Socialism...

Psudopod · May 15, 2009

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

For a start, this only applies to further education where a child is supporting themselves. Let’s look at the whole thing. If people have to pay for education, those who can pay the most can get the best education. A fee earning school has no incentive to provide a good education to everyone, just those who attend. As long as it can attract enough pupils, it will be okay. Those who cannot afford the best, will have to make do or go without. Further education I agree should be provide on a basis of academic basis, it’s not for everyone, but making people pay for it isn’t going to make it any better. You’re still going to deprive people who would benefit from access. What about healthcare, for example?

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.....

Click to expand...

Life isn’t fair, which is why we need to put in artificial measures to make things fairer. You might not solve everything, you certainly won’t do it all at once, but saying life isn’t fair is no reason not to try. It’s not fair that kids are born to parents without money, but that’s no reason to deny them access to education. And it should be just as good as the education received by the rich kids. It’s not fair that women suffer all the medical issues in childbirth, but they do. We should make sure that their employment prospects aren’t diminished because of this. It’s not fair that some people get really sick and others are completely healthy, that’s why we should spread the cost of health across everyone.

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.

Click to expand...

Not in this country, you can be an mp without being rich. Many of them are, and many of them are far from perfect, but there’s no reason why you’d need to be rich to be pm.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Some want to sit on their backsides, so do some rich people. You haven’t explained how a free market makes it cheaper to start a 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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

How does the existence of a free market suddenly give me skills in people management, marketing, business flair and all the other things that make a good entreupenur?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

I don’t see how either example is an argument against socialism.

And so what happens to the people who are failed?

Click to expand...

don't understand your question, please explain.

Click to expand...

What happens to those who aren’t selected by the market forces? Those who don’t make it as small businessmen? Or are you going to tell me that every business only fails through it’s owner’s laziness?

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Which is more equal? Free education for all, or education based on what you parents can pay?
Which is more equal? Universal healthcare, or penalising people for being ill?
Which is more equal? Providing anti-discrimination laws to protect workers, or letting the market select candidates and get rid of them as they choose?

razzelflabben · May 15, 2009

Psudopod said:
Well hes not starving, is he? Surely thats 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 havent got to that stage are still able to live

Now admittedly, I haven't said this here on this thread before but it is a common argument with me and those who spend much time talking with me know it will....Let's go with your claim that programs set up badly are doomed from the start, I can go along with that, but what that means is that here in the USA we are not capable of setting up a social program that works and so we need to turn from socialism while we can salvage what we do do well, and go back to the constitution...which refuses to allow socialism to be part of our government.....

and I haven't even begun to talk about standard of living and how the economy would change under free market....we don't even have to go down that road, because America has evidenced that they are incapable of making socialism work, so why keep beating a dead horse, why not flee what isn't working for what did.

There's a joke my kids love, it goes like this, the governments policy is...if it isn't broken, fix it until it is..... souds about right.....

razzelflabben · May 15, 2009

Psudopod said:
Well hes not starving, is he? Surely thats a start.

he wouldn't have started without government help, in fact, the man inherited most of a million dollars, and that is just a start, but the government still saw a need to pay all his bills so that he could sit around collecting more and more, all the while people in his immediate family and going hungry living at about 1/2 poverty and they are lucky if the government offers some food stamps, stamps they have to fight to get and the man who is blind, gets more in government help, sitting on over a million dollars, than the family who is working and raising kids has between job and government assistance....and whats worse, the blind man refuses his family the same help that was offered him by family....is that your idea of equality? It's not my idea of a level playing field, sounds to me like socialist programs are very much so playing favorites for those with money power.

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 havent got to that stage are still able to live

Click to expand...

apparently the USA government is incapable of setting up a good social program, so why not stick with what we do best, representative republic, as discribed in the constitution.....

razzelflabben · May 15, 2009

Psudopod said:
Sorry, post too long, causing me issue!

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

everything in this world comes down to money if you do it right, the problem is that in capitalism and socialist, the power is held by those with money, in free market, the power is held by everyone who buys goods or services, which just happens to be everyone old enough to have money and spend it....go figure, leveling the playing field....

Really? And what happens to people who dont have this handy circle of women ready and willing to support them in anyway?

in the "old" days, the community pulled together and offered to help....and btw, I didn't have that help on any level and I did just fine, even when I had little kids and was on bed rest.....

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

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?

I've answered this many times over now, she starts a business, without government intervention, her mind is the only limitation..

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.

Click to expand...

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 dont disagree with rewarding hard work and innovation, but when you put power in money, you disadvantage people unfairly. Lets 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.

Click to expand...

wow, so now acts of God should be government by the government....wow....but let's take that guy, be fair to the question....so now the guy that starts with 1000 has to forfeit say 50 % for the guy who got sick, now by the time that guy pays for his lunch for his family, he's out of cash and can't start his business because his neighbor got sick...but if we allow him to keep his 1000, he starts his business, turns it into 2 or 3 times what he started with, can feed his family and help the neighbor who got sick, who looses? the sick guy, because he got sick? Point is this, what I see time and time again is that people who love socialism primarily love it because they are afraid that people and/or God will abandon them in thier time of need, it's really a trust issue at it's root. Problem is that throughout history we have seen that the core of man is good, the core of humanity cares and helps, there are those of course that won't, but the very nature of man goes right back to his creation in the garden, he was created to love. When we trust that love, we don't need the endless circle of governments apathy that sacrifices a few for a stronger, more powerful government, a government that is nothing more than a collection of the wealthiest of our society. It's a trust issue, an issue that history says, socialogy says, is not a problem for the majority of mankind....look at it this way, very few people in our world would not feed a blind guy they knew needed help....

Lets 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.

Click to expand...

Are you sure she is disadvantaged? This is the same woman who is an incredible chef, who has wanted to start a restaurant all her life. She takes the opportunity created to have time off to have children to start a gormet street cart where she takes here baby to sleep during her busy lunch hour. Never once needing the baby to be left out of her sight. The gormet cart is a huge success in within a couple of years she is opening a full restaurrant and making about 10 times the male counterpart that kept his job....what did she loose? She got to stay home with her children, got to start her dream job, makes lots and lots of money, seems to me the man who stayed in a dead end job is the looser....the point is this when you are motivated, your only limits are those imposed upon you by government and yourself....that is why free market works, the government doesn't stop you, so all you have to worry about is your own limitation

But one more element needs to come into a complete understanding of this issue, the woman and her husband only want 2 kids, the man and his wife want 6, should the man make 3 times the woman doing the same job because he has more mouths to feed?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

razzelflabben · May 15, 2009

Psudopod said:
For a start, this only applies to further education where a child is supporting themselves. Lets look at the whole thing. If people have to pay for education, those who can pay the most can get the best education. A fee earning school has no incentive to provide a good education to everyone, just those who attend. As long as it can attract enough pupils, it will be okay. Those who cannot afford the best, will have to make do or go without. Further education I agree should be provide on a basis of academic basis, its not for everyone, but making people pay for it isnt going to make it any better. Youre still going to deprive people who would benefit from access. What about healthcare, for example?

Look at education in the US, failing school systems and throwing money at them does nothing to pull up their standards, just like with our blind guy, without incentive people stop trying, stop moving forward....

but let's look at it yet another way, this time backwards...what happened in the free market days of this country? We saw communities fund school, and yes, it was for all students because with education for all the kids, the community benefited....what about manditory education....it was one of the worse things we ever did to our education system...when we remove incentive, people don't preform, much of our current problems are because we have classrooms full of kids who don't want to be there, don't want to get an education and parents who don't care anymore than the kids, we remove incentive and see failure, add incentive, see success....

So we can look at this several different ways, present day, historically, etc. and we still come to the same conclusion, when people are given the power not money, not elitists, things get done, and the playing field is much more level than we could hope for otherwise....

Life isnt fair, which is why we need to put in artificial measures to make things fairer. You might not solve everything, you certainly wont do it all at once, but saying life isnt fair is no reason not to try. Its not fair that kids are born to parents without money, but thats no reason to deny them access to education.

except free market doesn't deny them education, it just allows parents and local communities the power to educate.

And it should be just as good as the education received by the rich kids.

Click to expand...

that will be easy, because routinely we see that the educations of kids whose parents and local communities take responsibility, the better the education is, and those numbers are ususally extreme advantages, not just marginal ones. So, free market, no problem, got that one in the bag.

Its not fair that women suffer all the medical issues in childbirth, but they do.

Maybe we should pass a law governing which parent bears most of the weight of childbirth, that way we could level the playing field....see that is the problem with taking the idea tooo far, life is going to happen with or without the government. We can work within the things life/God/fate, whatever word you want to put on it, and find a way to empower people to overcome, or, we can take away all thier power over their lives, and allow the outcomes of the pressures of life to be determined by a few elite who hold money and claim to be better at governing then you are, the money holding power that tells you who lives and who dies, who doesn't care who you are, the money holding power that only wishes above all else to remain in money holding power for themselves and their family and is willing to sacrifice you and I to keep that money holding power....Personally, I'll take my chances on God with me in control of the outcome of my struggles.

We should make sure that their employment prospects arent diminished because of this. Its not fair that some people get really sick and others are completely healthy, thats why we should spread the cost of health across everyone.

sounds reasonable until you do the math....let's take health care, and again let's use real life situations to illustrate our point here....we have two glaring problems 1. with government insurance, you don't decide what or if you get treatment, the government does...case in point, our son who has been to the emergency room 3 maybe 4 times in less than a year (not sure yet if the 4th time was related, still waiting to know) for the same problem, ER Dr. says get a referral to a specialist, but you can't get a referal because of gov. ins issues....but let's take it even a step further, I need meds to keep from having a stroke and not end up in the ER again, First hospital stay, the Dr. gets my meds worked out, only when I go for refill, gov. ins, won't cover that med, so I don't get a necessary med...who cares? Does the government that decided the rules care? of course not...but things get even worse with the second issue 2. who gets care. The rich guy worth millions gets the same medical ins as the poor guy making below poverty wages....but where the ins fails, the rich guy takes his money and buys his care, where is the equality? Where is the level playing field? What happened to the extra money that could have provided quality care for the poor family if the rich were made to use their wealth to provide for their own care. See, the problem is, no matter how you slice it, socialism just simply doesn't do what you all claim it does.

Not in this country, you can be an mp without being rich. Many of them are, and many of them are far from perfect, but theres no reason why youd need to be rich to be pm.

which is a good argument for the people control of free market..

Some want to sit on their backsides, so do some rich people. You havent explained how a free market makes it cheaper to start a business.

lots of ways, from taxes to fees and everything in between have you ever tried to start a business and seen all the paperwork you need to file for the government, not to mention taxes, etc. Manditory ins., etc. it's the government mandated stuff that will kill a business before it gets started. In a free market, the people make the rules, not the government, meaning less regulations, in fact, only the regulations that each individual is willing to live with.

How does the existence of a free market suddenly give me skills in people management, marketing, business flair and all the other things that make a good entreupenur?

it doesn't, but neither does capitalism or socialism, what you do get is the opportunity to try

I dont see how either example is an argument against socialism.

What happens to those who arent selected by the market forces? Those who dont make it as small businessmen? Or are you going to tell me that every business only fails through its owners laziness?

you need someone to work for those who are making it, I really don't know what you find so hard about this, what is your objection, specifically, so that I can accuarately address it?

Well hes not starving, is he? Surely thats 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 havent got to that stage are still able to live

see previous posts

Which is more equal? Free education for all, or education based on what you parents can pay?

Click to expand...

I would argue that a good education for all who want to be educated is where equality is found.

Which is more equal? Universal healthcare, or penalising people for being ill?

again, no one is suggesting penalizing anyone, so I'm not sure what your argument is, free market, 1.regulates the market to the point where the majority of people can afford the service, if you want to give the truely poor medical ins, I think your wrong, but I won't complain...

Which is more equal? Providing anti-discrimination laws to protect workers, or letting the market select candidates and get rid of them as they choose?

Hum???it really sounds like you haven't heard a thing I said, either that or you choose to ignore me because you think you have all the answers, so again I will correct you, in a free market system, it is society that governs what it is willing or not willing to tolerate. That's why when the people decided they would no longer tolerate slavery, the free market system built into the representative republic government of this country, founght a war and decided that slavery would not longer exist, because it was people rule not money rule...and just so you are following, money rule would have kept slavery a part of our country, but it didn't, people rule governed and under it, equality for all, began to flourish.

Socialism...

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat

More options

razzelflabben

Contributor

More options

razzelflabben

Contributor

More options

razzelflabben

Contributor

More options

razzelflabben

Contributor

More options

Similar threads

Socialism...

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat

razzelflabben

Contributor

razzelflabben

Contributor

razzelflabben

Contributor

razzelflabben

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency