|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
posted December 26, 2008 09:18 PM |
|
|
well socialism( social democracy to be exact) isn't very popular in my country right now(we're in deep crap right now) and our conservatives try to fix this mess(not going well right now)by adding several very stupid taxes. i dont want to pay a monthly fee because i own a car, and eat modest meals while our politicians get paychecks that are equal to 30 of minimum wages. 30! until we come to our capital with torches and pitchforks(schytes and axes are optional hehe) and burn those loosers on a fire like witches there will be no truth.
of course this eventually will bring out anarchy and it would suck even more then it is now. tough choice huh?
and now prepare to be shocked: celebs came to goverment! 18 places in parlament for Nation Ressurection party(the celebs party) i didnt complain when our parlament was full of professors,opera singers, writers and so on. at least they have some education in economics and other stuff needed for a politician. but now... actors, crappy singers and a bald showman with no brain at all.
Quote:
dear members of the press, im not Arunas Valinskas as you used to know, now i'm one of three officers of our nation
one word. ARROGANCE.
no wonder people start emigrating(over 200k of lithuanians live in UK only) I'm not condemning them, believe me. time is difficult in my country and its getting even worse in here. a decade ago for 15 euros you could survive for almost a month. now you can last a week.
i'm an economical guy, i count every penny, and during these crappy times i must do this more and more often. this sucks indeed.
and what sort of political way can save my poor little Africa shaped banana republic?
i remember when SSRS fell. all the factories were robbed by our goverment. once thriving and full of workplaces buildings now lie in ruin and a place for drug addicts. indeed this sucks.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 09:41 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Okay, what I mean by some forms of regulation. The way I see it, there are regulations that increase efficiency, and then there are regulations that decrease efficiency. For example, requiring companies to put ingredients and nutrition information on food labels, or requiring companies to submit food and drugs to the FDA for testing, or various transparency regulations in the financial sector (and there needs to be more transparency), or prohibiting outright false advertising, are all examples of very good regulations. On the other hand, regulations such as the minimum wage, price floors and ceilings, tariffs, quotas, the FDA's ability to keep drugs off of the shelves, etc, are all bad regulations. In other words, good regulations help people get information about stuff, and thus make them informed, and more able to engage in voluntary exchange. Bad regulations inhibit voluntary exchange.
The way that the program Social Security works in the US (although someone more knowledgeable can correct me) is this: while people are working, they pay part of their wages as the payroll tax, which goes to pay retired people, who are on social security. Then, when these people retire, the people working then will be paying for their social security. The program has been running into some problems lately, since the baby boomers are starting to retire, but I don't think that it should be privatized.
As for same-sex marriage, everyone knows what that is.
As for drugs, I support legalizing many of them, such as marijuana.
As for the environment, I support a green tax shift, so those who pollute more will pay for it.
Kipshasz:
At least it's not as bad as in Russia.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 09:48 PM |
|
|
You ask me is it ok that someone that live in poverty couldn't have operation like I could.
I ask you is it ok that I have to give my hardly earned money for someone's operation and I can't keep it to myself? And stop with this ad personam "you are selfish" stuff.
Is it ok that I can't have a car like Bill Gates have? No! He is selfish fag! He should give me some of his money so I could have beautiful car!
Well, world is NOT ok. If you want to help povert people - go on. Just don't make me to help them too but leave decision to me 
____________
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 09:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
At least it's not as bad as in Russia.
i guess your right. Its way crappier in Russia. With goverment controlling the press and Putin technically ruling that country(Medvedev is just a puppet IMO)
On one hand..
My dad had to fire half our his workers to save his business from bankrupcy. over 200 men and women lost their jobs just because politicians couldnt handle budget project normally.
but on the other hand...
our family wont have to starve.
but still this is wrong. about 7.8% of Lithuanias population is unemployed. Only because our goverment is full of idiots. I wonder what's hapenning on other countries...
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You ask me is it ok that someone that live in poverty couldn't have operation like I could.
I ask you is it ok that I have to give my hardly earned money for someone's operation and I can't keep it to myself? And stop with this ad personam "you are selfish" stuff.
Is it ok that I can't have a car like Bill Gates have? No! He is selfish fag! He should give me some of his money so I could have beautiful car!
Well, world is NOT ok. If you want to help povert people - go on. Just don't make me to help them too but leave decision to me
Comparing a life necessary surgery with a big car is a bit....hmmm...maybe you find the best word here
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
kookastar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I suspect that most socialists fall into at least one of four categories: too softhearted, indoctrinated, poor and uninformed, or never had a real job.
heehe your quote reply button nearly got me too 
I'd like to say that if you've ever had a "real job", ie actually had to work for a living for very little money then you would understand more fully that you work as hard as anyone (often harder), contribute equally to society in your occupation, and get very little recognition for your work. We take so many people for granted. If we want people to work their butts off for no money then we at least have to make sure they are looked after medically, and that their kids have an opportunity to recieve a good education - if you really think that people should be given the chance to shift up social class.
I've worked hard in my life and appreciate the cooshy job I have now as a teacher. Cooshy in that it can still be hard work, and OMG stressful, and I get treated like crap on a daily basis, but it's the career I chose because I actually LIKE it. It was during the 4 years of study that it takes to get qualified in Aust that I discovered socialism - before that I was oblivious in a capitalist society (that thankfully is not as bad as the US in this regard). That is what I mean about education and enlightenment. I know that I could have become just about anything, but I value what I do, who is to judge that anyone's occupation is less worthy than anothers. We need people in all kinds of jobs to keep our lifestyles going - it's part of a system, people shouldn't be left to suffer because of selfishness.
It is interesting that most of these forums are for gamers. And they attract people from all over the world – a large proportion of the human race outside America. This would suggest that it the US that are the ones that are brainwashed…
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:30 PM |
|
|
Bill Gates gave 28 billion dollars to charity. 28 billion.
If you lived in poverty, and your child was dying of an illness which COULD be cured if you had the money, and you knew that there is someone out there who could help you and save a life but WON'T because that's "their hard earned money", would it be ok?
Your principles don't allow you to give one or two percent of your earnings to charity, but they do allow you to let people die?
"Ad personam"? Maybe you misunderstood me, I didn't mean "you are a selfish prick", but "you and everyone with such an attitude is a selfish prick". That's hardly a personal statement, is it? Note that it's not illegal to be a selfish prick. However, it's also not illegal for people like me to show their disgust towards that. I believe you'll understand.
You want to know WHY "the world is NOT ok"? Because of people who think like that. Because of people who are comfortable in such a world. Cause it's far more easier to give up, crawl in our little holes and tell ourselves we can't change anything (to ease the pitiful leftovers of our conscience) than to actually try and change something.
Enjoy your hard earned money.
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:30 PM |
|
|
Well, it is just compare - i both cases you take away someone's free decision about things that belongs to him. In one case it's stupid car, in second money. Maybe this money can help someone but hey, isn't it mine money and couldn't I decide if I want to help?
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It is interesting that most of these forums are for gamers. And they attract people from all over the world – a large proportion of the human race outside America. This would suggest that it the US that are the ones that are brainwashed…
I agree on this one.
____________
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bill Gates gave 28 billion dollars to charity. 28 billion.
If you lived in poverty, and your child was dying of an illness which COULD be cured if you had the money, and you knew that there is someone out there who could help you and save a life but WON'T because that's "their hard earned money", would it be ok?
Would it be ok to force him to help me?
Quote:
Your principles don't allow you to give one or two percent of your earnings to charity, but they do allow you to let people die?
My principles allow me to give even 70% if it is my decision 
Quote:
Note that it's not illegal to be a selfish prick. However, it's also not illegal for people like me to show their disgust towards that. I believe you'll understand.
In fact it is illegal. If I wouldn't pay medical tax I would be punished.
Quote:
You want to know WHY "the world is NOT ok"? Because of people who think like that.
Well, so it is ok to tell society "you have to help the povert people with your money and your oppinion about thatdoesn't matter"?
The action where you force someone to give you his ownage or to punish him if he don't want to is called "robbery"
Enjoy your free will and liberty
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:50 PM |
|
|
Kooka:
Quote:
I'd like to say that if you've ever had a "real job", ie actually had to work for a living for very little money
So if I worked hard but earned a lot of money, it wouldn't be a real job?  I'd better tell everyone who makes anything above $20 an hour that they don't have a real job, then! You know, that includes teachers as well.
Quote:
contribute equally to society in your occupation
So does a janitor contribute to society as much as a doctor does? No? I thought not. If one janitor were to just disappear, it would make a much smaller impact on society if one doctor were to disappear (although the impact would still be relatively small).
Bak:
I'm not against giving to charity. Far from it. In fact, if I had any money, I'd probably give some of it to charity. But I would never want to force other people to give their money. What I do with my money is my business, as long as it doesn't do anything bad to anybody else. What they do with their money is their business.
Say I give a thousand dollars to charity every year, and my neighbor gives none. Then, one day, I knock on his door, and I have a gun. I point it at him and say, "Give a thousand dollars to charity, or I'll blow your brains out." Would it be bad if I did that? Certainly. But when the state does it, it's okay.
But what do I know? It's not fascism when we do it, right?
Ziel:
Everybody:
STOP IT! That's not what this thread is supposed to be about!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 12:21 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:22, 27 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Would it be ok to force him to help me?
I don't know.
You take a look at your dying child and tell me.
Sure, principles can allow however much you'd like to give, but in order to assure people surviving - much like having police, which I strongly dislike - you have the medical tax as the basis. Blessed be everyone who gives over that, but in order to assure a constant stream of help, you need to have a minimal, obligatory sum. After all, those same laws and rules which ensure paying taxes, ensure that you are paid for the work you do.
The difference is that the medical tax, unlike the police, never hurt anyone.
You have to realize that in order to actually OWN those personal possessions you praise so much, you need to have codes and regulations. Else, you get anarchy, which is a completely another story.
No, it's not illegal to be a selfish prick. It's just illegal not to pay taxes. Whether you're personally selfish or not, that's completely up to you.
About your final argument, one's personal opinion on whether dying people should be helped or not matters as much as a Nazi's opinion that Jews have to be exterminated. I'm an individualist, an anarchist to some level, I support, respect and love personal expression and opinions - but in order for such freedom to function, people need to realize they have to help each other and not just look into their own plates, lest the world turns into an even greater craphole. Until we evolve to that stage of self-consciousness, and until we leave the "IT'S MY MONEY, I DON'T HAVE TO SHARE IT WITH HIM, WHO CARES IF HE'S POOR" attitude behind us, yeah, making us pay a few bucks in order to save lives is quite alright with me.
And I'd feel much better if I just paid that medical tax, knowing that not only did I help someone, but I'll also be helped if need arise. The entire system needs improvement, sure - it needs to be more efficient, have a greater coverage, etcetera - but in its core there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea.
@MVass
As long as there are earnings, there will be taxes. It's sort of a circle of life. From ancient Egypt to the world of today. There are far worse things involving governments than medical taxes.
Do tell me how harmed anyone is by the medical tax. Tell me about peoples' wounded inner freedoms and the broken wings of their liberty because of those evil bloodsucking doctors in their bastions of tyranny known as hospitals.
Come on, man. Sure, if someone gives something to charity, it helps at the moment, but not in the long run. You can't make plans based on what people feel like giving out today. That can't lead to any improvement in the medical field. Medicine needs certain, constant financing, just like everything else does. If there were no taxes, there'd be no USA for you to live in.
Of course, it would ALSO help if governments concentrated less on wars and corruption, and more on helping people. So the responsibility can be regarded as equal. But that's another story.
Quote:
Everybody:
STOP IT! That's not what this thread is supposed to be about!
I do apologize. I'll stop now.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 12:26 AM |
|
|
There are three categories of government spending: necessary (police, military), desirable (roads, education, some role in health care, environment), and undesirable (socialized medicine, actual wealth redistribution).
And you're acting like charity and taxes are the only things that ever pay for medicine. There's also something called "the private sector"...
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 12:29 AM |
|
|
Military is necessary and socialized medicine is undesirable.
"It's not fascism when we do it, right?" - MVass
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 12:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
necessary (police, military)
Not a pacifist I see...
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 01:17 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:22, 27 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Well, it is just compare - i both cases you take away someone's free decision about things that belongs to him. In one case it's stupid car, in second money. Maybe this money can help someone but hey, isn't it mine money and couldn't I decide if I want to help?
The money may not necessarily belong to you. You see, there's this thing called SITUATIONAL ADVANTAGE. Some people are handicapped. They have a situational disadvantage. If they weren't they would earn as much money as you. But they can't, so there's this 'unfairness' factor I keep talking about. In this case, if you become a billionaire because you had a situational advantage (NOT because of your own 'will'), then that thing does not belong to you -- it should be distributed to even out the difference between people.
This difference I keep talking about is not in their WILL. If someone WANTS and has the dedication just as someone else but can't be the same due to various factors that are out of his control (opportunities, luck, situation, etc etc), then it is unfair and the one who gets them does not deserve them ANY MORE than the other guy.
What I suspect however is that most capitalists still live in the "american dream" that goes like "Work harder and you too, can become like Bill Gates" (or something like that), which is completely ridiculous and unrealistic as I'm sure anyone could just take a simple example to prove it (take a real life example: how many Bill Gates can there BE?)
A smarter person and more hard-working than mr. Gates won't get more money. Period. That thing with "work harder and you can become like X too" is ridiculous and childish, told to kids so they go and learn. I'm pretty sure no adult seriously considers it true.
It's not about how much you work. It's about whether or not you are in a better position/situation than someone else that you earn more. I'm talking big sums of $$$ here, with lots of 0s.
@mvass:Quote:
So does a janitor contribute to society as much as a doctor does? No? I thought not. If one janitor were to just disappear, it would make a much smaller impact on society if one doctor were to disappear (although the impact would still be relatively small).
Why do we have 5+ threads with this stuff when you're saying the same stuff all over again which makes me think any discussion with you is worthless -- I'm not saying you should agree but I think we're past that stupid example and focus more on what we are discussion -- the disadvantage distribution, which is unfair.
Quote:
There are three categories of government spending: necessary (police, military), desirable (roads, education, some role in health care, environment), and undesirable (socialized medicine, actual wealth redistribution).
This is assuming you know what's best for the people, as in a more socialistic position. If you want to be a capitalist, you don't determine "efficiency" of the 'society' by what you THINK is efficient, rather let individuals make demands and then supplies. That's how you meet efficiency in capitalism, not some subjective personal biased definition of yours of "society" and what's good for it or how it can be improved. If people want to starve and they demand it, you actually help them do it, in capitalism, and you may make some money after it.
Any regulation using "that's not good for society" or whatever is socialistic because you use your own collective reasoning and biased opinions (socialists have them anyway).
But since you don't call yourself a socialist, I wonder how you can come up with that definition of "necessary" for the 'society' (whatever that is, remember in capitalism, society = the individuals and their demands, not your own beliefs about what's good and bad about it).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 01:26 AM |
|
|
Bak:
It's necessary for a country to be able to defend itself. It's not desirable to subsidize fat people.
TheDeath:
Most capitalists aren't saying that if you are smart and will work hard, you'll become like Bill Gates. What they are saying is that Bill Gates is smart and worked hard, so he deserves what he has, and also that if you are smart and work hard, you will be middle class at least. You may not become a millionaire, but $60,000 a year (or more!) is not beyond one's reach. Socialism would prevent even that much.
Not everyone can be rich. But no one has to be poor.
Quote:
The money may not necessarily belong to you.
Are you receiving the money as a result of your actions? Is the money the result of voluntary exchange? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the money is yours. Period.
Quote:
Why do we have 5+ threads with this stuff when you're saying the same stuff all over again which makes me think any discussion with you is worthless -- I'm not saying you should agree but I think we're past that stupid example and focus more on what we are discussion -- the disadvantage distribution, which is unfair.
In other words, "We won't talk about the things that I'm ignoring! We're going to talk about the things that I'm repeating over and over again!"
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 01:33 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:34, 27 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Most capitalists aren't saying that if you are smart and will work hard, you'll become like Bill Gates. What they are saying is that Bill Gates is smart and worked hard, so he deserves what he has, and also that if you are smart and work hard, you will be middle class at least. You may not become a millionaire, but $60,000 a year (or more!) is not beyond one's reach. Socialism would prevent even that much.
Do you know the rates of unemployment? They don't even want to work hard, just work a bit and they still can't do even that! Not to mention beggars and everyone who lives in poverty.
I think that the thing you said (well called "the american dream") is kinda naive and unrealistic at best. Who doesn't want to be that way, seriously? Who wants to starve? Do you think is their freaking choice?
They don't fail themselves. Situation and society fails them.
Quote:
Are you receiving the money as a result of your actions? Is the money the result of voluntary exchange? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the money is yours. Period.
See? You promote unfairness.
Simply put: situational advantage must be eliminated and distributed evenly (so it's not wasted).
An extreme example: If you get the money for doing nothing (let's say someone wants to give it to you cause you were at some place at some time), and someone works hard for it, then it's situational advantage. Sure here, the 'situation' is given by someone else, but in reality, I'm talking about the unfair situational advantages not caused by anyone's will (excluding billionaires and all those who already had this advantage of course).
You can become a billionaire too, if you start off as a millionaire
Quote:
In other words, "We won't talk about the things that I'm ignoring! We're going to talk about the things that I'm repeating over and over again!"
Can you give a more proper example such as when two guys do the same thing but only one succeeds in business? That's because we eliminate the 'hard working' difference between them and only leave the 'luck' factor so we can clearly analyze it.
But nevertheless no matter how many threads and posts we discuss you'll still going to get back to the janitor example in a few days as if we never discussed.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 01:36 AM |
|
|
Oh, wait, I said that I wouldn't discuss this with you any more.
I slipped, didn't I? Oh, well, at least I can stop now.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 01:39 AM |
|
|
Wow mvass I never thought you can be that childish. Would it make any difference if I used an anonymous username?
First I thought that you were tired of this subject which is understandable.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
