Socialism: Pros and Cons

[fukuda 351]

An example of this is the more moderate Democratic Socialism, such as the UK. The British have rights and liberties, and as a result have more freedom than the USSR's citizens did. However, the government is more powerful than the United States.quote>

Yes, and way less powerful than it was before, the equation socialism = huge government is a bit rushed one, central government has little power here (too little imo), for instance.

Cons: It breeds laziness, hurts economic creativity, and you're pretty much at the same level as everyone else which really sucks.quote>

I believe that equal economic status mandated by the state deprives the people of ambition to better their position. As a result, the economy stagnates and the state is at risk of failure.quote>

Equal economic status?? Huh no, not in a "social democracy", you still have rich, very rich, middle class, poor and very poor. You do get "equal" opportunities, but  you don't get paid equally, physicians, policemen and company directors don't get the same salary at all. And you have to work your way if you want a good career, no one is giving it to you with no effort, despite being public college education.

And those predictions of lazyness, economic stagnation and failure ain't working here, we still were one of the most advancing economies of Europe last year, despite being "socialist"

[Meg 368]

I think some dictionary definitions might help here.

Communism:

1.	a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2.	(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

3.	(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

4.	communalism.

quote>

Socialism: 

1.	a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.	procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.	(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

quote>

Democratic Socialism:

Main Entry:	democratic socialism
Part of Speech:	n
Definition:	a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government
Etymology:	democracy + socialism

quote>

Capitalism:

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

quote>

Generally, none of these systems are practiced in their pure form.   There are various points along the continuum.

[saltandsauce 0]

socialism is based on the principals that the lowest earning people don't get crapped on, on every front

as for healthcare

in socialised medicine, EVERYONE gets the state service but everyone has to pay for it wether you want to or not, the way around this is because the richer can afford private healthcare which has also beeen the case but the rich can afford both public and private healthcare (because they are rich)

democracies function in the same way socialist countries function (government wise)

in the whole we vote you're in power for the next X years and we are only stuck with you for that amount of time.

Communism does work.. on a VERY small scale on par with the hippie COMMUNES which maybe consist of about 120 people and these all join in willingly. Communist government does not work though

there are ways to have both economic competitiveness and socialsim and that is to limit the length of time unemployment benefit can be claimed. here you can claim as long as you want (having the odd job for a week or two) in places like Germany your money is stopped after threee years because anyone unemployed who wants to work will take ANYTHING

none of you really know what freedom is. freedom means being able to talk about anything and not be ostricised/incarcerated.

[combot 0]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

as for healthcare

in socialised medicine, EVERYONE gets the state service but everyone has to pay for it wether you want to or not, the way around this is because the richer can afford private healthcare which has also beeen the case but the rich can afford both public and private healthcare (because they are rich) quote>

This sounds like you are talking about a two-tier health care system. A two-tier health care system doesn't really work at all, in a democratic or socialist state, because it ends up shafting the poor even more. If the doctors had a choice between working for a private company or being paid by the government  most of them would probably work for a private practice because they would make more money. One idea of socialism is equal opportunity for everyone, and if the rich can pay for better health care than things are not exactly equal.

[fukuda 351]

This sounds like you are talking about a two-tier health care system. A two-tier health care system doesn't really work at all, in a democratic or socialist state, because it ends up shafting the poor even more. If the doctors had a choice between working for a private company or being paid by the government most of them would probably work for a private practice because they would make more money. One idea of socialism is equal opportunity for everyone, and if the rich can pay for better health care than things are not exactly equal.quote>

Two-tier healthcare systems work perfectly, the workplaces in private hospitals are limited and there are way less private hospitals than public ones, and they are small compared to public hospitals. Unlike what people could think, the expensive devices and treatments are not provided by private centers, only public hospitals can afford them. And medical education is done in public hospitals too. In my city, there are 5 huge public hospitals: Seaside Hospital (mine), Saint Cross and Saint Paul Hospital, Clinic Hospital, Hebron Valley Hospital and Bellvitge Hospital, they all have state-of-the-art technology and all the infrastructures and devices a big hospital would ever dream about, they all work also with universities, those big hospitals aside, each neighbourhood has a little hospital (generally a 4-6 story building), which means a public hospital each ~ 1200 meters. There are only 2 or 3 private (and expensive) hospitals in the city and they are sized as a little hospital.

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

none of you really know what freedom is. freedom means being able to talk about anything and not be ostricised/incarcerated.quote>

Before you go making such bold claims about the knowledge of the rest of us, maybe you should do a little research.

Freedom: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraintsquote>

This therefore means that freedom is also the choice to do things like seek specific medical treatment, support causes you do care about or withhold support from causes you don't like, and the ability to do with your time, talents, and resources what you want, when you want.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: underwearman2007 dude, Socialism is Communism. And Communists are evil.quote>

I can't decide if that's stated sarcastically or not. But that is quite untrue.

Communism promotes a classless, stateless society where everyone works for the common good. Which obviously doesn't work due to humanity's greedy nature. Socialism, as I understand it, is the centralization of all industry. Which also doesn't work in its pure form. Essentially all countries use a mixed economy, a combination of capitalism..... and socialism. Including the United States.

And communists are hardly evil. In fact, communism itself is a pretty ideal system if it weren't for human nature getting in the way.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

none of you really know what freedom is. freedom means being able to talk about anything and not be ostricised/incarcerated.quote>

Before you go making such bold claims about the knowledge of the rest of us, maybe you should do a little research.

Freedom: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraintsquote>

This therefore means that freedom is also the choice to do things like seek specific medical treatment, support causes you do care about or withhold support from causes you don't like, and the ability to do with your time, talents, and resources what you want, when you want.quote>

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: confused04

See, I don' t buy that argument. As ANY minority view can testify, there are unending lists of things we don't get to choose. Do I want the mega-interstate in Texas to be built.... heck no. Do I want the US to spend more than every other country combined on defense, heck no. Socialist or not, its part of a democracy where you don't get to decide EVERY dollar.

If that were so, this country would be a complete wasteland. quote>

You do have some control over that actually. What do you think going to the polls to vote is for?

Even in a capitalistic health care system, we don't get to choose the fact that premiums are higher than they should be due to the lack of preventative health care. I don't CHOOSE to allow people to suffer for that to come back in higher health care premiums.quote>

No system is perfect. Besides, more preventative healthcare does not lead to less need for emergency or situational healthcare. In fact, it leads to quite the opposite. The more often you test people and have check-ups to see if something is wrong, the more often you'll find something wrong. And whenever you find something wrong, you treat it. But if you don't know that anything is wrong you're blissfully unaware and perhaps it never ends up mattering.

Now, I'm not saying that being blissfully unaware is a preferable way to be. It's not. But the fact remains that more preventative healthcare does not necessarily reduce long term healthcare costs, and can in fact increase them. It's not a magic silver bullet.

Democracy does not and never will allow ALL views to get EVERYTHING they want, particularly since many are incompatible. quote>

No, but the opposite of sociaism - libertarianism - focuses on the idea of giving people choices.

If you legislate what the majority wants, then the dissenting minority is outta luck and is thus oppressed. But if you don't legislate it, the majority can still have what they want, and the dissenters can have what they want, too. This is the key idea behind the idea of "the government that governs best is the government that governs least".

The only time people then can't have their way is when having their way means telling other people what to do.

Why is health care capable of being singled out?quote>

I wasn't singling it out, I was using it as an example. You want to discuss another issue? Name one.

Cause people fear the state taking over it irrationally.quote>

From a socialist perspective, it certainly would seem irrational. From a libertarian persepctive, it would seem irrational not to have any concern over it. The rationality is relative here.

And what you call handouts, I call a god-given service. I'm not looking to give money for nothing. This is money for SURVIVAL. Would you deny water to a community? Or is that a hand out? It should very well be a service.quote>

God-given? The government is not god.

And anyways, you're comparing apples to oranges here. If you don't get any water, you'll die in a few days. If you don't get any professional healthcare you can perfectly well live a long and happy life. The ancients managed without doctors. And wild animals still do. As do a lot of people in third world countries. Healthcare is not a basic need that's vital to survival. Water is.

No, I would not deny water to a community. But healthcare is hardly the same thing. Don't treat it like it is.

Also, I should add that you have to pay for all that water that comes into your house, either to the city or to the water company (or, if you're renting, perhaps to your landlord). It isn't provided for free.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, after all.

Besides, without citing numbers, the US economy loses hundreds of billions (or more?) in lost production due to illnesses. I certainly didn't choose to weaken our economy cause of some wishy-washy view of private health care. quote>

First of all, citing numbers is pointless since the US is not the same as other countries. We may not have national healthcare, but we also have much higher rates of "social ills" like obesity, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, etc. that lead to a deteriorated level of health than most other developed countries do. It may be true that we have a health issue but that doesn't mean that nationalizing healthcare would solve it. I daresay it probably wouldn't, since it does nothing to address all those other issues which are more at the root of the problem. For all we know, the situation might get worse.

Yes, don't have national healthcare. Yes, we have a health issue. But,so what? As I must often point out: correlation does not imply causation. It would be a fallacy to assume that one of those two facts is at fault for the other.

Besides, people will still get sick regardless of what kind of healthcare they get. It's not like national healthcare will stop that. Or even necessarily reduce it.

The problem with a private health care system is that the LACK of healthcare is completely externalized and not factored in (much like pollution). If somehow, you could internalize the lack of healthcare and force companies to pay for every sick worker, I guarantee employers would be demanding universal health care. But since its not, companies can say "eh... not my problem".quote>

Because it is not their problem. An individual's health is ultimately the problem of and the responsibility of only that individual. Let's be mature adults and handle our own problems instead of expecting the government to play nanny and do it for us, eh?

True and pure socialism doesn't necessarily negate personal freedom. You still CHOOSE to use services... if for some reason you want to be sick, then you don't have to go. Don't wanna take state sanctioned rail,... then walk. The choices in a socialist system is the same as the choices in a capitalist system... the only difference is where the money goes. quote>

Not really. When the government is paying for something that means your tax dollars are paying for it. You can chose whether or not you youse it,  but you have no choice about whether or not you support it. You're forced to. Hence how socialism violates personal freedom.

I know if I'm not going to use something, I'd rather not have my taxes be paying for other people to use it. Especially if it's something that I have a moral objection to.

But does that really matter, no because in the end, its still money leaving your wallet.quote>

But the money is forcibly removed from your wallet. You're not voluntarily handing it over. And you have no control over how much to hand over or to whom. So yes, it does matter. It matters a lot.

BUT socialist services don't necessarily have to turn a profit. Thats whats wrong with capitalist systems. So much of the profits are sapped not to improve service, but to pad wallets.quote>

But on the flipside of things, socialist services don't have to deal with competition and thus they can just meet whatever bar the government sets and then be lazy and do whatever. Since their paycheck is not riding on it. But with a capitalistic system, the competition forces you to do not just "good enough" but the best you possibly can, since if you can't compete you'll get less business. Your paycheck is riding on it. And that makes you a hell of a lot more motivated.

The inherent problem with a socialistic system is that when people are just given things as opposed to having to work to earn them, they aren't going to have any practical motivation to work hard. It enables people to be lazy.

If you can be an unemployed bum and still get healthcare, food, and all that, what reason do you have no practical glaring reason not to be an unemployed bum. On the other hand, if not working means you don't get to eat, you're motivated to work.

Socialism may have the intent of being fair for the betterment of society, but in reality it's not at all for the better. It's for the worse. You spoil people if you have too much of a safety net. Give a man a fish and he'll just keep coming to take fish from you. Tell hm that he'll need to learn how to fish and go fish for himself and he'll do that. And since he's working harder to earn his keep, not only is he better off, but everyone is better off since he's not a burden on them.

We call this idea "social darwinism".

I don't see how people connect socialism to "I can't do what I want". There's PLENTY of room to do what you want. Personally, I don't feel like "I can do what I want" as is because I don't have the money.quote>

But guess what? You have the power to do something about that! If you study hard and become educated, you can get a better job that pays more and then you will have the money. The only thing is, you need to have the motivation to do that. Which, of course, if the government gives you all that stuff while you're in poverty, you won't.

Ultimately, the point here is that it's up to people to be able to sustain themselves and make a living for themselves. I don't believe in free handouts. You want something, you gotta earn it.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I fail to see why some people believe that some 'socialist' countries restrict freedoms.

The UK is a democratically socialist government, yet in this country I have greater social liberty than in the United States. I'm gay and I can have a civil partnership in this country, not so in the vast majority of US States. My rights are fully protected and within law can do and say what I want. People have the notion that socialist countries are somehow inferior to their own system, primarily Americans. However the USA is most certainly not the symbol of freedom and equality they would like us to believe.

Its a cultural difference as well as paranoia and misunderstanding to automatically disregard socialism in whatever form, democratic socialism has been shown to work and it continues to work, no system is perfect. But I'd rather have the UK system than the American one. AND Yes I have been to America, many times and know what's it like to live there for a bit, so unlike some I have personal experience of both systems.

[southsider 0]

Socialism doesn't work becaue people have no incentive to work if the government provides you with everything you need. If you live in a classless society you don't have a reason to go to work to try to improve your quality of life. In the Capitalist society you have to work to survive. If you work hard and apply yorself you have a better chance at making more money and improving your quality of life. In my opinion we're still to socialist in the U.S. If the U.S. became a true free-market society, the economic power would be unimaginable because there would be almost no government intervention, except in the most serious circumstances. In America today the government involves itself in business to much . I feel that we're being held back  and the economic potential of the U.S. hasen't been fully realized yet because of  the many government restrictions.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

The role of profits is hugely misunderstood by socialists and communists. They are incredibly important to businesses and serve as an incentive to make business more efficient and attract investors to grow the business. No one wants to invest in a business or program if they get nothing out of it, it simply doesn't make any sense. I certainly would not start a business with the intent of hitting a perfect balance between expenses and profits. After all, how would I feed myself and clothe myself?

"But NMUSpidey," you may ask, "What about the evil oil companies making record profits from record high gas costs?"

Do you have any idea how much oil companies had to invest years ago just hoping to discover oil in the ground or under the sea? It costs unimaginable amounts of money to explore for oil, and oil companies have every incentive to explore and make their processes faster and more efficient in the hopes of turning a profit later. Since their profits are record highs now, I would wager that the vast majority of these profits are simply covering earlier expenses and losses from prior exploration.

Gas prices stay high also not due to oil barons' greed but because supply and demand creates it thus. There are also figures on who makes what off of a gallon of gas in the US. Oil companies typically make about $.08 per gallon, where the federal government makes .18 and state governments take just as much or more, depending upon the state. Add another penny for the gas station franchise operators and the rest pays for transportation, refining, crude, pumping, and creating the different formulas mandated in different states. So far as greed goes, a truly greedy oil magnate could see that lower gas prices would lead to greater profits because people would drive more, and they would do it in more inefficient cars, such as earlier this decade with the SUV boom.

However, if the oil companies were nationalized, say, under a socialist program, the incentives would certainly change, and I seriously doubt you would see a drop in prices and a rise in quality. Government faces completely different sets of incentives from privately-held businesses, and are not governed by the demands of the marketplace. Bad moves are protected by the state who does not pay the price for mistakes: these are passed on to consumers. Taking it a step further, the costs faced by the oil companies are not changed by simply making the state the owners. The oil business still will have the same costs of oil employees, pumping, exploration, facility maintenance, crude, and any number of other costs that I simply don't know because I'm not an oil company accountant. These are large, complex businesses that government, with its protection under law, simply cannot handle in the long term. Competition makes businesses efficient and forces them to earn the people's trust. Government can just pass a law and do what it wants, regardless of the consequences. An inefficient business will fail, and rightfully so. An inefficient government program will languish on, so long as it's good PR and the politicians can get re-elected. A good example of this is Standard Oil under Rockefeller. He didn't make a fortune by charging too much for oil (as a person motivated simply by greed would). He made it by lowering the costs so that EVERYONE could afford it. That's how businesses work, and when you look at how the "poor" live in the US, or any other democratic, capitalist, industrialized society, you'll see that the "poor" largely have luxuries such as air conditioning, cars, tvs, iPods, and any number of advances that previously were only available to the very rich or were not even available at all.

I challenge any socialist to find a government program that can make a similar claim. You can't say health care, because in the US it is impossible for a hospital to throw out a patient due to his or her economic status.

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: NMUSpidey  and when you look at how the "poor" live in the US, or any other democratic, capitalist, industrialized society, you'll see that the "poor" largely have luxuries such as air conditioning, cars, tvs, iPods, and any number of advances that previously were only available to the very rich or were not even available at all. quote>

I think those living in poverty may beg to differ.

Originally posted by: southsiderIf you live in a classless society you don't have a reason to go to work to try to improve your quality of life. In the Capitalist society you have to work to survive.quote>

That is communism, not socialism. There is a difference. As well, America at its beginnings was as close to pure capitalism as there could be. There's a reason it was moved away from: it doesn't work. Laws needed to be created to protect the consumer.

[fukuda 351]

From a socialist perspective, it certainly would seem irrational. From a libertarian persepctive, it would seem irrational not to have any concern over it. The rationality is relative here.quote>

From a socialist perspective, the government is technically your representative, the one that the majority chosen to take decisions accordingly to their beliefs or plans. The one that should be afraid of the people is the government, not the people of the government they voted.

That's democracy

And anyways, you're comparing apples to oranges here. If you don't get any water, you'll die in a few days. If you don't get any professional healthcare you can perfectly well live a long and happy life. The ancients managed without doctors. And wild animals still do. As do a lot of people in third world countries. Healthcare is not a basic need that's vital to survival. Water is.quote>

Or they can live an entire life of suffering and pain because they can't afford it.

...

Like ancients.

...

It's not the case of animals because they die if they are severely wounded or dead.

In the third world, they can get wounded or ill and live their entire life (even if short) without medical aid, but I wouldn't call it happy, really.

Healthcare is a basic need in the civilized world.

Let's be mature adults and handle our own problems instead of expecting the government to play nanny and do it for us, eh?quote>

Wait, wait; let's focuse it from an individual point of view, when you invest on healthcare you're investing on yourself, believe me, the taxes going to healthcare ain't really high here, and by paying them, you'll be admitted in all the public hospitals and centers, and a part of your prescribed drugs will be paid by the state (yourself in the last term). It's cheaper than having an insurance, and way more cheaper if you've got a serious or chronic illness, no one is playing nanny for you, you (and the other citizens) are paying for your healthcare (and the one of the other citizens).

See it as an investment for future, you don't know if you're going to turn ill.

But the money is forcibly removed from your wallet. You're not voluntarily handing it over. And you have no control over how much to hand over or to whom. So yes, it does matter. It matters a lot.quote>

The money is always going to be forcibly removed from your wallet, to save people or to make bombs, living in a society has a price.

No society can stand on "charity", you'll have to pay the toll, and if we pay it to kill other people, I don't see any reason to don't do it to save people.

But on the flipside of things, socialist services don't have to deal with competition and thus they can just meet whatever bar the government sets and then be lazy and do whatever. Since their paycheck is not riding on it. But with a capitalistic system, the competition forces you to do not just "good enough" but the best you possibly can, since if you can't compete you'll get less business. Your paycheck is riding on it. And that makes you a hell of a lot more motivated.quote>

Ie, there's something goverment cares more than their paycheck, their voters. If you provide a bad healthcare, your odds are high to get bad or really bad results in the next elections.

We call this idea "social darwinism".quote>

We call this idea the "law of the jungle"

But guess what? You have the power to do something about that! If you study hard and become educated, you can get a better job that pays more and then you will have the money. The only thing is, you need to have the motivation to do that. Which, of course, if the government gives you all that stuff while you're in poverty, you won't.quote>

Reality check, not everyone is equal in conditions and opportunities, you don't have the same opportunities depending on your neighborhood and/or social class, several more factors can modify it, you can be too busy taking care of your family or suffer from an illness, not everyone is equal in capacities too, not everyone is able to do a career in Law or Engineering. Does this mean they didn't work hard or that they are "lazy bums" (words usually coming with "drunk")?? No.

To think that everyone is equal is idealistic, and you can't treat everyone of those who didn't had the lack to be in a higher level as lazy or even worse things. Motivation is not a panacea, there are tons of external factors that can alter your life and treating everyone as the same case is a prejudice.

In my opinion we're still to socialist in the U.S. If the U.S. became a true free-market society, the economic power would be unimaginable because there would be almost no government intervention, except in the most serious circumstances.quote>

And become a total Oligocracy? Not really democratic.

Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood

in the right balance

[panthersimcity4 162]

And anyways, you're comparing apples to oranges here. If you don't get any water, you'll die in a few days. If you don't get any professional healthcare you can perfectly well live a long and happy life. The ancients managed without doctors. And wild animals still do. As do a lot of people in third world countries. Healthcare is not a basic need that's vital to survival. Water is.

No, I would not deny water to a community. But healthcare is hardly the same thing. Don't treat it like it is. quote>

You're kidding, right?

Okay, I guess we should all pay the police for arresting that burglar who broke into our house. Perhaps pay a bill to the Fire department for pulling a new-born baby out of a burning skyscraper? "Oh, you'll have to pay us $50000 before we save your child from burning to death."

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I fail to see why some people believe that some 'socialist' countries restrict freedoms.

The UK is a democratically socialist government, yet in this country I have greater social liberty than in the United States. I'm gay and I can have a civil partnership in this country, not so in the vast majority of US States. My rights are fully protected and within law can do and say what I want. People have the notion that socialist countries are somehow inferior to their own system, primarily Americans. However the USA is most certainly not the symbol of freedom and equality they would like us to believe.quote>

Gay marriage and healthcare are two completely different issues. And, well, gay marriage is a bad example to use since it's not a matter of socialism versus capitalism, it's just a simple matter of something being legal versus it being illegal. We're not talking about the government providing marriage versus private companies providing  marriage, after all.

Now, granted, I will completely agree with you that it's oppressive to not permit same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples.

But here in the US there is a lot of religious conservatism and thus a lot of people who believe a homosexual lifestyle to be morally wrong and don't want to see the government sanction it.

It is a shortcoming we have.

But I don't see what it has to do with the US not being socialist.

fukuda

Healthcare is a basic need in the civilized world.quote>

Abraham Maslow would beg to differ with you. Healthcare is not a physiological need, it's a safety need. It falls into the second priority, not the first. 

It is a need, but it is not a basic need. You can make do without it or with less of it if you have to. Therefore, the government does not need to step in and provide it to those who otherwise couldn't have it.

Reality check, not everyone is equal in conditions and opportunities, you don't have the same opportunities depending on your neighborhood and/or social class, several more factors can modify it, you can be too busy taking care of your family or suffer from an illness, not everyone is equal in capacities too, not everyone is able to do a career in Law or Engineering. Does this mean they didn't work hard or that they are "lazy bums" (words usually coming with "drunk")?? No. To think that everyone is equal is idealistic, and you can't treat everyone of those who didn't had the lack to be in a higher level as lazy or even worse things. Motivation is not a panacea, there are tons of external factors that can alter your life and treating everyone as the same case is a prejudice.quote>

There are plenty of ways in which you can work and earn an honest living without being highly educated. You probably won't make as much money, but that's the tradeoff you make.

Obviously being motivated won't guarantee you success. But it will certainly help.

And yes, if you're born into a poor family it will be harder for you than if you're born into a rich one. No, that's not fair. But it's reality. Life's not fair.

You said it yourself: to think that everyone is equal is idealistic.

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

And anyways, you're comparing apples to oranges here. If you don't get any water, you'll die in a few days. If you don't get any professional healthcare you can perfectly well live a long and happy life. The ancients managed without doctors. And wild animals still do. As do a lot of people in third world countries. Healthcare is not a basic need that's vital to survival. Water is.

No, I would not deny water to a community. But healthcare is hardly the same thing. Don't treat it like it is. quote>

You're kidding, right?

Okay, I guess we should all pay the police for arresting that burglar who broke into our house. Perhaps pay a bill to the Fire department for pulling a new-born baby out of a burning skyscraper? "Oh, you'll have to pay us $50000 before we save your child from burning to death."

quote>

I repeat: not the same thing. There is a difference between there being an immediate dangerous threat and there being the possibility of something slowly developing and perhaps becoming a problem in the future.

And, well, in the US, if you show up to the emergency room after having had a heart attack they won't refuse to use the difibrilator on you if you can't pay for it. The government will pick up the tab there if it needs to. And that I support since we're talking about a medical emergency, not just general well-being. It's much more important that someone in that situation get treated.

Police and fire are services which are provided by the government, and rightfully so. If criminals are permitted to run free they are a threat to the safety and well-being of other people and to society. If a fire is untamed, it's a threat to anyone in the surrounding area.

And again: here we're talking about emergencies and situations in which people's lives are being saved. A routine visit to the doctor is neither. It's a lot less important in the greater scheme of things.

Does the fire department doesn't routinely visit your house and make sure there's nothing dangerous which might start a fire? Does the police department routinely visit your house and make sure that nobody is planning to break any laws?

Of course not. But those are by comparison the same sort of thing as a medical checkup. A flammability checkup and a legal checkup, essentialy.

To conclude this post, I'll lieave you with a line that bears repeating:

Nobody has ever found a way to provide everything to everyone for free. 

[Boggy1 45]

I don't understand how people say that in a classless society there is no motivation to work. What? Are you people so driven by momentary gain? What ever happened to working because it satisfies you and you enjoy it?What ever happened to the ethos that you work for the betterment of mankind and the continued advancement of the human race? My parents, when they work for people and/or companies, don't dream of asking for payment unless the work happens to take out a lot of time or resources. They are perfectly happy with something small such as a bottle of wine, or even just a nice thank you. Because they enjoy their work so much, and they feel that they are doing a great service for the people around them; they usually do it for free.

And the idea that collectively paying for healthcare somehow takes away our 'freedoms', is quite absurd. Isn't it a great thing that we all, no matter how poor or rich, pitch in together for a higher quality of life for everyone. Isn't that one of the better philosophies the world has? Where everyone works together for the community?

(also, belfast? I didn't know that you were gay. Not even an inkling. Damnit my gaydar is evidently broken!)

[fukuda 351]

Abraham Maslow would beg to differ with you. Healthcare is not a physiological need, it's a safety need. It falls into the second priority, not the first. quote>

I guess that anyone with a chronic or genetic illness or a malformed or wounded part of their body would beg to differ too.

if you show up to the emergency room after having had a heart attack they won't refuse to use the difibrilator on you if you can't pay for it.quote>

Yeah, they are forced to.

And that I support since we're talking about a medical emergency, not just general well-being. It's much more important that someone in that situation get treated.quote>

That's not the problem, basically, there are a lot of health problems that ain't considered a medical emergency and incapacitate you to work well or to work at all, needless to say that they can be a terrible burden of pain too...

Nobody has ever found a way to provide everything to everyone for free. quote>

No one is pretending such a thing, and definitely not for free

@boggy1:

In the case of your gay-meter being broken, I inform you that I'm bi

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Equal economic status?? Huh no, not in a "social democracy", you still have rich, very rich, middle class, poor and very poor. You do get "equal" opportunities, but  you don't get paid equally, physicians, policemen and company directors don't get the same salary at all. And you have to work your way if you want a good career, no one is giving it to you with no effort, despite being public college education.

And those predictions of lazyness, economic stagnation and failure ain't working here, we still were one of the most advancing economies of Europe last year, despite being "socialist"quote>

Fukuda, I was talking about pure, traditional socialism. Not democratic socialism.

Democratic Socialism seems to work well for Europe. Not sure how it'd do in North America.

Also, since there is not equal economic status and salaries in a democratic socialist system, it works better in my opinion than pure socialism.

Abraham Maslow would beg to differ with you. Healthcare is not a physiological need, it's a safety need. It falls into the second priority, not the first.quote>

It is a safety need and second priority if you are more or less healthy. It is first priority for those with serious/terminal illnesses or having a medical emergency.

The one that should be afraid of the people is the government, not the people of the government they voted.

That's democracyquote>

Government works better when it is afraid of the people, not the other way around. After all, a democracy is supposed to serve the interests of the people.

[fukuda 351]

Fukuda, I was talking about pure, traditional socialism. Not democratic socialism.quote>

Oops, sorry, the thread can be confusing sometimes, I agree with you in all your points.

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I don't understand how people say that in a classless society there is no motivation to work. What? Are you people so driven by momentary gain? What ever happened to working because it satisfies you and you enjoy it?What ever happened to the ethos that you work for the betterment of mankind and the continued advancement of the human race? My parents, when they work for people and/or companies, don't dream of asking for payment unless the work happens to take out a lot of time or resources. They are perfectly happy with something small such as a bottle of wine, or even just a nice thank you. Because they enjoy their work so much, and they feel that they are doing a great service for the people around them; they usually do it for free.

And the idea that collectively paying for healthcare somehow takes away our 'freedoms', is quite absurd. Isn't it a great thing that we all, no matter how poor or rich, pitch in together for a higher quality of life for everyone. Isn't that one of the better philosophies the world has? Where everyone works together for the community?

(also, belfast? I didn't know that you were gay. Not even an inkling. Damnit my gaydar is evidently broken!)quote>

gaydars don't work on the internet dear

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Democratic Socialism seems to work well for Europe. Not sure how it'd do in North America.quote>

Democratic Socialism doesn't work well for Europe. Is the continent socialistic? Does the state own the production means?

[underwearman2007 0]

Originally posted by: El Burro

Originally posted by: fukuda

Originally posted by: underwearman2007 dude, Socialism is Communism. And Communists are evil.quote>

quote>

Its a matter of oppinion. If you believe that everybody who disagree's with you is an enemy, the people who question you are traitors and killing people is the right way to combat desent, then yes, your evil and should die... but that doesn't neccesarily need to be linked with Socialism/Communism. You can't call Communism evil because nobody has achieved it therefor it hasn't effected the world one iota... the word has been flug around abit the past 100 years but calling an Apple an Orange doesn't make it so. As I said before, People choose to be evil but socialism does not force them or encourage them to be so; I feel many dictators around the world use it as an excuse to gain A. The Majority of Support and B. Use the foolish words of Marx to take 'Dictatorship over the proletariat'.quote>

 

Well I was making my case, that generally Communist Nations are bad. IE North Korea, Soviet Union, Vietnam, ect. Though in therorie, Communism works. But u have to factor in the lack of religion.

[belfastuniguy 18]

gaydars don't work on the internet dearquote>

LOL - True.....well depends..

But I don't see what it has to do with the US not being socialist. quote>

It wasn't a socialism specific point. It was directed at those that believe that socialist or countries which employ a form of socialist such as that in UK are inherently less 'free' than the glorious capitalist and free United States. I was merely giving one example of the flaw in that arguement, I could have also added the Patriot Act. People seem quick to automatically assume that socialist countries are restrictive, which is clearly false.

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I fail to see why some people believe that some 'socialist' countries restrict freedoms.

The UK is a democratically socialist government, yet in this country I have greater social liberty than in the United States. I'm gay and I can have a civil partnership in this country, not so in the vast majority of US States. My rights are fully protected and within law can do and say what I want. People have the notion that socialist countries are somehow inferior to their own system, primarily Americans. However the USA is most certainly not the symbol of freedom and equality they would like us to believe.

Its a cultural difference as well as paranoia and misunderstanding to automatically disregard socialism in whatever form, democratic socialism has been shown to work and it continues to work, no system is perfect. But I'd rather have the UK system than the American one. AND Yes I have been to America, many times and know what's it like to live there for a bit, so unlike some I have personal experience of both systems.quote>

 

I thought this was Socialism, pros and cons, not "Why i Iz thinking UK iz better than US"?

Am I an the wrong thread again?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I thought this was Socialism, pros and cons, not "Why i Iz thinking UK iz better than US"?quote>

It is...

I was addressing point using the UK and USA as an example as I have experience of both systems. God why do some Americans constantly feel under attack and paranoid when their country is mentioned in the same sentence with another. I have never bashed the United States, in fact I have made sure my point in this discussion and others on this site were based on fact and tried to make them as balanced as I could. Same can't be said for some others.

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I thought this was Socialism, pros and cons, not "Why i Iz thinking UK iz better than US"?quote>

It is...

I was addressing point using the UK and USA as an example as I have experience of both systems. God why do some Americans constantly feel under attack and paranoid when their country is mentioned in the same sentence with another. I have never bashed the United States, in fact I have made sure my point in this discussion and others on this site were based on fact and tried to make them as balanced as I could. Same can't be said for some others.quote>

 

Ah, I see, belfastuniguy is at it again: another thread on the theme of socialism. Still quite a bit better than the last one, which sort of died out. Interesting read, every single post.

Have to agree with you, though, Americans tend to get a tad defensive whenever someone does not buy into the "God's Country bit. Having lived both there for seven years, and in several seemingly democratic socialist countries in Europe, including one then communist country, I've come to think that socialism per se - as per dictionary definition - can never work because we're humans: prone to take the path of least resistance and every short-cut our lazy selves encounter. Thus anyone with smarts would try and exploit such a system. And, again, all the "wrong ones" would float to the top. Moreover, post-war history shows that changes in social conventions would favour the exploiters. The UK always was, and partially still is, a typical example of that. The other problem is that socialism in any form requires and fosters big government and the inherent tidal wave of bureaucracy. Change is thus, if not stifled, at least hampered, and entrepreneurship is almost impossible. Sooner rathr than later such offial versions of socialism always turn into "Brazil" (the movie, not the country).

And as many social (rather than socialist) countries in Europe have found out, the cost of a fully loaded social system can no longer be borne. Primarily because it was created when the average age of the retirees would seldom go past 75. With increased medical assistance, people live a lot longer, collect pensions for twenty, thirty years, while at the same time those who are supposed to be paying for those pensions are on the decrease. And that's just the retirement money. Health care situation is even worse.

Still, America could do with a lot more "socialism" in its political and social mix - just to get back at its original idea of demos kratein; while Europe can still learn a thing or two from the US, especially when it comes to that dirty word, capitalism - which we profess to but do rarely practice, when a bit of it would help.

Belfastinguy - enjoy the rights you have now while they last; the UK government - present and future - is and will be nibbling away at them, just as the US government has on its own citizen's rights this past eight years.

[patriots_1228 51]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I thought this was Socialism, pros and cons, not "Why i Iz thinking UK iz better than US"?quote>

It is...

I was addressing point using the UK and USA as an example as I have experience of both systems. God why do some Americans constantly feel under attack and paranoid when their country is mentioned in the same sentence with another. I have never bashed the United States, in fact I have made sure my point in this discussion and others on this site were based on fact and tried to make them as balanced as I could. Same can't be said for some others.quote>

 

edit: oops, forgot, Im on thin ice. [clears post]

[crazyyaya 4]

Like most things in life. Balance is good. It is important to have elements of socialism to provide a social-economic safety net while at the same time keeping certian economic factors of capitalism.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 I don't understand how people say that in a classless society there is no motivation to work. What? Are you people so driven by momentary gain?quote>

Yes.

What ever happened to working because it satisfies you and you enjoy it?What ever happened to the ethos that you work for the betterment of mankind and the continued advancement of the human race?quote>

Problem with that idea is that that requires people to be selfless and care about bettering mankind, something which different people have various degrees of being capable of. And very few are capable of being completely selfless.

I know I, for one, am not going to work just for the sake of "bettering mankind" If there's nothing in it for me, I'm wasting my time and effort.

My parents, when they work for people and/or companies, don't dream of asking for payment unless the work happens to take out a lot of time or resources. They are perfectly happy with something small such as a bottle of wine, or even just a nice thank you. Because they enjoy their work so much, and they feel that they are doing a great service for the people around them; they usually do it for free. quote>

How, then, do your parents manage to pay their bills and put food on the table?

And the idea that collectively paying for healthcare somehow takes away our 'freedoms', is quite absurd. quote>

To you, maybe. To me the idea that it doesn't is absurd. As I said before, the rationality is relative.

Isn't it a great thing that we all, no matter how poor or rich, pitch in together for a higher quality of life for everyone. quote>

No.

For one thing, that's a utopian ideal.

For another, I am completely incapable of giving a damn how Joe Blow in Town X halfway across the country is doing. He can go and die a slow horrible death for all I care. I don't know him. He's not my family or my friend. What's it to me? Nothing. Not my problem. I have absolutely no reason to help him unless there's something in it for me.

Isn't that one of the better philosophies the world has? Where everyone works together for the community?quote>

Again, that's a utopian ideal. Because it requires that people not be selfish and greedy. Which they inevitably and invariably will be.

In a perfect world, it would work that way. This is not a perfect world. This is the real world. And there are a lot of ways in which things are cruel and unfair.