Socialism

Greever

Super Anarchist
4,091
106
Rockford, MI
A comment on CA brought this question up.

What say thee?

I think we are headed in that direction,and it's not a good thing. A lot of people seem to want to be taken care of by the government from "cradle to grave", and it makes me sick.

 

austin1972

Super Anarchist
12,472
314
1,
Economics predicts that is the progression...I think it's the only thing economics actually predicts other than the obvious famine, disease and war stuff.

 

MSG

Super Anarchist
11,350
5
Voorheesville,NY
A comment on CA brought this question up.
What say thee?

I think we are headed in that direction,and it's not a good thing. A lot of people seem to want to be taken care of by the government from "cradle to grave", and it makes me sick.
I do have to ask, which particular issue makes you feel we are headed in that direction? Boat safety? (cause that's what the CA comment was about) Health Care? Campaign Finance? The Interstate system?

 

jetboy

Super Anarchist
1,595
0
Since I may have helped start this discussion, I figured I better post.

Yes, I think were are currently rounding the corner. We are but one president away from universal health care, 50% tax rates, and general government control of our lives. The shift has been going that way for some time now. Especially with today's young adults. I just can't understand why someone would think the government could run anything as complex as health care efficiently. It baffles the mind.

Let's say for example you don't like G.W. I think any barely functioning brain can predict that we will have other presidents that we don't agree with. Yet we, as a society, seem to have such a short range vision that we believe putting the government (executive... ultimately president...) in charge of our healthcare is a good idea. Can't people see that if they had done this under Clinton, G.W. would now be in control of the agency administering thier health care? Can't they see that historic trends put republicans in the white house 2/3 of the time? But yet people think putting health care in the government's hands is going to somehow increase care, reduce costs, and make everyone happy?

IMO the federal government has a purpose and there are certian things that simply cannot be accomplished without comprehensive national planing and execution. I actually think things like energy policy are best administered on a national scale for efficiency reasons. But that doesn't mean the goverment should run the energy system or provide free electricity to everyone regardless of our useage. Rather the government should create the proper market rules for the most efficient effective market. Healthcare is the same way. It makes as much sense as universal auto insurance, or universal food. I agree that the healthcare system is lacking, but fixing the market is the answer, not nationalizing it.

The problem is that it seems good in the short term because we are effectively nationalizing the resources that have been accumulated by private interests. These resources are now being expended in an effective redistribution to the masses. It works great for a little while, but what we quickly see is that lack of competition means lower standards of care. We also see the eliminaiton of the incentive to maintain or improve the assets that are now effectively controled by the government and the system atrophies until we all have nothing. A good example is the common statistic that there are more MRI machines in Denver than Canada. What do you expect health care to look like in Canada in 20 years? How about 50 years with the same investment? I love Canada BTW, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to have cancer there.

Anyway health care is just an indicator of what many americans want, government handouts at the cost of freedom and I fear they are going to end up with it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
Since I may have helped start this discussion, I figured I better post.
Yes, I think were are currently rounding the corner. We are but one president away from universal health care, 50% tax rates, and general government control of our lives. The shift has been going that way for some time now. Especially with today's young adults. I just can't understand why someone would think the government could run anything as complex as health care efficiently. It baffles the mind.

Let's say for example you don't like G.W. I think any barely functioning brain can predict that we will have other presidents that we don't agree with. Yet we, as a society, seem to have such a short range vision that we believe putting the government (executive... ultimately president...) in charge of our healthcare is a good idea. Can't people see that if they had done this under Clinton, G.W. would now be in control of the agency administering thier health care? Can't they see that historic trends put republicans in the white house 2/3 of the time? But yet people think putting health care in the government's hands is going to somehow increase care, reduce costs, and make everyone happy?

IMO the federal government has a purpose and there are certian things that simply cannot be accomplished without comprehensive national planing and execution. I actually think things like energy policy are best administered on a national scale for efficiency reasons. But that doesn't mean the goverment should run the energy system or provide free electricity to everyone regardless of our useage. Rather the government should create the proper market rules for the most efficient effective market. Healthcare is the same way. It makes as much sense as universal auto insurance, or universal food. I agree that the healthcare system is lacking, but fixing the market is the answer, not nationalizing it.

The problem is that it seems good in the short term because we are effectively nationalizing the resources that have been accumulated by private interests. These resources are now being expended in an effective redistribution to the masses. It works great for a little while, but what we quickly see is that lack of competition means lower standards of care. We also see the eliminaiton of the incentive to maintain or improve the assets that are now effectively controled by the government and the system atrophies until we all have nothing. A good example is the common statistic that there are more MRI machines in Denver than Canada. What do you expect health care to look like in Canada in 20 years? How about 50 years with the same investment? I love Canada BTW, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to have cancer there.

Anyway health care is just an indicator of what many americans want, government handouts at the cost of freedom and I fear they are going to end up with it.
Excellent post!

 

yok

Member
178
0
Ross-shire
Americans have been trained not to like socialism because the Boss Class, the Media have told them so. That you, as a citizen, can have your own opinion is not to be countenanced. The Government can be trusted to run nuclear submarines and engage in wars, but not apparently health care. Though perhaps this should be a state affair, not the federal government's in such a large county.

The USSR was never a workers' paradise, always a bankers and the Bolshivic take-over was funded by NY bankers. Maybe the USA is going the same way.

Taxes are paid for what? Public assets? I doubt it. But as you are domiciled overseas and don't pay taxes to support the USA, so better to maintain your luxury yachts, this is not a concern for you.

A vibrant society would support you from the cradle and through education when it would pay dividends. What you call this is up to you. Socialism is a non-starter and would never get you elected. And towards the grave if we have any repect for our elders.

What ails ye ancient Captstan? The mob as baying as per norm on the forum.

 

jfclapp

Super Anarchist
7,001
4
Massachusetts
We already have public control of trash removal, roadway maintenance, air traffic control, the public airwaves, trade, Interstate commerce, licencing of practitioners, air and water quality control, public schools, parklands, foodsafety, and on and on and on.

I see alot of assertions going back 50 years and more that governement can't do this or that, but what I dont see is proof that the private sector is really more efficient, reliable or trustoworthy than the public one. consider the outrages when private corporations start getting into defense. Do those who fear socialism suggest that the military and law enforcement should be entrusted to the provate sector? seems to be the case, when you see how much work Blackwater and KBR have been getting in American theatres of War. Be afraid of politics, and of politicians, but be equally afraid of equity capital and corporate boards. As someone who has sworked in large corporations and also been a federal civil servant I can tell you the distinctions in motivation, capacity and intent are far less significant than the conventional wisdom calims.

I suggest we have turned a corner, that the premise of this thread is bullshit, and the opposite direction is being vigorously turned. "Socialism" is a fear mongering shibbolith, and has no meaning in the present context but political. We are constantly having this debate of fascism vs socialism here -

government control of private industry is what? and is bad why?

public ownership of vital infrastructure is what? and is bad why?

without specifically examining what we already have and accept as necessary and what we genuinely find harmful there is nothing here but political manoevering.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greever

Super Anarchist
4,091
106
Rockford, MI
I do have to ask, which particular issue makes you feel we are headed in that direction? Boat safety? (cause that's what the CA comment was about) Health Care? Campaign Finance? The Interstate system?
Healthcare, in particular. Also the promise of a "dignified retirement" even if you were a welfare bum your whole life, just doesn't seem fair to me.

I just don't feel the Federal Government has what it takes to efficiently run ANYTHING. In the end we will be forced to pay more for less. (except for the lazy, who don't pay taxes anyway)

Also: the pipedream that we will just tax the rich, to feed the poor is bullshit. The middleclass will bear the greatest burden of anyone. The rich will hide more of their money in tax shelters and laugh all the way to the bank. The poor will continue to bitch about how bad it is for them, while sitting on their ass waiting for handouts instead of getting a job.

In regards to boating safety: The LAST thing we need is something like the FAA to control boating maintenance. It is killing the General Aviation Industry, and it would kill boating.

 

jfclapp

Super Anarchist
7,001
4
Massachusetts
Healthcare, in particular. Also the promise of a "dignified retirement" even if you were a welfare bum your whole life, just doesn't seem fair to me.
I just don't feel the Federal Government has what it takes to efficiently run ANYTHING. In the end we will be forced to pay more for less. (except for the lazy, who don't pay taxes anyway)

Also: the pipedream that we will just tax the rich, to feed the poor is bullshit. The middleclass will bear the greatest burden of anyone. The rich will hide more of their money in tax shelters and laugh all the way to the bank. The poor will continue to bitch about how bad it is for them, while sitting on their ass waiting for handouts instead of getting a job.

In regards to boating safety: The LAST thing we need is something like the FAA to control boating maintenance. It is killing the General Aviation Industry, and it would kill boating.
thats some compelling evidence there. If your going to play in PA, at least provide some substance for our "feelings".

FAA is killing aviation, again, pics or it never happened.

welfare is a miniscule fraction of federal spending. Another divisive emotional issue that diverts attention from real problems.

If you are concerned about subsidies eating up your taxes consider farm subsidies or corporate welfare, or read a book, why dont you, instead of blathering about "the poor" like D-mon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greever

Super Anarchist
4,091
106
Rockford, MI
thats some compelling evidence there. If your going to play in PA, at least provide some substance for our "feelings".
FAA is killing aviation, again, pics or it never happened.

welfare is a miniscule fraction of federal spending. Another divisive emotional issue that diverts attention from real problems.

If you are concerned about subsidies eating up your taxes consider farm subsidies or corporate welfare, or read a book, why dont you, instead of blathering about "the poor" like D-mon.
Feeling, opinion, whatever.......

I said "General Aviation", and yes it's almost dead. (at least for the middle class) Do you have any idea how much it costs to own/maintain even a 30 year old peice of shit 4 seater?

As far as "blathering" about the poor, I speak from personal experience since I used to be poor. Many are raised believing "The Man" is always going to try and keep them down. The truth is there is still plenty of opportunity in this country if you are willing to work for it.

And speaking of work: It's time to bail and strap the toolbag on to make some dough.

Have fun Kids! :lol:

 

Latest posts




Top