, at least there wasn't any major ethnic strife when they were under colonial power. One exception that I know of: Ireland.
Unless you know otherwise, muckraker....
Well you must admit, at least there wasn't any major ethnic strife when they were under colonial power. One exception that I know of: Ireland.
Unless you know otherwise, muckraker....
I'm not so sure about morals, probably because some people decry anything pleasant as "immoral" but I do think we have if not an ETHICAL commmandment to help our fellow man, we do have an ethical OBLIGATION to help our fellow man. If my memory serves me, greed WAS one of the seven deadly sins. I don't know if it ceased to be one of them, but if it did I would certainly like to know what replaced it to keep the count at seven. I hope it's not altruism. Also I really am glad someone pointed to the importance of ANONYMOUS donations. In my opinion they are really the only genuine examples of generosity because they aren't trying to be a glory-hound about it. I guess my point is that if a system can't stop things like the Enron fiasco from happening, there's something seriously wrong.
Try studying more history.Imperator_2 said:
Firstly, colonialist countries encouraged racial and ethnic divisions in their colonies specifically because they were following a "divide and conquer" strategy, sometimes these conflicts got out of control. And of course, the colonialists engaged in quite a few acts of genocide and other assorted "peaceful activities.
For a start, learn the history of the Belgian Congo, the German African Colonies, and the expansion of the British in India for a quick refresher on the "peace" experienced under imperial rule.