How's your nation going?

[battosai]

Left - Wing Utopia (or Civil Rights Love Fest) is the opposite of a dictatorship...

[SKILORD]

Really? In my ewyes it's the same

[battosai]

civil rights lovefest = superb civilrights/ pol. freedoms
leftwing utopia = civil rights lovefest + regulated business
dictatorship = rare-outlawed civilrights/ pol. freedoms + regulated economy (if too much and a few civilrights, then it also could be "iron fist socialists")

So the only common feature between a left-wing utopia and a dictatorship is the regulated economy.

[Datajack Franit]

Actually the only wall between corrupt dictatorship and democrat socialists is... allowing corporations to fund parties? Ouch

[SKILORD]

cool it batt, i wasn't talking about the game there, just saying that a government thatforces it's inhabitants to surrender their wealth for other purpouses is just as unholy in my sight as a nation which has suceeded in abolishing wealth, and has moved on to the destruction of political freedoms.

[battosai]

*cool* Well, but it's still a very rough comparison. Maybe a government abolishing the wealth isn't holy but there's still a long way until political and civil rights are also destroyed.

[Sava]

Interesting stereotypes about what socialism is. Skilord seems more concerned with the handful of rich people who will only be rich instead of super-rich while he should be concerned with the millions who would receive health-care and education instead of living in poverty.

[SKILORD]

As a matter of fact I am so concerned

It depends on whether you veiw such people as succesful, or as exploiters I suppose, I see them as having earned every penny of what they have, through the labor of others? Yes, but they payed those others, I see the poor as inherintly lazy, unambitious people who don't deserve the hard earned dollar of their fellow man.

Has Socialism ever cured the woes it set out to abolish? Can you give me an example of a nation in which this suceeded?

Sweden (Norway? I can't tell the difference) had to scale back it's socialism because it discovered it was killing itself with it. France's economy is in pains because of high taxes caused by welfare projects.

I support public schooling, by the way, I beleive that we should provide equal chances (or at least level the field a bit) for the impovershed, but I don't especiallythink that the poor should be given money simply for being poor. I don't understand why those too lazy too seek work should be paid my money.

Screw the lazy!

[battosai]

Israel (its Kibbutzim) is a good example we have already talked about at the message board of apolyton.

[SKILORD]

Can I have a link to the discussion?

[GeneralTacticus]

SKILORd, you do realize that it isn't always people's own fault that they're unemployed? Sometimes there are just no jobs to be had, period. And in any case, surely you'lla gree that a healthy, fed, educated population is better than a diseased, starving, illiterate populaton, no?

[SKILORD]

:erk:

Actually I find that a bit hard to believe, If the economy is on the rocks it's probably (rather, defiantly) the government's fault (most things are) and could be best rectified b yallowing them to go into business themselves, easing the process, or making other companies able to hire.

[GeneralTacticus]

1) Why is it always the governemnt's fault? Is it the government's faut if people get laid off for forming unnions to try to get better pay?

2) Can be rectified by allowing who to go into business, exactly? Everyone who's unemployed? That would be rathe rhard, especially if, as a result of being unemployed, they have no money and no food. Besides, what happens if someone in a low-paying job is injured and unable to work? If they can't afford medical care, they're basically f*cked.

It's kind of ironic that the more you drive socialism out of governemnt, the more likely it becomes that socialism will win, because more people will be worse off and driven towardextreme socialism.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
1) Why is it always the governemnt's fault? Is it the government's faut if people get laid off for forming unnions to try to get better pay?

2) Can be rectified by allowing who to go into business, exactly? Everyone who's unemployed? That would be rathe rhard, especially if, as a result of being unemployed, they have no money and no food. Besides, what happens if someone in a low-paying job is injured and unable to work? If they can't afford medical care, they're basically f*cked.

It's kind of ironic that the more you drive socialism out of governemnt, the more likely it becomes that socialism will win, because more people will be worse off and driven towardextreme socialism.

:sigh: Employers are not exploiters, under socialism they are, rather, the exploited.

I see nothing wrong with unions, and there underlying principle, If one can consoilidate the Worker's Might one has greater bargaining power, would make it impossible to fire them all, because if someone ever felt like being radical he would join a union before revolting. Eventually the membership would swell enough to force the Employers to see them as equals. The Unions and the companies could work this stuff out, without governmnet intervention, with police breaking up unions or legislation enforcing their will. Government, that force which hopes to enforce, in the best possible situation, the will of the majority on the minority (for the majority, it being their will , must comply) through the unpoken threat of force, is an inherintly evil thing. There are no two ways about it.

I will concede that the care of those unqualified to work may very well be handled by others, rather than forcing them to work. This could perchance be left to charities?

[GeneralTacticus]

:sigh: Employers are not exploiters, under socialism they are, rather, the exploited.

Well, under socialism the governemnt si the employer, but you're arguing a strawman. Because I don't beleiv ein socialism in the sense of governemtn control. I just believe in things like public education, healthcare, and welfare support for people who are looking for a job.

I see nothing wrong with unions, and there underlying principle, If one can consoilidate the Worker's Might one has greater bargaining power, would make it impossible to fire them all, because if someone ever felt like being radical he would join a union before revolting. Eventually the membership would swell enough to force the Employers to see them as equals. The Unions and the companies could work this stuff out, without governmnet intervention, with police breaking up unions or legislation enforcing their will. Government, that force which hopes to enforce, in the best possible situation, the will of the majority on the minority (for the majority, it being their will , must comply) through the unpoken threat of force, is an inherintly evil thing. There are no two ways about it.

The problem is that if you just allow a pure labour market (that is, employers can fire anyone for any reason), you effectively make unions useless so long as there's any degree of unemployment, because most people will be willing to not join unions if that means they keep their jobs. This can, of coruse, be reversed, but why should it have to be reversed in the first place?

I will concede that the care of those unqualified to work may very well be handled by others, rather than forcing them to work. This could perchance be left to charities?

How likely is it that charitable organizations are going to be able to take care of everyone if they're all that you rely on?