Poll: Whats so bad about Socialism
- Thread starter Sovvolf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm still not a fan of the extremely long wait times (my Dad nearly cut off his thumb, seven hours waiting in Emergency), but then again, our family would be screwed without it (my sister was born amidst many, many problems, about $5000000 worth of hospitalization for free!).Cakes said:
Yeah it's just sad that people abuse the dole, I've seen it first hand, I've also been on the dole (well my father has when the firm he was working with went under) so Iv'e seen what it can help benefit that's why I support it, I know there's parents out there who can't get a job and have mouths to feed, I've also seen that there are people out there perfectly capable of working who just refuse because they'd rather spend mine and every body else's money on lazing about getting drugged up and drinking with no ambitions.Glademaster said:
But has I've said in other posts the benefit of helping the Parents out with kids to feed greatly overshadows the negatives of the Dole, The parasites.
Here's some radical food for thought from a book I read last year:
How about a social health care allowance system that everyone pays for and gets, but everyone without a pre-existing or chronic condition (this does not include drug usage or obesity) would get a set amount of points, and those with those pre-existing or chronic conditions would get augmented points. You would lose points for getting treated for self-inflicted problems and fractions of these points just to get treated. Once you run out of points, you must pay for your own treatments, acquire private health care, or suffer. This social health care allowance system is only the bare-bones without any bells or whistles; that's where private health care comes in.
That way, everyone pays equally, gets the same, and those that abuse it (drug addicts, people that don't bother to take care of themselves) are excluded. Those who want more and can afford it can pay for more via private health care.
This is just an idea from a book I read called The Adoration of Jenna Fox. I'm not saying "LOL THIS IS THE BEST IDEA EVARRRRRRRRRRR BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE THINKS ITS WRONG LOLOLOLOLOL, YAY FOR NONCONFORMITY", but rather asking how if this would work.
How about a social health care allowance system that everyone pays for and gets, but everyone without a pre-existing or chronic condition (this does not include drug usage or obesity) would get a set amount of points, and those with those pre-existing or chronic conditions would get augmented points. You would lose points for getting treated for self-inflicted problems and fractions of these points just to get treated. Once you run out of points, you must pay for your own treatments, acquire private health care, or suffer. This social health care allowance system is only the bare-bones without any bells or whistles; that's where private health care comes in.
That way, everyone pays equally, gets the same, and those that abuse it (drug addicts, people that don't bother to take care of themselves) are excluded. Those who want more and can afford it can pay for more via private health care.
This is just an idea from a book I read called The Adoration of Jenna Fox. I'm not saying "LOL THIS IS THE BEST IDEA EVARRRRRRRRRRR BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE THINKS ITS WRONG LOLOLOLOLOL, YAY FOR NONCONFORMITY", but rather asking how if this would work.
I'd vote for that, but the problem is, those with self inflicted problems more then likely have major problems, such as drug addicts and alcoholics along with people who generally cut them selves. The problem is mostly mental and they need help, including phycological(is that the right way of spelling it Chrome's telling me it's wrong but doesn't give me any plausible alternative help) help, most drug addicts and alcoholics don't like drugs or alcohol but can't seem to live without it. However for people who go out on a binge with friends and need there stomach pumping because of it should have points deducted, this also applies to those who feel the need to run in front of cars then quickly jump out of the way to impress there friends.Vorpals said:
Many Americans are afraid of the slightest hint of socialism because of the propaganda forced down their throats since the end of WW2 about those evil Russians and Crazy Castro. In truth, socialism (or communism) is very bad because it requires the ceasing of liberal democracy for it to function. Because of the total economic overhaul required for a socialist society to function, governments have to outlaw non-communist political parties, otherwise each election would see the economy in a constant state of nonsensical flux between the capitalist system or the communist one. And of course, once you suspend some civic freedoms, the case for the defence of the rest is inherently weaker.
But, since the Wall Street Crash in America, and slightly before that in the UK and most of Europe, people realised that some social programmes are necessary to the wellbeing of a state and its citizens. Unemployment benefits, pensions and so forth were the earliest forms of the modern welfare state. In the 1930s, Keynesian economics advocated the use of government 'socialist-style' programmes to get money back into the economy after the Crash. In Britain, with the economy smashed by WW2 and unemployment widespread, we took this one step further - we figured people needed cheap healthcare, and people needed jobs. The only way to provide either was to have the government to provide them, and our greatest public institution was born.
Unfortunately, in the thriving US, as mentioned, America's greatest perceived problems were not healthcare, or unemployment, but how to combat the threat of Communism, and so politicians went out of their way to stress the need to hold on to that key American tenet of 'rugged individualism' and be suspicious of big government. And now the beliefs are so ingrained that modern politicians keep spinning the lies and stoking the fear of conservative Americans to ensure that they retain their wariness of anything left of centre.
But, since the Wall Street Crash in America, and slightly before that in the UK and most of Europe, people realised that some social programmes are necessary to the wellbeing of a state and its citizens. Unemployment benefits, pensions and so forth were the earliest forms of the modern welfare state. In the 1930s, Keynesian economics advocated the use of government 'socialist-style' programmes to get money back into the economy after the Crash. In Britain, with the economy smashed by WW2 and unemployment widespread, we took this one step further - we figured people needed cheap healthcare, and people needed jobs. The only way to provide either was to have the government to provide them, and our greatest public institution was born.
Unfortunately, in the thriving US, as mentioned, America's greatest perceived problems were not healthcare, or unemployment, but how to combat the threat of Communism, and so politicians went out of their way to stress the need to hold on to that key American tenet of 'rugged individualism' and be suspicious of big government. And now the beliefs are so ingrained that modern politicians keep spinning the lies and stoking the fear of conservative Americans to ensure that they retain their wariness of anything left of centre.
Yes, people can abuse a socialist system. However, the assumption that socialist systems don't have the means to prevent or discourage abuses is ridiculous.
The single, underlying point of your average capitalist corporation is to make money. Everything, absolutely everything, is of lesser importance. Thus capitalism encourages behaviour that can be damaging to society. Companies deliberately carry out illegal practices when it suits them: Microsoft's anti-competitive practices; British Airways and others forming cartels; Enron; all manner of pollution incidents from many. You can quite bet that for every Conrad Black, Enron, or Bernie Madoff that is caught, there are many more who never are. Beyond that, they push for things that are technically legal but damaging: Microsoft again, throwing lawsuits their smaller competitors can't pay to fight; minimal safety standards - and that includes the credit crunch, where the banks were grossly negligent in ensuring they had a firm financial base. Furthermore they use their money and influence to reduce regulations that exist to prevent people from harm.
Abuse, corruption and so on are endemic to human society. Socialism will struggle with them, but the capitalism we currently experience also struggles against them. What stops abuse is appropriate legislation and enforcement, and there is nothing to suggest socialists cannot enforce fair dealings where capitalists can.
The single, underlying point of your average capitalist corporation is to make money. Everything, absolutely everything, is of lesser importance. Thus capitalism encourages behaviour that can be damaging to society. Companies deliberately carry out illegal practices when it suits them: Microsoft's anti-competitive practices; British Airways and others forming cartels; Enron; all manner of pollution incidents from many. You can quite bet that for every Conrad Black, Enron, or Bernie Madoff that is caught, there are many more who never are. Beyond that, they push for things that are technically legal but damaging: Microsoft again, throwing lawsuits their smaller competitors can't pay to fight; minimal safety standards - and that includes the credit crunch, where the banks were grossly negligent in ensuring they had a firm financial base. Furthermore they use their money and influence to reduce regulations that exist to prevent people from harm.
Abuse, corruption and so on are endemic to human society. Socialism will struggle with them, but the capitalism we currently experience also struggles against them. What stops abuse is appropriate legislation and enforcement, and there is nothing to suggest socialists cannot enforce fair dealings where capitalists can.
Not really. I have a problem with anarcho-liberatarians and libertarians in general, mainly because their theories make no economic sense, and I'm studying to be an economist. Same goes for communists and other extreme political and moral viewpoints.Rooster Cogburn said:
My comment here, though, was a joke, but if it came off wrong, then I'm sorry you felt offended or under threat.
(Oh, and I may not have said this, but props on the avatar)
(Oh, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Tzar Alexander the First, President William McKinley and a fair number of other people would care to disagree
.)
Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a Slav nationalist, not an anarchist.
Besides, the number of political movements that haven't used murder or assassination to further their agenda is approximately nil: democrats, fascists, capitalists, anarchists, republicans, oligarchs, monarchs, communists and so on have all used it when it has suited them.
Besides, the number of political movements that haven't used murder or assassination to further their agenda is approximately nil: democrats, fascists, capitalists, anarchists, republicans, oligarchs, monarchs, communists and so on have all used it when it has suited them.
Well I should know, I live here.Sovvolf said:
The Government controls some things, granted, but nowhere near enough to make the UK be labelled a socialist state, not by any stretch of the imagination.
The Government controls the NHS, Emergency services and the Post Office.
We have giant corporations and brands with shopping centres, high streets, corner shops and supermarkets.
I'd advise you check the definition of Socialism.
Yes and I should know, I live here too, the UK is considered a free economical state with both Capitalist and Socialist traits, for the UK to be a 100% Capitalist country we wouldn't pay any tax at all, we do pay tax, tax for our Armed forces, Postal Service, NHS.secretsantaone said:
Well seeing as most people label the UK as a socialist state even by the people who live in it, then I guess that it is near enough to make the UK be labelled a socialist state by some stretch of imagination. I guess it's just how you look at it, I see it more has a socialist state you see it more has a capitalist state. Britain isn't a easy country along with most of Europe are hard to classify but they go by with a loosely Socialist economy.secretsantaone said:
Like I said our country is loosely Socialist, it still follows forms of Capitalism not to the degree of America, just like America is loosely Capitalism but follows some traits attributed with socialism but not enough to call it a Socialist country.secretsantaone said:
This argument may seem pretty dumb, I've just got back home from college and I need to set off for training in just a tick.
its bad because the people that dont need the money get it example people who are to lazy to get a job and use welfare, when it should go to people who work
people in america don't know what socialism is. People brought up in cold war america were told that socialism was analogous to communism and so the belief holds through in ignorant regions of america....all of it.
oh and altruism is dead. The human species doesn't require every single person to survive any more. One death or the loss of a few million lives won't make a difference.
oh and altruism is dead. The human species doesn't require every single person to survive any more. One death or the loss of a few million lives won't make a difference.
It didnt ruin Norway.LCP said:
Norways been socialist for a while and there country is fine.
The government even made homework illegal
Socialism:Sovvolf said:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
If Britain is more of a socialist state why does Britain still use money?