What's wrong with Socialism ?

[Praxius]

Yeah, good health and education is no good when you can't do anything with it other than live in poverty and unlike the poor in this country they don't have a choice.

Oh yeah, that's the wonderful thing about capitalism...... you have countries that follow it, they make big developments, big profits and in a fast way..... so it all looks great.... yet nobody ever mentions the homeless, the poor, those who are borderline in poverty, the people losing their jobs, people going to jail for simply trying to survive.

But in Socialism, everything is equal, everybody is covered, everybody is protected, which in turn will slow devleopment down a bit, and therefore to you and others like you, because they're not making leaps and bounds in some sectors of their nation like Capitalism likes to make you think happens, they're all in poverty.

Oh and the poor in our country have a choice? What the hell is that choice? A Can of Corn and a Can of Beans? Kinda hard to get any help from our government when you don't have a fixed address.

And how about in the US? Once you loose your job, you have a little while with government assistence, which the government also uses to determine how many are unemployed in their nation..... but then that eventually runs out and you no longer get assistence.... and once that happens, you're no longer registered as unemployed, therefore technically their unemployment in the US is a lot higher then the states claim..... all the while you're out on the street forgotten.

Yeah, great system.

It wasn't regulated in the U.S. where this mess started.

And the solution is? More Socialism to make sure it is regulated.... case in point.

You're damn right they should keep it, it's their's

uh huh.... who here ever said that people's existing property should be taken away and re-distributed? Not I.

So no matter what you do or how hard you work we all get the same amount to live on? That is the theory of the lazy and stupid.:roll:

And that's the mentality of the ignorant, go figure. A job is a job, they are all important..... if you think a janitor's job isn't as important as the guy who regulates the power plant while we all sleep, just see how important their job really is after about two weeks when that washroom in your local mall starts piling up with crap you never even fathomed could happen in a washroom.

Let me guess, you never had to wipe down the sh*t someone smeared all over the walls for their own fun? Tell me how fun that is when you're getting paid minimum wage to do that.

Every job is important or nobody would be working that job and it'd be done by machines. In the job I do, some in my profession get paid 25-65 bucks an hour for their time.... but if I knew everybody around me in every profession was reconized for their importance for the jobs they do and we were all going to be paid equally and all our living expenses would be properly covered..... I'd accept it greatfully.

See, unlike some people, I'm not a selfish jerk who thinks I and what I do is more important then the next guy..... because I'm not, and neither are you or anybody else. You do your job, you goto school just like everybody else because you need to..... you need to because you want to be a part of this society and you have wants and needs you want met..... I bet just about every single person here, if given the opportunity, they wouldn't work for the rest of their lives, they'd take up hobbies and venture the world..... but we can't do that..... why?

You already know the answer.

Sounds like the talk of the bitter man who failed and wants to blame everyone else for it.

I have yet to fail in anything I do.... I just have capitalist assholes wanting to take what they think is theirs when I did all the work myself. I have been brought up by my parents to be independant unlike some here.... if I can do something on my own, I will, I seldom ask anybody for favors unless it is absolutely nessicary, and I am damn well proud of my life and where I am today..... but it could have been a hell of a lot better without all this crap we're talking about now. The thing that is bitter for me, is that I am not the only one in my situation and I know plenty of other people this happens to, and continues to happen to.

Sounds like? Maybe you should stop using your ears and start using your eyes and read.

You mean other bitter failures.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say or are you just here to waste my damn time? Either get some content to your posts that is worth while or ignore mine and move on with your little precious life.

I have yet to see anything decent from this post that actually contributes to the topic at hand, either stop trolling or piss off.... how about that for bitter?

Yeah, so, move on.

Move on to what? Wtf is your point again? Oh yeah, you never had one.... you just wanted to get all up in here with your mouth and think you're some kind of hot shot because you can slap some fingers on a keyboard.

You're a waste of my life..... I think I know what I'll move on from.... this lame ass post that has no substance to the actual topic.

Speak for yourself and keep your grubby hands off my money....get your own.

That's the funny thing, I don't want my own and I don't want your's...... I want to destroy it all and abolish it from the face of the earth.

Then what kind of security and comfort would you have in your self absorbed life of material possessions? None... then you may actually see just how much your life truly sucks and that you never really did anything for your life that you actually enjoyed.

See, the difference between you and I, is that I and my family have already lost everything before in the past and I completely understand what the important things are in life...... someday soon, your house and home will all burn to the ground and all you will have will be the clothes on your back..... and if your really lucky, you may still have your family in one piece.... maybe then and only then you might actually understand that your money and your worldly possessions mean squat...... but not after you drop to your knees, break down and cry at the sight of your kingdom you built for yourself gradually turn to ash.

If you want great things to happen, great sacrafice is required..... and sticking to your selfish money-grubbing ways is, as you said "Lazy and Stupid :roll:"

Oh well, I guess some people will just have to learn the hard way.

 

[Praxius]

WTF!

Praxious you have no idea what socialism or capitalism are.

You sound more like a libertarian.

Yeah good for you, you found some fancy words to use, now actually put them fancy words together and contribute something worthwhile to the conversation.

 

[Avro]

Yeah good for you, you found some fancy words to use, now actually put them fancy words together and contribute something worthwhile to the conversation.

Fancy words? I had no idea libertarian was fancy...huh who knew?:roll:

Am I wrong?

If you want to be a prick because you failed you are doing a really good job.:roll:

Capitalism has been good to me, but I do like certain aspects of socialism like universal health care and education.

 

[Zzarchov]

In pure capitalism no one would starve in the street unless they were totally lazy, no one would be to ill for health care because deals could always be made.

Zzarchov, They most certainly would starve. There may be many reasons an individual cannot work besides being lazy, many reasons beyond his/her control (unforeseen illness, getting involved in an accident, large unemployment on a national scale etc.).

Capitalism makes no provisions for situations of this kind. In pure capitalism, if you cannot work, you starve. A single mother earning minimum wage may be forced to leave her infant child at home unattended while she is forced to go out to work. Or worse, she may be forced to leave her child with her sister, whose husband is a known child abuser.

As to health care, sure people will die, what ‘deals’ can be made under capitalism? In capitalism, if you cannot pay for your health care, you don’t get any. If a hospital or a doctor decides to treat a patient free of charge and thus save his life, that is charity, not capitalism.

In capitalism, a doctor would ask a dying man if he has any health insurance before he would touch him to treat him.

And I agree, pure anything is going to be toxic

Here we are in agreement.

Again, you are misquoting. Quote the entire paragraph. Especially the parts about unicorns and pixies.

In a capitalist society (truly capitalist) then no, a doctor would not require health insurance to treat you. And the reasons for that are numerous (some good and some bad). Even the sick and injured have value, especially if they can be healed. But socialist laws (many with very, very good reasons) do things like restrict whom you can get treatment from, who can buy the items needed for treatment and how you can pay them. As a mental excersize picture the myriad of solutions that would be available in a purely capitalist society where anyone can buy the drugs, anyone can attempt medical procedures and you can pay in anything from wage garnishing (good) to organ donations (bad) to sexual favours (very bad).

But as stated, that isnt' going to ever occur, because human nature prevents it. In a purely capitalist society the first thing someone on top is going to do is squash the capitalist nature of that society.

 

[Zzarchov]

No I'm talking about capitalism the enabler of kleptocrats. Personal property was protected long before capitalism existed. Get the subject correct in your own mind, envision what capital is rather than what it might be or could be or should be. If you will not accept the reality of capital in your own mind especially in the light of evidence of its destructiveness as evident by the crisis of this very day added to its long history of murder and slavery then what can anyone do for you? It is a proven mistake and failure Zzarchov or do you dispute the accounting being reported today do you dispute the levels of poverty and war? Defend it if you will at least your're entertaining in your delusions. I look for no agreement from capitalist lizards, they can find the friends they need in hell.:smile:

Actually no, Capitalism came about with the protection of personal property through law. At the point when the king could no longer say "Hey Serf, beat it, Im expanding my castle"

Capitalism is an ancient ancient concept which has been suppressed at various points in history (notably Feudalism in europe) and has been independently created in different cultures.

Capitalism is in its very literal definition: The protection of personal property through rule of law.

You can't have had property protection before capitalism, because property protection IS Capitalism. Thats the literal dictionary definition of Capitalism.

Capital means property. Capitalism is the system in which personal property is protected.


You do not understand the word.

 

[Zzarchov]

That's one way to skew what I said, however still wrong..... when you have to pay money to do simple things and for no real logical reasons, that's capitalism, because someone wants your money in order for you to do anything

No it isn't. Capital means property or possesion.
Capitalism is a system whereby personal propety or possesions are protected through rule of law. You can't argue that, thats the literal definition of the word.

In capitalism you don't pay for "no logical reason". Either the property is yours and you do what you want, or the property is someone elses and you pay to use it. And thats not a stupid reason, its their stuff, not yours.

The only time you would ever pay the government in pure capitalism is if you wanted to use their property or service, and it wouldn't be mandatory, nor would they hold a monopoly on it.

. Smokes and alcohol is taxed, because the government wants money for things, and they get this money because it's easier for them to do at our expense.

Well in a pure capitalist system there is no such thing as sales taxes, because you aren't using a government service, nor using government property. You could also brew your own alcohol and grow your own tobacco (or buy from others who do) because government regulations on private property do not exist in a purely capitalistic society (should one exist)

Sales taxes, and income taxes are by definition socialist elements. They are the government mandatorily taking money from uninvolved individuals to fund things they believe are in the public good (rightly or wrongly).

There was no (Or very little) public input in many of these decisions, the governments made these decisions, because they told us it was in our best interests, etc. In the concept that I believe will work, which is Soclialist Direct Democracy, is that any and all of these decisions are made by the people and then what the majority wants to occur happens. When the government tells us how it's going to be without our input, that's not socialism, that's communism/dictatorship.

Democracy and Dictatorship as a method of government have nothing to do with Socialism and Capitalism as economic systems. A dictatorial socialist system is communism, a democratic socialism is just that, a democratic capitalist system is often "laissez faire", while dictatorial capitalist systems tend to be oligarchies (and like dictatorial socialist systems tend to just be corrupt kleptocracies)

When someone prevents you from building or doing anything to your property or house because it takes down their precious value of their homes, they are afraid of losing money, and the government agrees and forces you not to do it..... Capitalism. If there is no currency or monies as I believe there shouldn't be, nobody would have to worry about the value of their homes based on what other's do with their own homes, and thus anybody could do whatever the hell they wanted on their land.

No, when the government tells you what to do with your property (infringing on your property) due to the concerns of the others. Thats socialism.

Societal good over Individual rights. Thats the definition. The societal good of universal healthcare over your individual right to your income, the societal good of regulating doctors over your individual right to choose a witch doctor. Sometimes its a good idea, sometimes its bad, but its an ideological choice either way about how the world should work.

Anything involving money does not mean capitalism. Protecting other peoples money (property) at the expense of someone else using their property (ie in your housing example)
is Anti-thesis to capitalism. In a capitalist system (purely) you are well within your rights to do such underhanded things as ruining the neighbours property values, especially if you are then looking to buy their properties from them.

Whether or not there is currencies or moneys, you will only be allowed to do what you want with your land if your rights to do so are protected under rule of law (capitalism) instead of decided based upon the wishes of others (socialism)

This isn't radical concepts, its available in any first year economics course or a good stint at your library.

When you have to continually pay property taxes on the land and house you call home, that's capitalism....

Again, no, thats socialism. You are paying taxes not for using public services or property (like tariffs) but based on your own personal property. Your personal money is going into the public purse. That is socialism, the idea that the individuals property can be better used by society as a whole.

Thats why its called socialism, its about the dominance of Society. Capitalism is the dominance of ones right to property.

If you are having to pay into the good of society based on your ownership of personal property that cannot by definition be capitalism and must be by definiation socialism.

paying people who have no more rights over the land then you do, esspecially if you were born and raised on that land or in the country..... yet all for money, profit and greed, they throw people through a burocracy and charges for useless crap to make it as difficult for you to do anything you want with your land and your home that they or anybody else may not like.

And reading the definition of Capitalism. Which is very easy to find. Do you not see how that conflicts with the very basic tenants.

Does it not strike you that Right Wing pro-capitalist groups want to lower or remove taxes and lower or remove regulation (de-regulate) as their prime goal?

Ignoring if they actually believe what they spout let along live up to it. Thats because regulation and taxation are socialist ideals, and the opposite of capitalism.

When it comes to making sure everybody's quality of life and freedoms are equal, making your own products, trading your own products, or building/modifying your home/property has nothing to do with it and everybody should have the freedom and right to do whatever they wish so long as it doesn't endanger others in the process.

Other than the "everybody's quality of life" is equal part (which doesnt' fit with the rest of what you want). The rest is the ideal capitalist society (again, human nature and corruption means it won't happen that way).

But not everyone can have the same quality of life and still give everyone perfect freedom. Once people have freedom to do what they want with their property some will make better choices than others, immediately. And a quality of life difference will occur.

Tell that to the IRS..... and the problem with you debating this with me, is that you're still referring to money, while I am talking about abolishing money all together.

Money is just a medium to facilitate trade. Its completely fiat. You can't eliminate money because it doesn't exist. Its a medium to facilitate trade. If you get rid of money, immediately new money forms.

In history this has taken various forms Whisky by farmers in the early US, Salt in many nations, Gold, Cocoa beans, Playing cards,

You obviously have an interest in economics, you should think about taking an economics course after hours in your local community college. It will give you alot of insight about why things are the way they are, whether they are good ideas or bad.

If it was socialism, then you wouldn't have to pay for anything.....

No, that isn't socialism. If it was socialism you'd still pay for everything. How much you pay versus what you get would merely be dependant on how much property you have accumulated through your work. If you worked hard (or your parents did) and stockpiled goods and property, you would pay more into the public good then you got back. If you were either unlucky or lazy (or your parents were and you are just starting out), then you would receive more back than you pay in.

Thats socialism.

with Capitalism, they have to squeeze any penny they can out of any action, any decision, anything you want to do.... processing fees, service charges..... oh and if you don't follow their instructions to a tee, you get additional charges/fines, have to take everything you did down and do it all over again, or never be allowed to do it period.

No, with Capitalism they are sure welcome to squeeze every penny they can out of you. And if you don't like it, go to someone else to get the service, or simply choose not to. No one can force you to do anything with your property. And if they ever need or want something from you, feel free to squeeze every penny you can from them.

I have no problem having someone come and inspect my things I do to make sure they are safe and legal, but I have a problem with the run around services with charges up your arse for doing it.

In a pure capitalist system they can't do either. Its your stuff, as long as its on your property you can do what you want with it, including sell it to someone else.

If I want to expand on my home, let's say I want to do it myself..... I have to pay for the material, spend my time and effort to build it all on my own, take the time to make sure it is all done correctly and safely....

All Capitalism...

and when it is all said and done, I still have to pay the government or some agency on behalf of the government to inspect it and make sure they got every dollar they can for doing nothing.

And thats Socialism. Other busy-bodies in society trying to tell you what to do with your property and making sure it fits their standards to benefit them.

The only form of socialism I believe in is if you are going to school or working, you are contributing to society, and if you are doing that, then you should have a home, power, heat, water and food, just like everybody else..... yet depending on where you live, depending on a lot of things, you can end up paying more for the same things as someone else in a different location in the country..... because of capitalism and profit..... people in one area are paid more then another, they are a "richer" area, therefore the costs of everything are higher..... if you live in Newfoundland in a paticular house that costs a paticular amount to own, if that exact same house was built in Calgary, the cost of owning that house will be dramatically higher, even though it is built with the exact same materials, designed the exact same way.

And thats the nature of trade. In some areas some things are more abundant and cheaper than other areas. That includes land, raw materials, and labour.

Considering we live in a first world nation its a rather ridiculous view to hold. Get rid of "location in the country" and look at location in the world.

Would you like to be paid less than your value because in some distant part of the world (ignoring shipping costs and availability) there are people willing to work for less?

Your wages (selling your time) are worth more than they are in other parts of the world for the same reasons.

Location is why? Is it closer to stores and other convienant things compared to the one in NFLD? Doesn't matter.... if you are working, if you are contributing to society and you are a citizen of this nation, you should have a home and everything you need to substain your life and family. If your home is farther away to stores and gerorcies and work..... supply them a vehicle that can meet their needs.

Its closer to high paid jobs. Meaning more people want to live in a location than the location can support. So they bid on it, and highest bidder wins.


Picture yourself in the other shoes, if you are selling your house for $100,000 and someone offers you $200,000 for it, do you think you should be forced to say "No, thats too much?"

That is not socialism.... it's capitalism.... someone's value of their house drops because they can't see some lake or some other tree, therefore their property value (Capitalism) drops..... the government agrees with them that they will loose money (Capitalism) therefore you can not build the treehouse, even though it is on your property that you already paid for. If capitalism didn't exist, and currency was abolished, nobody would have to worry about their property value, because there wouldn't be a value, except a personal value of it being your home. If someone built something on their property that you thought was an eyesore..... then too bad..... feel free to build your own eyesore, because it is your property and you can do with it as you wish..... equal.... socialism.

No, if it was Capitalism, by definition, you rights to your property means you can build a treehouse. Seriously, look it up.

If other people can tell you what to do with your property for their benefit. Thats socialism. Societal good (everyone elses property values) trump your individual property rights.

Capitalism does not equal "Money is king" and Socialism does not equal "No money".

Its all about who has control over property (money, land, etc), the individual or society.

But if the only excuse people have to prevent someone from doing something is related to money.... then that is capitalism.


If currency was abolished people would still worry about property value because property has value outside of currency. Currency (as stated above ) is merely a means to facilitate trade.

If it wasn't the house being worth $10,000 dollars less it would be worth 10 cows less or 4 tonnes or wheat less , or half an acre of a different property less.

Property value is stating how much other people are willing to trade for that property. In a socialist system there are just further restrictions on what you can do. Anything you want to do with your property would need consent from others to ensure it didn't negatively impact society.

Remove Capitalism as I have been saying and you have nothing to worry about in regards to your "Capital" because there wouldn't be any to worry about in the first place.

It's not complicated.

If you don't have capital you are a slave. Capital does not mean money. Capital means property. Even time is a form of Capital.

The only way you can not have capital is if you are a slave.

If you are given the adiquate (And then some) amount of resources for the amount of people in your family in a proper maner, then there isn't an issue.

Sure there is, who is giving you these resources? Why does he/she own them and why are they able to dole them out as needed.

What you are describing (thus far) has been done before at the fall of the Roman Empire when their plunder based economy fell through.

It evolved into Feudalism and Serfdom.

Someone with a family of 3 doesn't need the same amount of resources as a family of 5. If everybody in your family has everything they need, and everybody in every other family has everything they need for their families, then it is equal.... you're still stuck on "They got more then us" mentality.... which is a capitalist flaw..... they get more, because there is more of them then you under one roof.... it's not the house that gets the resources, it's the people within that houshold. Seperate each one into seperate homes, and the amounts distributed would remain the same, not including additional resources for maintaining those homes.

Thats great for one generation, or if people were altruists. But lets say I choose to have 1 or 2 kids because times are tough and im responsible. My neighbour chooses to have 12 kids because he knows that my possessions will now be taken to house his kids.

Now all 13 kids (my 1 and his 12) can live on land that can support 6 of them. My child suffers as badly as his 12 and there is nothing I can do to look after my child, the more I work the more I support his 12 kids.

So my best solution is to also have 12 kids (Prisoner's Dilemma with only 1 run through).

And thus the whole economic system collapses. We still act just as selfishly if you change the rules of the game, how that manifests itself will merely change.

Technically, if more people are under one roof, then the resources given would be less then it would be for someone living on their own, because the people living in one house only have to worry about the expenses of one house, rather then 3 or 4 other houses.....

Except your looking at one generation ignoring breeding.

4 parents in two houses with 2 kids, is reducing the amount of drained resources in the long run, allowing them to build up substantial wealth through their sacrificice.

4 parents under one roof with 12 kids, is increasing the amount of required resources, making the world that much more fragile. But they don't need to work hard to support those kids, other people above can work hard to support them.

You create a system where the best possible outcome in life is to be lazy and hope everyone else works hard. If everyone acts as you do then you still have free time and you aren't working for no gain. If other people work hard then you have free time and your kids are supported.

If it is organized and operated properly, the amounts of resources given would be based on idividual needs.... therefore the proper amount for a child, the proper amount for a father, the proper amount for the wife, etc. would be given to the family and distributed equally for their benifit by the parents/authority figures in the household..... if it is found that one parent has been hoarding those resources for themselves or it is distributed unfairly through the houshold, then that would be a form of abuse and neglect, and thus, disiplinary actions would be required for the protection of each person in the houshold.

Uh huh, and what happens with inheritance? Since it is all alocated on needs if nothing else (igoring breeding) you are asking everyone to use up every resource they are given, since they can't stockpile through being frugal and build up wealth.

Picture the difference in utility use between people in an all inclusive building versus those in who have to pay their own utility bill. Both still pay for their utilities in the long run, but one has no reason to ever conserve utilities.

Oh so it's socialism that forecloses homes because people can't afford the new increases in their payments? It's Socialism that throws people out on the streets because someone didn't get their money or not enough of their money?

No, thats capitalism. But its socialism for me to lose my retirement savings so that person can keep a home they didn't pay for. No one forced them to take the home loans. One thing that bugs me in the Sub-Prime mess is the portrayal of those losing their homes as Victims.

You signed an agreement for home that you knew you couldn't afford, hoping your situation would change and you'd be able to pay for it. While the banks certainly deserve their licks for such a dumb plan, its not like anyone forced the buyers to live above their means.

That money that they borrowed to buy those homes, it comes (net result) for average citizens who invested their retirement money and worked hard their whole lives.

The agreement was pretty clear, both sides knew the risks, the worst case happened, now both sides can live up.

The middle class loses money on their investments (lost value and transaction costs), and the buyer loses the interest payments they made (about equal to the rent they would have paid) and moving costs.

Your plan of bankrupting the middle class loaner to give the buyer a free house socialism. You think that the buyer needs a free house more than the middle class invester deserves to retire from their years of hard work.

If rapid inflation had occurred (ie, hyper inflation) would you expect the home owner to owe the bank more money so the bank didn't lose out? That also can occur in troubled economies. If its $10 million for a loaf of bread then that $200K mortgage you have is no big deal. If that occurs do you think the home owner should give back the house to the bank so the middle class investor doesn't lose out?

Of course not. A deals a deal and both sides knew the potential risks.

You sure do have things screwed up pretty well.... but I guess so long as you ignore the "Capitalist Costs" on just about everything in our lives, one could attempt to try and make it sound like it's all socialism's fault. The only reason why some of those capitalist processes seem like they have socialist traits, is because when they were all left on their own, there was little control on how much people were getting ripped off for their money and the BS crap they had to go through.

They aren't capitalist processes. They are socialist processes. Socialism screws people over just as much as capitalism does. The difference is who's rights trump who.

Society as a whole (socialism) or the individual (Capitalism)

As our current economy is proving these days, when you let Capitalism go and take care of itself, everything goes to sh*t, people loose their homes, everybody looses their jobs, all because those who are in the power of capitalism don't give a sh*t about anything else except how much they got in their own pockets, regardless of what happens to everybody else. Socialism is the only way to keep it under control, keep these idiots in check and to make sure everybody in our society isn't being scammed for everything they have by believing in empty promises and thinking these people really know what they are doing and have their best interests at heart..... which they don't.... their job is to make money.... for themselves first, their company second..... and you dead last....

Actually the current system isn't capitalist, its far more socialist than capitalist. Even then its not Socialist, its a bastardization of both. The strengths of neither and the weaknesses of all.

Socialism has its own scams and its own people in power. It steals houses and losses jobs and hoards money/resources all on its own with its own unique tricks.

The problem is never socialism or capitalism (unless your problem is with oppressed individual liberty or a lack of community compassion), its always with the corruption that seeps in to prevent the underlying principles from working to its fullest.

Resources are rarely lost or gained, jobs are never lost or gained. They just shift around.

And that's why people have lost their homes, and that is why all these companies went tits up.... and that's why all these people who ran those companies in the ground are perfectly fine sitting in their mansions and their worst worries are if they can make par on the golf field.

Yeah, wonderful system you got there.



Maybe you should learn how to read.

 

[darkbeaver]

Actually no, Capitalism came about with the protection of personal property through law. At the point when the king could no longer say "Hey Serf, beat it, Im expanding my castle"

Capitalism is an ancient ancient concept which has been suppressed at various points in history (notably Feudalism in europe) and has been independently created in different cultures.

Capitalism is in its very literal definition: The protection of personal property through rule of law.

You can't have had property protection before capitalism, because property protection IS Capitalism. Thats the literal dictionary definition of Capitalism.

Capital means property. Capitalism is the system in which personal property is protected.


You do not understand the word.

Zzarchov every selfrespecting capitalists is blood bound from birth to own the law which defines said property in that sence for sure property protection Is Capitalism. Is property protection wealth creation? No it isn't wealth can only be created by labour. So your capitalists are forced by your definition to protect property that is not theirs in the first place, like say India or the USA or Iraq. Capital means property? It means a lot of things including gain through compounding wealth on wealth and the top of a column. Your capitalism is anti-social by definition. Is it any wonder it's on the endangered list? The winners will determine the definition of capitalism anyway, save your torturous word squirming for the faithful.;-):lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In a capitalist society (truly capitalist) then no, a doctor would not require health insurance to treat you.

Zzarchov, really? In Capitalism, why should a doctor treat you if you cannot pay for it? In USA, we see examples from time to time, of middle class families declaring bankruptcy because of huge medical bills. Are you saying that in a Capitalistic society they wouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy, that doctor would treat them anyway? If so, you have a rather strange notion if Capitalism.

In capitalism, it is strictly cash on the line. No money, no service of any kind.

Even the sick and injured have value, especially if they can be healed.

Really? An unemployed vagabond, who has no employable skills, what value does he have in capitalism? And what if it is not certain if he can be healed, what about somebody who has cancer? There is no guarantee that he can be healed, why should doctor risk treating him, only to find that the patient died a few months down the line and the doctor cannot collect his fee?

As a mental excersize picture the myriad of solutions that would be available in a purely capitalist society where anyone can buy the drugs, anyone can attempt medical procedures and you can pay in anything from wage garnishing (good) to organ donations (bad) to sexual favours (very bad).

I am sorry, I cannot. Let us look at somebody who has a chronic or a terminal disease. Suppose he is unemployed, there can be no wage garnishing. Organ donation is a possibility (after death), but how is the doctor going to benefit from it? And if you are saying that he can hock his organs while alive on E Bay and raise some money that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As to sexual favor, that may be a possibility. But what if the woman (or the man) is not good looking? The doctor may not be willing to accept sexual favors in return for treatment. And anyway, it may be possible for a fee of a few hundred dollars, but if the fee amounts to say, 100,000 dollars, will a doctor really accept sexual favors in exchange for such a sum?

 

[Zzarchov]

Zzarchov every selfrespecting capitalists is blood bound from birth to own the law which defines said property in that sence for sure property protection Is Capitalism. Is property protection wealth creation? No it isn't wealth can only be created by labour. So your capitalists are forced by your definition to protect property that is not theirs in the first place, like say India or the USA or Iraq. Capital means property? It means a lot of things including gain through compounding wealth on wealth and the top of a column. Your capitalism is anti-social by definition. Is it any wonder it's on the endangered list? The winners will determine the definition of capitalism anyway, save your torturous word squirming for the faithful.;-):lol:

You do know that labour is also capital right? Your time is your property. In strictly non-capitalist systems you labour is not your own.

When people are born with wealth, and never need labour, that is because somewhere back in their family tree someone worked really hard , busting their ass,to leave alot of inheritance for their kids. Who passed it down the generations.

Really rich useless people like Paris Hilton, exist because of their ancestors worked really hard to give their descendants that life of luxury.

While its annoying, every single human being wants to take care of their offspring. And as they say, a fool and their money are soon seperated.

 

[Zzarchov]

In a capitalist society (truly capitalist) then no, a doctor would not require health insurance to treat you.

Zzarchov, really? In Capitalism, why should a doctor treat you if you cannot pay for it? In USA, we see examples from time to time, of middle class families declaring bankruptcy because of huge medical bills. Are you saying that in a Capitalistic society they wouldn’t have to declare bankruptcy, that doctor would treat them anyway? If so, you have a rather strange notion if Capitalism.

Well lets get down to this. While more capitalist than us in Canada, the USA is still very much a socialist nation. It has income tax, pensions, medicare, regulations on doctors and liscencing (Creaing a monopoly on labour), laws on possession of medicine and the ability to produce and dispense it.

Their is ALWAYS value.

In capitalism, it is strictly cash on the line. No money, no service of any kind.

Not at all, Capital does not mean Cash, it means property. That includes time (labour/service).

Even the sick and injured have value, especially if they can be healed.

Really? An unemployed vagabond, who has no employable skills, what value does he have in capitalism? And what if it is not certain if he can be healed, what about somebody who has cancer? There is no guarantee that he can be healed, why should doctor risk treating him, only to find that the patient died a few months down the line and the doctor cannot collect his fee?

If the risk is more likely than not he will die, no one loves him, and he has no useful skills, how much good is he going to be in society anyways? Is it a better idea to let a productive mother with loving family lose the treatment? Ideally they both get treatment mind you. Leading to the next issue.

Either there is surplus medical supplies and staff who can deal with him (socialist or capitalist) or there isn't. If there is, then making a deal to get treatment is easy, because the doctors time is otherwise wasted, he may as well get something for his effort. Or, there isn't enough medical staff to heal him and everyone else, in which case someone is going to die waiting.

What method do you use to decide who lives and who dies? but enough of that tangent.

As a mental excersize picture the myriad of solutions that would be available in a purely capitalist society where anyone can buy the drugs, anyone can attempt medical procedures and you can pay in anything from wage garnishing (good) to organ donations (bad) to sexual favours (very bad).

I am sorry, I cannot. Let us look at somebody who has a chronic or a terminal disease. Suppose he is unemployed, there can be no wage garnishing. Organ donation is a possibility (after death), but how is the doctor going to benefit from it? And if you are saying that he can hock his organ while alive on E Bay and raise some money that opens up a whole new can of worms.

As to sexual favor, that may be a possibility. But what if the woman (or the man) is not good looking? The doctor may not be willing to accept sexual favors in return for treatment. And anyway, it may be possible for a fee of a few hundred dollars, but if the fee amounts to say, 100,000 dollars, will a doctor really accept sexual favors in exchange for such a sum?

Well lets look at this,

Wage Garnishing: Assuming he lives, wages can be garnished for a very long time. Even general labour can make substantial money in the long term.

Organ Donation: Pure capitalism, who said Donation, why not outright sale? Its your body, why can't you sell it if you want to?

The price point: Do you really think it would still be a $100,000 dollars without a state monopoly on doctors? How many foreign doctors do you think would still be driving cabs? Would medicines still be as expensive if anyone could make them?

In the end if something is too expensive for most people to afford (Even medicine) it means there isn't enough supply to meet the demand.

Its a harsh system to decide who gets what in a shortage mind you, but its not any less harsh than our system where a serial rapist can get treatment before a fireman if your on the wrong end of it.

As I said , pure anything is fairly toxic and harsh, but if your going to comment on the concept of capitalism being evil, you have to look back to time periods when it was in place without socialist interference.

It had major flaws, but unfairness wasn't one of them. The biggest unfairness in the system is human nature, inheritance.

 

[darkbeaver]

You do know that labour is also capital right? Your time is your property. In strictly non-capitalist systems you labour is not your own.

When people are born with wealth, and never need labour, that is because somewhere back in their family tree someone worked really hard , busting their ass,to leave alot of inheritance for their kids. Who passed it down the generations.

Really rich useless people like Paris Hilton, exist because of their ancestors worked really hard to give their descendants that life of luxury.

While its annoying, every single human being wants to take care of their offspring. And as they say, a fool and their money are soon seperated.

Social capital and property are not the same. Your foot his your property, your time is your conduit to common wealth. We always get to splitting hairs Zzarchov.
We come into the world naked and that's how we leave ownership is concept only.
Neither wealth or worth require tangeble capital and it won't buy you love so it's without worth, nothing a real man would bother with. A fool is separated from everything not just money. Your labour is your contribution to the commonweal.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In the end if something is too expensive for most people to afford (Even medicine) it means there isn't enough supply to meet the demand.

That may be, Zzarchov, but how are you going to increase the supply of doctors in a Capitalistic society? The doctors will still have to be certified and licensed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they will see to it that high standards are maintained and supply of doctors is limited. Doctors will still be able to charge high, hefty fees.

Also, when it comes to medicine, it does not matter how expensive it is, people will still want it, it is not like buying a sofa or a TV set (where if you cannot afford it, you don’t buy it). If people cannot pay, they will resort to threats, intimidation, even outright violence to get their treatment form the doctor

e.g. doctor’s wife or children could be held hostage, to be released only in return for treatment. Things could get very ugly.

And if there is no regulation of doctors, if anybody who feels like it can hang out his shingle, claim to be a doctor, and treat patients, that opens up another nightmarish scenario.

I am sorry, but I just can’t see a way to make it work.

 

[Said1]

Capital is your worth based on what you have (hopefully amounting to more than your liabilities) what you can provide, or what you can borrow based on that. Am I missing something? I don't understand what this argument has devolved into anyway - semantics?

 

[darkbeaver]

Capital is your worth based on what you have (hopefully amounting to more than your liabilities) what you can provide, or what you can borrow based on that. Am I missing something? I don't understand what this argument has devolved into anyway - semantics?

It's devolved into a separation of humane form the inhumane. It has been determined that capitalists probably aren't human.

 

[Said1]

It's devolved into a separation of humane form the inhumane. It has been determined that capitalists probably aren't human.

Thanks, I got lost in all the word play. :lol:

Anyway, I wouldn't say capitalist aren't human. It's the corporatists. The evil, vile, back stabbing filth that thrives in corporate culture. If there is a hell, they're going straight there on the corporate express. And no, I'm not bitter and angry.....YET. :x

 

[gopher]

''It's the corporatists. The evil, vile, back stabbing filth that thrives in corporate culture. ''


Hmmm. I'm surprised to see you write that.

Remember just a couple of years ago when you used to defend Bush's war on Iraq in this forum? Back then I wrote that the war was a part of that same evil corporate scum filth that was looking to generate more tax free warfare/welfare profits through the war. It appears as if you, like the rest of the once deluded world, has been enlightened at long last.

 

[Said1]

''It's the corporatists. The evil, vile, back stabbing filth that thrives in corporate culture. ''


Hmmm. I'm surprised to see you write that.

Remember just a couple of years ago when you used to defend Bush's war on Iraq in this forum? Back then I wrote that the war was a part of that same evil corporate scum filth that was looking to generate more tax free warfare/welfare profits through the war. It appears as if you, like the rest of the once deluded world, has been enlightened at long last.

Yes, I remember the whacky stuff you used to post and your indignant remarks.

As for corporatists, my remarks were directed more at my co-workers, the ones who thrive in the culture corporations provide. I can't function in that world, it makes me do crazy things. :lol:

 

[Zzarchov]

In the end if something is too expensive for most people to afford (Even medicine) it means there isn't enough supply to meet the demand.

That may be, Zzarchov, but how are you going to increase the supply of doctors in a Capitalistic society? The doctors will still have to be certified and licensed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, they will see to it that high standards are maintained and supply of doctors is limited. Doctors will still be able to charge high, hefty fees.

The concept of needing external regulation (ie the certification and liscensing) is a socialist one. The idea that the right of your to choose who treats you and what what qualifications they need is decided by society at large.

So no, if it was a truly capitalist society then I could decide what degree of qualification I wanted my doctors to have. It would also put the onus on me to know what is and isnt' acceptable training. The sword cuts both ways, I can eat whatever I want, but im not longer spoon fed and better be sure im not about to eat glass shards.

In such a case, they can't charge whatever they want, because someone else will charge less.

Also, when it comes to medicine, it does not matter how expensive it is, people will still want it, it is not like buying a sofa or a TV set (where if you cannot afford it, you don’t buy it). If people cannot pay, they will resort to threats, intimidation, even outright violence to get their treatment form the doctor

But with no one putting regulations about who you can sell it to, prices will drop and people will buy it. In pure anarchistic societies (like Somali) doctors and medicine still function. With no lisencing, no certification, no central government of any kind.

That being said, its far from ideal. It has its own blend of problems, but then again is also lacks some of ours.

e.g. doctor’s wife or children could be held hostage, to be released only in return for treatment. Things could get very ugly.

And you think that wouldn't happen if instead of being able to pay money it was being able to be high enough up on the waiting list?

Will this person take the doctors family hostage if they don't have the money, but not if they need to doctor to treat them before others?

A waiting list is a more eglatarian solution, but if there is a shortage is still means someone is going to die, someone who can use the same nefarious means in either situation.

And if there is no regulation of doctors, if anybody who feels like it can hang out his shingle, claim to be a doctor, and treat patients, that opens up another nightmarish scenario.

I am sorry, but I just can’t see a way to make it work.

And that happens. And then its up to the patients to decide what level of certification they accept, and who they will accept certification from.

Not having the government regulate physicians also means that people aren't forced to take the physician they are offered. It just switches the onus of who checks.

In countries that use this system (and yes many do, thats why many foreign doctors drive cabs, because their country regulates medicine different than ours, if at all), people double check that their doctor was trained by a reputable organization by contacting the organization, who only makes money if its doctors are both well trained and have a reputation for being well trained.


Again, it still has problems, its just a different set of problems than the ones we have. Some people find those sets of problems better, others worse.

I think for the country as a whole our system as better, for those individuals with the time and energy to do their own extensive research and the wealth to make sure they are first in line, its far worse.

 

[gopher]

~~~ whacky stuff ~~~


LOL!

Just a few years people like me were continually attacked by the Bushies on this and on other forums but today his defenders have all disappeared.

Why?

Because we were correct all along.

It's too bad the Bushies do not have the guts and character to admit to their erroneous ways and to apologize.

 

[Said1]

~~~ whacky stuff ~~~


LOL!

Just a few years people like me were continually attacked by the Bushies on this and on other forums but today his defenders have all disappeared.

Why?

Because we were correct all along.

It's too bad the Bushies do not have the guts and character to admit to their erroneous ways and to apologize.

What were you right about, exactly?