Socialism...

[Wyzaard]

you mean like my vote not counting for more than just one person? limited power of the individual?

The fragmentation of the citizenry into individual consumers rather than communities that work for collective interests is certainly a problem; corporations work as collective units, and so should we if we wish to defeat them. But what I was getting at was the issue of having to participate in a monetaery economy in order to survive... I have no choice but to work the jobs that companies provide, and buy the products they supply, lest I starve to death; there are no other options, and capitalists like it that way... we're caged animals.

There are a lot of ways to acquire the essentials just ask a motivated poor person,

Black markets do exist of course... corporate power uses their control of our justice system to limit these options, however.

in fact, before a monopoly exists

Monopolies already exist... so the options are limited.

you can raise your own food,

Not if you don't own sufficient amounts of arable land to do so, or are allowed to under market restrictions (in raising and selling such products).

ask a farmer to raise it for you, buy from independents, purchase only home grown, in fact, we attend church in a farming community and someone is always butchering and wanting to share the meat,

Not an option for most Americans, particularly those who either have no access to such options or cannot afford them.

...our son when on a walking trip, got hungry and killed and ate a possum...

Do you think this is a valid option for those who live in the inner city?

...free market doesn't limit your power to change interests, it empowers you to be able to change who holds the power...

Unshown. Indeed, as it currently stands...

if you really want economic equality for all, free market is the way to go, because it is your dollar that determines who lives and dies economically speaking.

... those with the most dollars holds the most power; this is the exact OPPOSITE of economic equality. Those who have the most capital decide who lives and dies in this system, through direct control over production as well as indirect control over consumption.

you would be absolutely wrong there, money is the force that drives all of those when the people say the money drys up, they will stop producing, stop selling, stop gaining....

Again, we do not have a choice but to work and buy in this system; that allows capitalists to use us as they will. Where our money goes might be somewhat variable, but it's ALWAYS circulating within this system; while it does, capitalists have all the control in the world.

Cool so you don't like capitalism either....let's take away corporate powers, take away government powers and give the people back the liberties the costituation guarentees.....what do you say, we are take back the liberties we have lost by refusing to sacrifice human lives for the collective?

We protect each other's liberties by having collective enterprises in the first place; otherwise, it would be warlordism, survival of the vicious.

 

[razzelflabben]

The fragmentation of the citizenry into individual consumers rather than communities that work for collective interests is certainly a problem; corporations work as collective units, and so should we if we wish to defeat them. But what I was getting at was the issue of having to participate in a monetaery economy in order to survive... I have no choice but to work the jobs that companies provide, and buy the products they supply, lest I starve to death; there are no other options, and capitalists like it that way... we're caged animals.

money is what makes the world go round, in fact, if you want to know what motivates people to anything, it all boils down to money, even for those who do not worship money, the root of their existance has to do with ... yep, you guessed it .... money....

As to capitalists, yep, that is why I am not in favor of capitalism they make us as much slaves as the government run societies are slaves. We are all slaves and that is how evil likes it...so the question is, what system makes us the most free?

Black markets do exist of course... corporate power uses their control of our justice system to limit these options, however.

and the larger more socialist our government the more corporate our world is....capitalism is the preface to socialism, it ushers it in....both require large organizations to control the flow of money, in one it's corporations, in the other, government....both take the power away from the people and place the power in the hands of a few with power/money....yep, power is money and money is power even in the land of the free and the brave.

Monopolies already exist... so the options are limited.

no, it will just take more time to break them that is all.

Not if you don't own sufficient amounts of arable land to do so,

we don't own enough land and still we are finding ways to raise our own food and/or get community help in providing for our family (volunteer help not government forced) in fact, roof top gardening has been a popular thing for years.

or are allowed to under market restrictions (in raising and selling such products).

what market restrictions? under free market, it is the market that determines, no one has a right to restrict your freedom, your liberty to raise a garden and provide for yourself....not sure what you are referring to here except it sounds like a critism of large government.

Not an option for most Americans, particularly those who either have no access to such options or cannot afford them.

farmers are all over this country, so is the availablity to raise food, roof top gardens, community gardens have existed long before you and I.

Do you think this is a valid option for those who live in the inner city?

i live in inner city and it is helping us....

Unshown. Indeed, as it currently stands...



... those with the most dollars holds the most power; this is the exact OPPOSITE of economic equality. Those who have the most capital decide who lives and dies in this system, through direct control over production as well as indirect control over consumption.

I'm confused again, are you for big government or against it? in a free market society, the money can be "evenly" dispersed simply by carefully chooseing what you purchase and what you produce...no one is there to tell you that you must give what you purchase to someone else, you make it or break it based on your own merit as well as controling whose merit is of value....if you don't like walmart for example, the all might dollar will determine if they stay in business or got out of business, not the government, not the family inheritance, when walmart finds it is not profitable to stay open, the store closes, that is free market, supply and demand, both work hand in hand....

Again, we do not have a choice but to work and buy in this system; that allows capitalists to use us as they will. Where our money goes might be somewhat variable, but it's ALWAYS circulating within this system; while it does, capitalists have all the control in the world.

under free market, we have the choice to allow the capitalists to thrive or to allow the individual to thrive...let's take wal mart again, this time, a local guy in the community opens a store similar to walmart but must take out a loan to start his story...the community is free market and decides that they want to support the efforts of the individual, so they vote with thier dollar to keep the little guy open, soon, that little guy is thriving and wall mart is out of business.....

Now contrast that to capitalism or socialist either one....the laws, limits, etc. all favor walmart. Our little guy puts all he has and then some into his store, but the government comes in and takes enough in taxes and other restrictions to drive him out before he even got started, meanwhile, walmart is thriving and thriving without competition because the government has eliminated the competition....see the problem is that capitalism is the preface to socialism in that it limits the individuals ability to create new jobs...don't believe me, try to start a business in a capitalist or socialist economy...

We protect each other's liberties by having collective enterprises in the first place; otherwise, it would be warlordism, survival of the vicious.

all I'm suggesting is that no individual should be sacrificed on the alter, not even for the collective. Either we are all important and vital to a healthy society or we are all extendable, do you want to be the next sacrificial lamb for America?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

right, which is why the founding fathers established not a democracy but a representative republic.

A representative republic IS a representative democracy.

now we disagree and I would love to see some evidence to support this claim.

Just click on the "Pinochet"-link here, and probably couple that with the IMF-link here. Free market economies do not promote (nor, to be fair, detract from) democratic forms of government. In many cases, they blossom even better under totalitarian rule, as people there lack the political power to resist.

and yet, in the USA it is leading us to full blown socialism, so again, please show evidence to support this claim

To claim that the USA are anywhere near to "full blown socialism" is laughable in itself. I can hardly think of a first-world country that is less economically just, with poverty being a HUGE issue in spite of its impressive gross national product. Alas, there are people who think that providing health care for all will somehow turn the US into the USSR.

free market also dictates how much that 8 cents will buy....if 8 cents will not provide the majority of people with the goods and services needed to survive, then the price of goods and services will come down....

Ah, it all works so neatly on the paper. And then, you look at Victorian Britain, or contemporary Asian countries - and what you see are masses of workers that starve in the wake of economic growth, while a few rich investors reap the lion's share of the profits.

the other thing that a free market will do, is adjust as the number of workers available adjusts, as in fewer workers, higher wages, more workers lower wages....it's all about supply and demand.

Again, I point to what the industrialization did to European societies - until the workers finally managed to gain a certain amount of political influence, and rebelled against the conditions they were placed in.

huh? Please evidence this claim, thanks

It's simple, really: in a representative democracy, each citizen has one vote. In a plutocracy, your influence grows with the money you own - no money, no influence. The rich dictate the terms by which the rest of the population has to live. It's essentially an aristocratic arrangement, even if the rich don't bestow titles upon each other.

actually, the governments job in the USA is to represent the people who elected them....it is not about protection, or leverage, or money, it's about representing those who put them in that office....why does this basic understanding of our government seem to be missing today....maybe a review of the history of this nation is in order.

Ah, the irony! Governments are all about jurisdiction, the division of power, and representing the interests of the people.

actually, in free market, you control the big corporations through money, if you don't buy what their selling, they won't stay in business and you still retain all your liberties.....that is the beauty of free market, the people control it, not a government that doesn't care about the people. Each individual retains control over the money as well as the representative they elect....now power is given up in free market systems.

No money, no influence. Much money, much influence. If you happen to be a sweat shop worker pulling 16-hour-shifts to keep your family from starving, you won't have the money or the energy to exert any kind of influence - while the rich stock holders simply look at the market value of their shares (which tends to RISE when CEOs act as unscrupulous as humanly possible).

 

[razzelflabben]

A representative republic IS a representative democracy.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=51656571

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just click on the "Pinochet"-link here, and probably couple that with the IMF-link here. Free market economies do not promote (nor, to be fair, detract from) democratic forms of government. In many cases, they blossom even better under totalitarian rule, as people there lack the political power to resist.

and what????

To claim that the USA are anywhere near to "full blown socialism" is laughable in itself. I can hardly think of a first-world country that is less economically just, with poverty being a HUGE issue in spite of its impressive gross national product. Alas, there are people who think that providing health care for all will somehow turn the US into the USSR.

actually again I'm not sure what you are referring to my claim is that we are moving toward socialism at an alarming rate, and yes, health care for all is evidence of that movement, there are many others, but that is one. OH and for the record, I never even mentioned USSR what makes you bring that up?

Ah, it all works so neatly on the paper. And then, you look at Victorian Britain, or contemporary Asian countries - and what you see are masses of workers that starve in the wake of economic growth, while a few rich investors reap the lion's share of the profits.

and there are countries like the USA showing it works, so what does that mean? It means that 1. there are many factors to look at for each, not just one or two 2. it means that all human government is corrupt and 3. it means that the best we can hope to do is find the government most closely resembling our beliefs (on a christian forum, that would usually be the bible) and vote and fight for that government...if your belief is liberty for all, stay away from support of socialism, if your belief is the community in the bible, hold to the government that gives you choice to help the poor or not (not socialism) that type of thing....

Again, I point to what the industrialization did to European societies - until the workers finally managed to gain a certain amount of political influence, and rebelled against the conditions they were placed in.

what does capitalism have to do with my point???? Capitalism is the preface to socialism and personally I think both are great big stink bombs

It's simple, really: in a representative democracy, each citizen has one vote. In a plutocracy, your influence grows with the money you own - no money, no influence. The rich dictate the terms by which the rest of the population has to live. It's essentially an aristocratic arrangement, even if the rich don't bestow titles upon each other.

Ah, the irony! Governments are all about jurisdiction, the division of power, and representing the interests of the people.

good luck finding a politician willing to represent the people who elected them, the vast majority represent special interest because the laws are set up to support the money, that is the problem with capitalism and socialism both.

No money, no influence. Much money, much influence. If you happen to be a sweat shop worker pulling 16-hour-shifts to keep your family from starving, you won't have the money or the energy to exert any kind of influence - while the rich stock holders simply look at the market value of their shares (which tends to RISE when CEOs act as unscrupulous as humanly possible).

which is why I strongly support free market, it's the closest we can come to evening the playing field.

 

[Psudopod]

which is why I strongly support free market, it's the closest we can come to evening the playing field.

By making buying power the force, you are putting vulnerable groups at a disadvantage straight away. Women who give birth must take more time off than men, so their buying power is reduced. Those with long-term sickness or disability are less able to work and therefore their buying power is reduced. Children and the elderly are less able to work and therefore their buying power is reduced. People who have access to money already, say from inheritance, are in a better position already without doing anything.

If you think people are going to, readily and without persuasion, vote in large numbers for something that may be detrimental to themselves, you are sadly mistaken. Look at how long it has taken fair trade products to become widespread and even now, they don’t have a large share of the market of say supermarket purchases, because they cannot compete price-wise. Same as your fictional corner shop. It may get some support, but if Walmart is cheaper and more convenient, then the corner shop will never be able to compete on a level playing field. Even if it does do well, what’s to stop Walmart buying it?

 

[razzelflabben]

[/color]

By making buying power the force, you are putting vulnerable groups at a disadvantage straight away. Women who give birth must take more time off than men, so their buying power is reduced. Those with long-term sickness or disability are less able to work and therefore their buying power is reduced. Children and the elderly are less able to work and therefore their buying power is reduced. People who have access to money already, say from inheritance, are in a better position already without doing anything.

please keep in mind I never suggested it was perfect, only better than the others at leveling the playing field....take for instance woman giving birth, many of them have partners that can pick up the slack as well as decide how long their leave is, as in do I want the buying power more than I want to stay home with my child....when the price of goods and services mirrors the average wage holder, there is more choice available in addition to all this, the new mom now under free market has the chance to start a viable at home business that is not due to fail from the start because the rules favor those with large pockets...so, on two levels, the new mom has a better chance under free market than under either capitalism or socialism.

If you think people are going to, readily and without persuasion, vote in large numbers for something that may be detrimental to themselves, you are sadly mistaken. Look at how long it has taken fair trade products to become widespread and even now, they don’t have a large share of the market of say supermarket purchases, because they cannot compete price-wise. Same as your fictional corner shop. It may get some support, but if Walmart is cheaper and more convenient, then the corner shop will never be able to compete on a level playing field. Even if it does do well, what’s to stop Walmart buying it?

the principal you are speaking of is exactly why we are going down the road of socialism, a road that will eventually lead to our destruction. Because people will always vote for what gives them immediate reward rather than what is the best for them....ask any kid if they want ice cream for breakfast or oatmeal....I guess that is the flaw of democracy and we should be against democracy now, because as our founding fathers said, people don't know how/can't rule themselves......

 

[Joachim]

Fascism is the running of government by business. Neither socialism or fascism is a good idea. Our challenge is to find that middle ground to walk.

A statement that can only be made by someone who knows nothing about what classical fascism is. Fascism, is where the state is run for the good of society (ie the state) and is distinguished from Communism in that private property is not abolished. Also, under classical fascism, the idea is that all areas of society are organized into equal member "estates" and that it is these estates or "corporations" that help to set policy.


It is a misunderstanding of what the term "corporatism" means that leads people to the position that I am rebuffing, but it is incorrect. One of the problems we have here in America is not understanding that what a word means to us isn't what it means all the time, and corporatism in fascism has nothing to do with corporations as we think of them in America

 

[Joachim]

Sounds like you would be in favor of a simpler tax system, like a flat tax. Not socialism.

Making sure people pay their fair share is not socialism


Socialism is when the government owns and operates businesses while not allowing private competition in the industry it operates them in.


Making the rich pay higher taxes does not satisfy that definition, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Joachim]

Some socialist leaders actually care about the people in the country...Name the last US president that we can say that about? (If anyone names Ronnie from back in the 80's, I'll have a rebuttal for that )

William Jefferson Clinton

 

[Psudopod]

please keep in mind I never suggested it was perfect, only better than the others at leveling the playing field....take for instance woman giving birth, many of them have partners that can pick up the slack as well as decide how long their leave is, as in do I want the buying power more than I want to stay home with my child....when the price of goods and services mirrors the average wage holder, there is more choice available in addition to all this, the new mom now under free market has the chance to start a viable at home business that is not due to fail from the start because the rules favor those with large pockets...so, on two levels, the new mom has a better chance under free market than under either capitalism or socialism.

Medically, a woman needs a minimum period off to recover after giving birth. It’s not just a matter of how long she wants to spend with her child vs her spending power. She is putting her health at risk (and thus her spending power) if she pushes herself too hard. And this period is different for different women. Not every partner is going to be able to pick up the slack easily, especially as a child will be taking a extra sum of the money. And you’re still taking the direct power away from the woman and putting in the hands of the man. Just because he’s supporting his wife, doesn’t mean that if he starts doing the shopping, he’s going to buying in exactly the same way she was.

As for starting a home business, that requires money to start up. Where is that money coming from? Remember as well that socialist policies aim to reduce inequalities, so shouldn’t be favouring those with big pockets.

We’ve address childbirth, but not the elderly, sick/disabled, poor compared to rich etc. Policies such as universal healthcare, free schooling, anti-discrimination laws help level the playing field and increase accessibility and opportunity. Simply putting power in the hands of those with money doesn’t do that.

 

[razzelflabben]

[/color]

Medically, a woman needs a minimum period off to recover after giving birth.

I've had 5 kids, I understand it very well.

It’s not just a matter of how long she wants to spend with her child vs her spending power. She is putting her health at risk (and thus her spending power) if she pushes herself too hard. And this period is different for different women. Not every partner is going to be able to pick up the slack easily, especially as a child will be taking a extra sum of the money.

this is a good sound argument for people to not have kids, is that the argument you want to make?

And you’re still taking the direct power away from the woman and putting in the hands of the man. Just because he’s supporting his wife, doesn’t mean that if he starts doing the shopping, he’s going to buying in exactly the same way she was.

so what????? Who says he has to do everything exactly as she would???? You really do seem to be arguing for population control here, which to me is about as stupid and argument as comes down the pike....the other side would be if you are arguing that the government should pay every woman who wants to have a baby to carry that child, which is equally stupid an idea because then as we see in both welfare and foster care, we have woman using their uterus as a source of income....it's evidence, no speculation...so which are you arguing for? I don't want to read into your post what is not there....

As for starting a home business, that requires money to start up. Where is that money coming from? Remember as well that socialist policies aim to reduce inequalities, so shouldn’t be favouring those with big pockets.

in a free market, you need less money to start that business, and we see that in other countries where even the poorest of the poor have their own business.

Problem is, under socialism, the only people benefiting are the middle class and upper classes.....

We’ve address childbirth, but not the elderly, sick/disabled, poor compared to rich etc. Policies such as universal healthcare, free schooling, anti-discrimination laws help level the playing field and increase accessibility and opportunity. Simply putting power in the hands of those with money doesn’t do that.

You really want to talk about these groups, let me tell you a real story....My father went blind...the government offered to train him for an internet business, give him money to start that business in the form of supplies, help him with other things like advertising via news stories etc. (which every business man knows is gold) or, disability money....guess which he picked? Yep disability, now he is an old man sitting on his butt all day, doing nothing but growing angry, bitter, hateful and resentful....under free market, he would have been forced to choose to continue to live, to thrive, to contribute to society rather than steal from it (and he has stolen in more ways than one, but that is a long and private story) Socialism is set up so that people can take without ever giving back....free market requires us to participate in society not steal from it....

 

[Joachim]

Problem is, under socialism, the only people benefiting are the middle class and upper classes.....You really want to talk about these groups, let me tell you a real story....My father went blind...the government offered to train him for an internet business, give him money to start that business in the form of supplies, help him with other things like advertising via news stories etc. (which every business man knows is gold) or, disability money....guess which he picked? Yep disability, now he is an old man sitting on his butt all day, doing nothing but growing angry, bitter, hateful and resentful....under free market, he would have been forced to choose to continue to live, to thrive, to contribute to society rather than steal from it (and he has stolen in more ways than one, but that is a long and private story) Socialism is set up so that people can take without ever giving back....free market requires us to participate in society not steal from it....

No offense, but that was his choice. The government offered him a chance for help with a business. It is not the fault of the government that he chose the lazy route, it was because of his own inherent laziness and lack of a work ethic that he chose that route. It's his own fault. It doesn't detract from the fact that he should get that money because he is disabled to a point where he cannot function normally in the economy, and having turned down the one option he had, he really has no choice.


We fail as a society if we let the most vulnerable among us fail. It amazes me how so many people who agree with me economically are for abortion and how many people who are against abortion are for economic darwinism because for me both come out of the same place. It is a question of putting the interests of the vulnerable above the interests of the powerful.

 

[razzelflabben]

No offense, but that was his choice. The government offered him a chance for help with a business. It is not the fault of the government that he chose the lazy route, it was because of his own inherent laziness and lack of a work ethic that he chose that route. It's his own fault. It doesn't detract from the fact that he should get that money because he is disabled to a point where he cannot function normally in the economy, and having turned down the one option he had, he really has no choice.

right and wrong, he absolutely had a choice and I should not be forced to pay for someone who does not want it for himself...a socialist government establishes an environment where we are not responsible for ourselves...when you take away incentive, as in the case of socialism, you bred lazy people without purpose which is part of the problem with socialism and the evidence shows it to be a problem with welfare as well as social security and disability, they all have the same problems, they take away incentive to be productive because the government will take care of me for me.... Now, though I could argue the case for no help for anyone, what I am arguing is no help for those who can help themselves.....let's look at three of the top socialist programs in this country today...welfare, if you can work and a job is provided, shouldn't you work? If you have household income or assets to cover your expenses, shouldn't you have to use them? Why should welfare pay for anyone who doesn't want to work especially those that want to use it to acquire more wealth (I found a newstory about this very thing yesterday, I'll find it again it necessary plus I have anecdotal stories that evidence it as well) people with income and or assets getting government help from welfare.

Social security...we have people who have always had high paying jobs, drawing social security benefits so that those who had to work the lower paying jobs and never had an opportunity to save live on poverty checks for SS....take the case of someone I personally know....they are worth 1 1/2 to 2 million dollars but draw SS checks because they can, in the meantime, the guy down the street who had to work low paying jobs all his life, has nothing to show for his life of work, draws the poverty wage paycheck that the guy with over a million gets....

Now how about disability, we already saw a case which demonstrated (not evidenced, but demonstrated) the problem with giving people money, rewarding them to be lazy.....

Socialism only breds lazy, people who lack purpose.

We fail as a society if we let the most vulnerable among us fail. It amazes me how so many people who agree with me economically are for abortion and how many people who are against abortion are for economic darwinism because for me both come out of the same place. It is a question of putting the interests of the vulnerable above the interests of the powerful.

Actually, my argument at this point is not is not remove help from all (though I think that would result in good for the society) but rather that those who are able to contribute are asked to contribute and encouraged to do so.....Those who actually need help can have it at this point in the discussion as far as I'm concerned, but it must be a real need not a manufactered one, like boo hooo, I'm blind now, I can't do anything at all, please feed me, I'm blind stuff doesn't cut it, what does is someone who seriously can't do something to help themselves (which btw, is a very small number given the number of people who overcome tremendous odds. If socialism works, we should be seeing a decrease in participation not an increase.

 

[Joachim]

Now, though I could argue the case for no help for anyone, what I am arguing is no help for those who can help themselves.....let's look at three of the top socialist programs in this country today...welfare, if you can work and a job is provided, shouldn't you work? If you have household income or assets to cover your expenses, shouldn't you have to use them? Why should welfare pay for anyone who doesn't want to work especially those that want to use it to acquire more wealth (I found a newstory about this very thing yesterday, I'll find it again it necessary plus I have anecdotal stories that evidence it as well) people with income and or assets getting government help from welfare.

I traditionally agree about welfare and I think that reforming it was one of the great things that Clinton did but there are two caveats about that

1. As it relates to single mothers, if they are going to have to work, and usually at minimum wage, that creates a problem with kids running around. I agree that forcing them to work is a great idea, but it is not right to then force them to spend all of that money on child care. There should be available state provided health care for the poor so that their children have somewhere to go while they are at work so they aren't running the streets committing petty crimes


2. That argument does tend to lose its weight in an economic period right now because we have unemployment of around 15%. I know you will immediately respond that official unemployment is only at 8.3%. Two things about that


a. Unemployment rates are only comprised of people who can qualify for unemployment so if you are a recent (1 year or less) college or high school grad or have not worked enough to qualify for unemployment insurance before being laid off you don't qualify and so won't be counted in the statistic even if you are unemployed

b. Unemployment runs out after 6 months, so if 6 months have gone by and you still haven't found a replacement job then you fall out of the statistics and as far as the government is concerned you are employed again, even if you clearly aren't

Social security...we have people who have always had high paying jobs, drawing social security benefits so that those who had to work the lower paying jobs and never had an opportunity to save live on poverty checks for SS....take the case of someone I personally know....they are worth 1 1/2 to 2 million dollars but draw SS checks because they can, in the meantime, the guy down the street who had to work low paying jobs all his life, has nothing to show for his life of work, draws the poverty wage paycheck that the guy with over a million gets....

Social Security is not a socialist program. And, for all of your complaints about it, do you have anything better? Should we just let the poor guy down the street starve and become one of the indigent elderly like we used to have before the New Deal

Now how about disability, we already saw a case which demonstrated (not evidenced, but demonstrated) the problem with giving people money, rewarding them to be lazy.....

That person was disabled though. He was actually disabled.

Socialism only breds lazy, people who lack purpose.
Actually, my argument at this point is not is not remove help from all (though I think that would result in good for the society) but rather that those who are able to contribute are asked to contribute and encouraged to do so.....Those who actually need help can have it at this point in the discussion as far as I'm concerned, but it must be a real need not a manufactered one, like boo hooo, I'm blind now, I can't do anything at all, please feed me, I'm blind stuff doesn't cut it, what does is someone who seriously can't do something to help themselves (which btw, is a very small number given the number of people who overcome tremendous odds. If socialism works, we should be seeing a decrease in participation not an increase.

Actually, blindness is a huge impediment. I say this as a future employer.....I probably would never hire a blind person because as a blind person they are simply not going to be good at most basic tasks. In fact, being blind means they can't do most tasks. It's just a fact of business. Most of them will be unable to find work for themselves and so if we don't help them they will be left to become the poor and indigent. To let that happen would be un-Christian.


And even in a "socialist" system, and we have nothing resembling the kind, reward and initiative is rewarded. The people who made it through the Soviet heirarchy made it precisely because of their work, initative and service, just like in any bureaucracy. They didn't just sit around and have it handed to you. If you have ambition and want to rule the world that will come out no matter what kind of government system you have.

 

[razzelflabben]

I traditionally agree about welfare and I think that reforming it was one of the great things that Clinton did but there are two caveats about that

1. As it relates to single mothers, if they are going to have to work, and usually at minimum wage, that creates a problem with kids running around. I agree that forcing them to work is a great idea, but it is not right to then force them to spend all of that money on child care. There should be available state provided health care for the poor so that their children have somewhere to go while they are at work so they aren't running the streets committing petty crimes

actually at least here in Ohio there is....many years ago, the state tried to "reform" welfare, sighting the single mothers staying on rather than getting off welfare...welfare went to a work for benefits program....it didn't work either (but hey that isn't my argument at the moment) so we have child care help, work for benefits (result is you do manual labor for less than minimum wage), etc. today, our socialism worked so well that our numbers are growing because now, you can have huge resources to your name, good incomes, etc. and still collect if you know enough about the system to get around the loopholes....and the people do, why? because they don't have to be productive to draw a paycheck....yeah socialism.....(sarcasm)

2. That argument does tend to lose its weight in an economic period right now because we have unemployment of around 15%. I know you will immediately respond that official unemployment is only at 8.3%. Two things about that

no, thought never crossed my mind, when talking with me it is always best to dismiss the mainline arguments because nothing I do is mainline.

a. Unemployment rates are only comprised of people who can qualify for unemployment so if you are a recent (1 year or less) college or high school grad or have not worked enough to qualify for unemployment insurance before being laid off you don't qualify and so won't be counted in the statistic even if you are unemployed

right, and added to this problem is the problem with those who are unemployed drawing unemployment benefits (which means they don't need welfare benefits) which basically means the unemployment numbers don't help us understand the welfare numbers much at all.

b. Unemployment runs out after 6 months, so if 6 months have gone by and you still haven't found a replacement job then you fall out of the statistics and as far as the government is concerned you are employed again, even if you clearly aren't

yep, but we are talking about welfare, not unemployment, so you have those people going to welfare....now keep in mind that though I can make a case for helping no one with government money, at this point my argument is that we help only those in need....take the case of another family member, unemployed, worth 1/2 to 1 million dollars, but when welfare runs out will qualify for welfare benefits all the while, the family down the street, works a full time job, lives at about 1/2 poverty, and has to fight welfare for $50 per month per person for food. And this is a reworked system....if we are going to limit help to those who need, not those who want, then I won't be quite as strict in my arguments but as long as we allow government handouts to be about entitlements additudes and not need, I will fight to the death over all social programs.

Social Security is not a socialist program. And, for all of your complaints about it, do you have anything better? Should we just let the poor guy down the street starve and become one of the indigent elderly like we used to have before the New Deal

remember, I did not say take the money from the guy who couldn't save because of dead end jobs, I said take the money from the guy worth 1 1/2 to 2 million so that the guy who is starving has enough to sustain and maybe even thrive....

And just for the record, I know quite a few people (I know them very well) who would testify in court if necessary that people for the most part were not starving during the depression, that people were indeed helping one another....many of them would testify that today is worse then it was during the depression...further many would testify that when the government got involved they were forced to destroy food that would have feed those that were falling through the cracks but the government wouldn't allow them to because they wanted to jack up food prices to "help the economy" does that sound like a government that isn't sacrificing people on the alter for some illusive collective...How many people should we allow to starve to death so that we can extend the depression by 2 or 3 times what the market would have allowed? How much is a life really worth?

That person was disabled though. He was actually disabled.

so what, all disabled people are worthless? Does a disabled person have no worth to our society? Can they not contribute? I know some disabled people, some very disabled others mildly, that contribute to the society daily....where did we get this idea that because of a disability they have no value to our society?

Actually, blindness is a huge impediment. I say this as a future employer.....I probably would never hire a blind person because as a blind person they are simply not going to be good at most basic tasks. In fact, being blind means they can't do most tasks. It's just a fact of business. Most of them will be unable to find work for themselves and so if we don't help them they will be left to become the poor and indigent. To let that happen would be un-Christian.

wow, remind me what the governments laws are about hiring the handicapped???? Good thing you don't have a business, actually I find the additude troubling, but hey to each his own...in the case being discussed, the person was offered his own business a business that would have been specifically designed for someone who was blind....

and yes I get that a blind person couldn't run a press, but I also get that answering a phone isn't limited to only those with sight.

And even in a "socialist" system, and we have nothing resembling the kind, reward and initiative is rewarded. The people who made it through the Soviet heirarchy made it precisely because of their work, initative and service, just like in any bureaucracy. They didn't just sit around and have it handed to you. If you have ambition and want to rule the world that will come out no matter what kind of government system you have.

right and the socialist government that you want, will come and take everything you gained from your hard work and initiative and give it to the guy who wants to be a pampered, spoiled, rich kid....how much of your initiave can we take from you, I'm sure I can find someone who wants to be treated like a spoiled rich kid on the back of your hard work.

 

[Psudopod]

It’s not just a matter of how long she wants to spend with her child vs her spending power. She is putting her health at risk (and thus her spending power) if she pushes herself too hard. And this period is different for different women. Not every partner is going to be able to pick up the slack easily, especially as a child will be taking a extra sum of the money.
​

this is a good sound argument for people to not have kids, is that the argument you want to make?

Yeah, in an situation where there is no support for women adn children, having children is a bad thing. If women lose their power when they have children, it's a bad thing. This happens when you put power purely on the dollar. However if you seperate power and infulence from money, this is no longer a problem.

so what????? Who says he has to do everything exactly as she would???? You really do seem to be arguing for population control here, which to me is about as stupid and argument as comes down the pike....the other side would be if you are arguing that the government should pay every woman who wants to have a baby to carry that child, which is equally stupid an idea because then as we see in both welfare and foster care, we have woman using their uterus as a source of income....it's evidence, no speculation...so which are you arguing for? I don't want to read into your post what is not there....

Where are you gettting anything about population control from? You are proposing power linked to wealth, I am pointing out that that situation disadvantages certain groups unfairly. If power is linked directly to personal spending, and a woman has lost that personal spending, she has lost her power. Her husband is not a proxy for her. Let me try and explain using your examples.

A woman supports the neigbourhood corner store that has sprouted up as an alternative to walmart. When she becomes pregnant, she has to take some time off so she has no spending power of her own. She can only continue to support that corner shop if her husband allows her, because she is using his spending power. Of course, you could argue that most couples are in mutral agreement and will support each others decisions, but that isn't always the case. By tying power to wealth, you are automatically elevating some people above others. And as wealth has traditionally been linked to power anyway, you are unlike to change any status quo or force any change towards greater equality.

in a free market, you need less money to start that business, and we see that in other countries where even the poorest of the poor have their own business.

Problem is, under socialism, the only people benefiting are the middle class and upper classes.....

How? How is providing greater equality for people by making education, healthcare, support accessible to everyone only going to help the middle-classes? Starting your own business still needs some money, and not everyone is cut out to run their own business. I couldn't, I'm sure. You seem to be under the impression that free market economics makes everyone into the next Alan Sugar. Problems at your workplace? Well start your own business and beat them at their own game though your hard work. While I'm sure that there are some people who can and have done this, you will not protect everyone doing this.

And so what happens to the people who are failed?

You really want to talk about these groups, let me tell you a real story....My father went blind...the government offered to train him for an internet business, give him money to start that business in the form of supplies, help him with other things like advertising via news stories etc. (which every business man knows is gold) or, disability money....guess which he picked? Yep disability, now he is an old man sitting on his butt all day, doing nothing but growing angry, bitter, hateful and resentful....under free market, he would have been forced to choose to continue to live, to thrive, to contribute to society rather than steal from it (and he has stolen in more ways than one, but that is a long and private story) Socialism is set up so that people can take without ever giving back....free market requires us to participate in society not steal from it....

Goverment training, loans and disablility benefits are all socialist ideas. Without the government providing these things, he'd have had to have turned to charity. Hoped someone in a business whould be willing to give him a try, or a bank was willing to offer him some capital. With a free market, business are just as able to choose their clients as their clients are to choose them. If they did not want to risk lending money to your father, there would be no obligation for them to support him. Nor would their be any obligation for companies to treat disabled workers equally.

There is always a risk with welfare programs that people are going to take advantage of it, but there is that risk in any system. There will always be people who want to play to their advantage. They do need to be policed. But is it better that someone sits on the ass in front of the tv all day so that anyone, no matter what their situation has the same access and opertunities? I think so. That welfare programs have been or are badly run is not an argument against welfare programs, it's an argument against those welfare programs.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yeah, in an situation where there is no support for women adn children, having children is a bad thing. If women lose their power when they have children, it's a bad thing. This happens when you put power purely on the dollar. However if you seperate power and infulence from money, this is no longer a problem.

right, and both capitalism and socialism put the power on the dollar, free market puts the power on the people....what use to happen when a woman had a baby? Well, during free market, the woman was given more time to recouperate, and in most cases, an older woman, mother or friend, maybe sister, church member, would come in and offer to help....when the power is in the hands of the people not the greedy capitalist or greedy governments, people get the help they need, which is what the bible teaches btw....

Where are you gettting anything about population control from? You are proposing power linked to wealth, I am pointing out that that situation disadvantages certain groups unfairly. If power is linked directly to personal spending, and a woman has lost that personal spending, she has lost her power. Her husband is not a proxy for her. Let me try and explain using your examples.

I am suggesting power to those who have the initiative to move beyond the norm into a world of opportunities for all....What I am saying is that in free market, the woman is no longer confind to the dollar she has or doesn't have, under free market she now has the opportunity to use her creativity and choosen limitations to increase her buying power....but let's hear your complaints

A woman supports the neigbourhood corner store that has sprouted up as an alternative to walmart. When she becomes pregnant, she has to take some time off so she has no spending power of her own. She can only continue to support that corner shop if her husband allows her, because she is using his spending power. Of course, you could argue that most couples are in mutral agreement and will support each others decisions, but that isn't always the case. By tying power to wealth, you are automatically elevating some people above others. And as wealth has traditionally been linked to power anyway, you are unlike to change any status quo or force any change towards greater equality.

So now, we have no responsibility over our own decisions? We can also argue that there are woman who only have the food money that they husbands give them, let's hand them government money so their husbands can take that away and they have nothing left because we have not personal responsibility to adhere to....sorry I don't buy what your selling here. You could take 100 people, 1000, one million, doesn't matter, give them all the same money, same buying power, same everything and in a year, they will all have differing amount, in 10 years you won't even recognize they had the same to start with....it's called life, it's called human nature....a woman with opportunities, baby or not, can improve her situation....a woman without opportunities, baby or not, is stuck right where she is.....when the system encourages personal responsibility, personal growth, the amazing thing is that we find responsible growing succesful people....

How? How is providing greater equality for people by making education, healthcare, support accessible to everyone only going to help the middle-classes?

one question at a time....let's take education, it is a growing problem....as we become more and more socialist, higher education becomes easier to acquire...more and more kids getting education, should result in more and more kids getting good paying jobs right....wrong, the good jobs still go to the kids with connections but now, the poor kids have lost the money they spent on education even if only for food while in school, they have lost years where they could have been working, and to top it off, they still don't have a good paying job because they don't have the connections. Want evidence, look at the statistics for college educated people on welfare, the number is growing pretty rapidly...so how is socialism going to break all the connections in our lives so that everyone has the same chance? How are you going to change the fact that the school super has a son who is graduating, or the Ford CEO promised his nephew a job when he finished school? If you want equality, find a way to stop President Obama's children from having more job connections offered to them than my kids will have offered to them.....point is this, life isn't fair, it's a fact....changing who has the money won't stop life from being unfair, people will, that is why putting power in the hands of people as free market does is a superior plan to capitalism or socialism either one where the power is solely on those with wealth.....Oh, don't forget to notice who in the government is poor and who is rich, can't even get a power position in the government without being rich.....government job sure, government power, not without large sums of money.

Starting your own business still needs some money, and not everyone is cut out to run their own business.

right, and both capitalism and socialism force the entrepenuer to have more money to get something started than free market does....so free market creates more opportunity....have you ever talked to a poor person? They don't want a hand out, they want a chance to make it for themselves, it's a human nature things, people want to succeed.

I couldn't, I'm sure. You seem to be under the impression that free market economics makes everyone into the next Alan Sugar. Problems at your workplace?

actually what I am saying is that under free market everyone has a chance to make it, if you lack the incentive, the stamina, the creativity, etc. that isn't anyones problem but yours, a problem you created by not being motivated enough to do something about it. If you want to take the power away from the money, free market is the way to go, because the power is on each and every individual not on the wealth they do or don't have, it's on their merit and God's grace.

Well start your own business and beat them at their own game though your hard work. While I'm sure that there are some people who can and have done this, you will not protect everyone doing this.

actually both capitalism and socialism make starting your own business a very difficult thing....I have friends around the world, let me compare two different realities to make my point.....here in the states, we are attempting to start our own business, we sacrifice, work hard, etc. and still, the socialist city we live in comes along and after the federal government, state government, and city government already makes it very difficult and more expensive to start that business, the socialist city comes along and all but closes our business down because they didn't like that we had to load a vehicle for deliveries during a week day....(true story) another true story, we have some friends from another country, they know people who are trying to start businesses to survive (which btw is our motivation) they fix meals in their kitchen then go out on the streets at lunch time and sell to the office workers on lunch break, their business is thriving and they soon will be moving up in class status, no government hassels, no government taxes and fees, just people using thier natural resources to better themselves....Which is offering equality and which requires power to be governed by money?

And so what happens to the people who are failed?

don't understand your question, please explain.

Goverment training, loans and disablility benefits are all socialist ideas. Without the government providing these things, he'd have had to have turned to charity. Hoped someone in a business whould be willing to give him a try, or a bank was willing to offer him some capital. With a free market, business are just as able to choose their clients as their clients are to choose them. If they did not want to risk lending money to your father, there would be no obligation for them to support him. Nor would their be any obligation for companies to treat disabled workers equally.

and yet, there were offers from the private sector as well, but because he could be a spoiled rich kid so to speak, he contributes nothing and takes much....so how have you leveled the playing field? how have you bettered his life?

There is always a risk with welfare programs that people are going to take advantage of it, but there is that risk in any system. There will always be people who want to play to their advantage. They do need to be policed. But is it better that someone sits on the ass in front of the tv all day so that anyone, no matter what their situation has the same access and opertunities? I think so. That welfare programs have been or are badly run is not an argument against welfare programs, it's an argument against those welfare programs.

actually, the playing field is no more even and in fact, it is less even under socialism and this whole post shows why and how, so I don't feel a need to repeat everything already stated.

 

[Psudopod]

Goverment training, loans and disablility benefits are all socialist ideas. Without the government providing these things, he'd have had to have turned to charity. Hoped someone in a business whould be willing to give him a try, or a bank was willing to offer him some capital. With a free market, business are just as able to choose their clients as their clients are to choose them. If they did not want to risk lending money to your father, there would be no obligation for them to support him. Nor would their be any obligation for companies to treat disabled workers equally.

and yet, there were offers from the private sector as well, but because he could be a spoiled rich kid so to speak, he contributes nothing and takes much....so how have you leveled the playing field? how have you bettered his life?

Well he’s not starving, is he? Surely that’s a start. As I said, you have to set programs up well, anything set up badly is doomed from the start, but you give people incentive by showing they can be better off by taking the next step to help themselves. You make sure they have food, shelter and healthcare, and you give them training and opportunity. In this country, there is a problem with the welfare system because there is a gap between the point where you stop receiving benefits, and a decent standard of living through work. People have to work many hours at a poor job to keep themselves in the same position. The solution is not to remove benefits and let people starve, but to have a better weaning off system. Make working more attractive than just benefits, while making sure people who haven’t got to that stage are still able to live

 

[Psudopod]

Goverment training, loans and disablility benefits are all socialist ideas. Without the government providing these things, he'd have had to have turned to charity. Hoped someone in a business whould be willing to give him a try, or a bank was willing to offer him some capital. With a free market, business are just as able to choose their clients as their clients are to choose them. If they did not want to risk lending money to your father, there would be no obligation for them to support him. Nor would their be any obligation for companies to treat disabled workers equally.

and yet, there were offers from the private sector as well, but because he could be a spoiled rich kid so to speak, he contributes nothing and takes much....so how have you leveled the playing field? how have you bettered his life?

Well he’s not starving, is he? Surely that’s a start. As I said, you have to set programs up well, anything set up badly is doomed from the start, but you give people incentive by showing they can be better off by taking the next step to help themselves. You make sure they have food, shelter and healthcare, and you give them training and opportunity. In this country, there is a problem with the welfare system because there is a gap between the point where you stop receiving benefits, and a decent standard of living through work. People have to work many hours at a poor job to keep themselves in the same position. The solution is not to remove benefits and let people starve, but to have a better weaning off system. Make working more attractive than just benefits, while making sure people who haven’t got to that stage are still able to live

 

[Psudopod]

Sorry, post too long, causing me issue!

right, and both capitalism and socialism put the power on the dollar, free market puts the power on the people....

Because of their spending power. Which comes back to the money.

what use to happen when a woman had a baby? Well, during free market, the woman was given more time to recouperate, and in most cases, an older woman, mother or friend, maybe sister, church member, would come in and offer to help...

Really? And what happens to people who don’t have this handy circle of women ready and willing to support them in anyway?

.when the power is in the hands of the people not the greedy capitalist or greedy governments, people get the help they need, which is what the bible teaches btw....

What processes are there to ensure people get the help they need?

Where are you gettting anything about population control from? You are proposing power linked to wealth, I am pointing out that that situation disadvantages certain groups unfairly. If power is linked directly to personal spending, and a woman has lost that personal spending, she has lost her power. Her husband is not a proxy for her. Let me try and explain using your examples.

I am suggesting power to those who have the initiative to move beyond the norm into a world of opportunities for all....What I am saying is that in free market, the woman is no longer confind to the dollar she has or doesn't have, under free market she now has the opportunity to use her creativity and choosen limitations to increase her buying power....but let's hear your complaints

How does she get these opportunities? How can she increase her buying power when she cannot earn a wage, even if that is for a short period?

A woman supports the neigbourhood corner store that has sprouted up as an alternative to walmart. When she becomes pregnant, she has to take some time off so she has no spending power of her own. She can only continue to support that corner shop if her husband allows her, because she is using his spending power. Of course, you could argue that most couples are in mutral agreement and will support each others decisions, but that isn't always the case. By tying power to wealth, you are automatically elevating some people above others. And as wealth has traditionally been linked to power anyway, you are unlike to change any status quo or force any change towards greater equality.

So now, we have no responsibility over our own decisions? We can also argue that there are woman who only have the food money that they husbands give them, let's hand them government money so their husbands can take that away and they have nothing left because we have not personal responsibility to adhere to....sorry I don't buy what your selling here. You could take 100 people, 1000, one million, doesn't matter, give them all the same money, same buying power, same everything and in a year, they will all have differing amount, in 10 years you won't even recognize they had the same to start with....it's called life, it's called human nature....a woman with opportunities, baby or not, can improve her situation....a woman without opportunities, baby or not, is stuck right where she is.....when the system encourages personal responsibility, personal growth, the amazing thing is that we find responsible growing succesful people....

|If people all have the equal oppertunites, then yes you can claim that the differing amounts they have will be down to the differing amounts of work they have done. I don’t disagree with rewarding hard work and innovation, but when you put power in money, you disadvantage people unfairly. Let’s say we have two people, each with £1000 that they are going to use to start their business. One of them falls ill, has to pay money for treatment, has less capital to start his business. He is now disadvantaged compared to his counterpart. He has worked just as hard, and saved just as much, but something outside his control has majorly affected his life.

Let’s say we have two people working in a company, a man and a woman. Same age, both hard workers, both start a family. The company decides it only needs one of them, and is going to get rid of the other. Which is in their best interest to keep? The man who can keep working, or the woman who is going to need time off? Without employment protection, the woman is severely disadvantaged. Hard work and innovation have nothing to do with it.