mrbaracuda, diffrence between Communism and Sozialism? can you tell me pls? [Archive]

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 02:09 AM

Well I am pretty sure you can understand him in the context of commie / socialistic stuff.

No, not really.

Then again I'm a politics student so I'm BOUND to be stuffy and insist upon technical definitions.

The actual difference, and yes, there REALLY is an absolute one despite what some folks say (tell me, would you like anyone to use thier personal definition of science too? Oh, that's not the same? Yes, it is. Suck it up.) Oh, and despite the problems with the definitions (you'll see. You'll ALL see.)

Communism is NOT the sharing of wealth by the government. THAT is Socialism (although obviously it has some degrees of variation within it). As far as can be gained from the Communist Manifesto (for it is not all that clear, and I should know, I had to buy it for my course) Communism is the state BEYOND Socialism, whereby there is NO government at all.

Everyone merely works at their job, puts the resulting capital into a shared pot and then takes their fair share. However because this cannot be implimented right away for.....obvious reasons, Marx and Engels stated that first one must have Socialism.

Only, that was never completely defined either, so the best you can get on that is that the Government is large and supports more equal sharing of the wealth, with high tax paying for education, health, power, transport etc.

This can, as one of the above articles mentioned, be as little as socialised healthcare and education etc etc with a lot of money funneled into public spending and a noticable shortening of the gap between rich and poor.

You can also have Socialism to the extent that I would like it (insert evil cackle here) whereby the poorest sector of the populous is guaranteed minnimum standards of comfort, or rather, the option to GET said standards, but in order to gain higher levels, one must work harder/at a more difficult job. For example, someone on benefits might be able to afford a small TV, whereas a decent sized TV will belong to a mid level worker, and a huge great plasma job will belong to the hardest worker or the one doing the most difficult job, a neurosurgeon, to pick a cliche example out of my rather stylish hat. In this system you are rewarded for climbing the career ladder, much as you are in a totally capitalist environment (which no longer exists, anywhere) but you have to pay a significant portion in order to allow those who would NOT have a large sum of money to spend on medical bills to have their quadruple heart bypass for free. You would still be earning far in the excess of the lowest band of worker, but noone would be unable to get good education, or good healthcare, and transport and gas/electricity would be easily sorted.

Then, of course you can have "socialism" that isn't really socialism at all, and I'm looking at YOU Lenin, Mao and Stalin. A general send it to the middle/we don't like the upper/middle classes is NOT Communism or Socialism. However, it would be remiss of me to claim that they did not operate certain socialistic systems within their countries. For example Cuba's high tax paid for free education up to and including university level, which is something I would want for any nation. The downside is because it was Stalinoid in it's approach (thank you Che, he couldn't have done it without you, you beardy idiot and poster boy for the "we know nothing about politics" generation) the good also went hand in hand with the very, very bad. Brutal oppression and mass killings.

See, the problem is that even though they ARE defined terms, they are still fairly wishy-washy, and although Marx never said anything about how wonderful it is to opress everyone (indeed, he would probably have been horrified by Stalin in particular) he never stated that that was NOT what communism/socialism was about either.

He rather stupidly left a lot of what he said a bit vauge, and when you combine that with power mad, but originally (very slightly) well intentioned lunatics like Lenin you have a recipie for...well I'm not sure what it is but it isn't apple pie. Then HE goes and dies, and the person he wanted to get the USSR back on track (as it was doing quite well) goes and gets removedd by Stalin, who was even worse. Then HIS words got corrupted.

It's a funny old world, when you think about it.

Right, I'm off to ruin someone elses day.

8th August 2008, 02:17 AM

No, not really.

Then again I'm a politics student so I'm BOUND to be stuffy and insist upon technical definitions.

The actual difference, and yes, there REALLY is an absolute one despite what some folks say (tell me, would you like anyone to use thier personal definition of science too? Oh, that's not the same? Yes, it is. Suck it up.) Oh, and despite the problems with the definitions (you'll see. You'll ALL see.)

Communism is NOT the sharing of wealth by the government. THAT is Socialism (although obviously it has some degrees of variation within it). As far as can be gained from the Communist Manifesto (for it is not all that clear, and I should know, I had to buy it for my course) Communism is the state BEYOND Socialism, whereby there is NO government at all.

Everyone merely works at their job, puts the resulting capital into a shared pot and then takes their fair share. However because this cannot be implimented right away for.....obvious reasons, Marx and Engels stated that first one must have Socialism.

Only, that was never completely defined either, so the best you can get on that is that the Government is large and supports more equal sharing of the wealth, with high tax paying for education, health, power, transport etc.

This can, as one of the above articles mentioned, be as little as socialised healthcare and education etc etc with a lot of money funneled into public spending and a noticable shortening of the gap between rich and poor.

You can also have Socialism to the extent that I would like it (insert evil cackle here) whereby the poorest sector of the populous is guaranteed minnimum standards of comfort, or rather, the option to GET said standards, but in order to gain higher levels, one must work harder/at a more difficult job. For example, someone on benefits might be able to afford a small TV, whereas a decent sized TV will belong to a mid level worker, and a huge great plasma job will belong to the hardest worker or the one doing the most difficult job, a neurosurgeon, to pick a cliche example out of my rather stylish hat. In this system you are rewarded for climbing the career ladder, much as you are in a totally capitalist environment (which no longer exists, anywhere) but you have to pay a significant portion in order to allow those who would NOT have a large sum of money to spend on medical bills to have their quadruple heart bypass for free. You would still be earning far in the excess of the lowest band of worker, but noone would be unable to get good education, or good healthcare, and transport and gas/electricity would be easily sorted.

Then, of course you can have "socialism" that isn't really socialism at all, and I'm looking at YOU Lenin, Mao and Stalin. A general send it to the middle/we don't like the upper/middle classes is NOT Communism or Socialism. However, it would be remiss of me to claim that they did not operate certain socialistic systems within their countries. For example Cuba's high tax paid for free education up to and including university level, which is something I would want for any nation. The downside is because it was Stalinoid in it's approach (thank you Che, he couldn't have done it without you, you beardy idiot and poster boy for the "we know nothing about politics" generation) the good also went hand in hand with the very, very bad. Brutal oppression and mass killings.

See, the problem is that even though they ARE defined terms, they are still fairly wishy-washy, and although Marx never said anything about how wonderful it is to opress everyone (indeed, he would probably have been horrified by Stalin in particular) he never stated that that was NOT what communism/socialism was about either.

He rather stupidly left a lot of what he said a bit vauge, and when you combine that with power mad, but originally (very slightly) well intentioned lunatics like Lenin you have a recipie for...well I'm not sure what it is but it isn't apple pie. Then HE goes and dies, and the person he wanted to get the USSR back on track (as it was doing quite well) goes and gets removedd by Stalin, who was even worse. Then HIS words got corrupted.

It's a funny old world, when you think about it.

Right, I'm off to ruin someone elses day.

good post.
:)

mrbaracuda

8th August 2008, 02:27 AM

As far as can be gained from the Communist Manifesto (for it is not all that clear, and I should know, I had to buy it for my course)

Oh. My sincerest condolences. It's sitting on my shelf as well, and I'm not even a politics student! :eek:

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 02:42 AM

Oh. My sincerest condolences. It's sitting on my shelf as well, and I'm not even a politics student! :eek:

It's quite a good read.

You will probably find yourself going "Hmm, well that sounds ideal but....you silly silly men."

The thing with Communism is, it sounds wonderful, but it's a forlorn hope, at best.

Socialism, if practiced well and regulated by democracy, is more than good enough for me.

8th August 2008, 02:46 AM

It's quite a good read.

You will probably find yourself going "Hmm, well that sounds ideal but....you silly silly men."

The thing with Communism is, it sounds wonderful, but it's a forlorn hope, at best.

Socialism, if practiced well and regulated by democracy, is more than good enough for me.

do you think there have been a socialist government that did a good job in practicing socialism yet?

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 03:19 AM

do you think there have been a socialist government that did a good job in practicing socialism yet?

Yes. A lot of them.

Of course, it depends upon what form of Socialism you MEAN. I mean lets face it early USSR under Lenin worked wonderfully well for what it was. Does that mean I would want my country run that way? Hell no.

8th August 2008, 03:34 AM

Yes. A lot of them.

Of course, it depends upon what form of Socialism you MEAN. I mean lets face it early USSR under Lenin worked wonderfully well for what it was. Does that mean I would want my country run that way? Hell no.

while Lenin may be a good example, i kinda wonder the "A lot of them".
:)

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 03:40 AM

while Lenin may be a good example, i kinda wonder the "A lot of them".
:)

I wonder what you're on about.

You DID read my post, right? You comprehended what I said, yes?

8th August 2008, 03:49 AM

I wonder what you're on about.

You DID read my post, right? You comprehended what I said, yes?

i just wondered to read that alot of them did it good :)

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 04:27 AM

i just wondered to read that alot of them did it good :)

Someone help me out here, am I being stupid?

What do you MEAN by good? Do you mean efficient? If so I could name LOADS. Do you mean actually run for and by the people? I could name a few if you narrowed down to which type of Socialism you mean.

You aren't helping me understand you here.

leonAzul

8th August 2008, 04:49 AM

do you think there have been a socialist government that did a good job in practicing socialism yet?

No. There are only examples of governments who have exploited the notion of socialism in order to ƒ:rule10 people over
consolidate advantage. :D

8th August 2008, 05:03 AM

Someone help me out here, am I being stupid?

What do you MEAN by good? Do you mean efficient? If so I could name LOADS. Do you mean actually run for and by the people? I could name a few if you narrowed down to which type of Socialism you mean.

You aren't helping me understand you here.

ah sorry.

well yes by good i would mean run in favor of the peoples (atleast the majority /working classes). but also having human right standards.

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 07:07 AM

ah sorry.

well yes by good i would mean run in favor of the peoples (atleast the majority /working classes). but also having human right standards.

The UK.

Canada.

France.

Anywhere with socialised medicine and education to a high standard, in fact.

Or would you like absolute Socialism? Hasn't ever been implimented.

Socialism with absolute control? Doesn't work for the people.

8th August 2008, 07:13 AM

The UK.

Canada.

France.

Anywhere with socialised medicine and education to a high standard, in fact.

Or would you like absolute Socialism? Hasn't ever been implimented.

Socialism with absolute control? Doesn't work for the people.

oh i call those Capitalism/Socialism hybrids. and i think it is the best known form we know yet.

but i like your point of view in that mather :)

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 10:24 AM

oh i call those Capitalism/Socialism hybrids. and i think it is the best known form we know yet.

but i like your point of view in that mather :)

....That's because they are.

If you're talking about a purely Socialist system, you can't find one. Well, aside from Moldova but that's....weird.

Socialism has never been totally implimented.

Billdave2

8th August 2008, 12:39 PM

No, not really.

You can also have Socialism to the extent that I would like it (insert evil cackle here) whereby the poorest sector of the populous is guaranteed minnimum standards of comfort, or rather, the option to GET said standards, but in order to gain higher levels, one must work harder/at a more difficult job. For example, someone on benefits might be able to afford a small TV, whereas a decent sized TV will belong to a mid level worker, and a huge great plasma job will belong to the hardest worker or the one doing the most difficult job, a neurosurgeon, to pick a cliche example out of my rather stylish hat. In this system you are rewarded for climbing the career ladder, much as you are in a totally capitalist environment (which no longer exists, anywhere) but you have to pay a significant portion in order to allow those who would NOT have a large sum of money to spend on medical bills to have their quadruple heart bypass for free. You would still be earning far in the excess of the lowest band of worker, but noone would be unable to get good education, or good healthcare, and transport and gas/electricity would be easily sorted.

Not to derail this topic but how would this work? If everyone is guaranteed this so called "minimum level of comfort", who would determine what the minimum level is and what jobs qualify for which level, the government? If so would people who only get the minimum still be allowed to vote? Because I would think that as time went by a sure fire way to get elected would be to say " I promise if I am elected, the minimum level of comfort would include a giant plasma screen TV". Also, if I am guaranteed this minimum level of comfort, what happens if I drop below due to my own fault? For example I have my small TV that is guaranteed and I accidently break it? Do I get another? What if I on purpose break it? Who determines if I did it on purpose or not? I think that it would fairly quickly be a large mess. If the difference between minimum and the other levels is not great enough, what incentive is there to acheive?

My point is that anytime we try to set an arbitrary standard of what fair is, the effort is bound to fail.

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 06:50 PM

Not to derail this topic but how would this work? If everyone is guaranteed this so called "minimum level of comfort", who would determine what the minimum level is and what jobs qualify for which level, the government? If so would people who only get the minimum still be allowed to vote? Because I would think that as time went by a sure fire way to get elected would be to say " I promise if I am elected, the minimum level of comfort would include a giant plasma screen TV". Also, if I am guaranteed this minimum level of comfort, what happens if I drop below due to my own fault? For example I have my small TV that is guaranteed and I accidently break it? Do I get another? What if I on purpose break it? Who determines if I did it on purpose or not? I think that it would fairly quickly be a large mess. If the difference between minimum and the other levels is not great enough, what incentive is there to acheive?

My point is that anytime we try to set an arbitrary standard of what fair is, the effort is bound to fail.

....There's this strange new fangled concept called "money" that people are talking about.

You might want to look into it.

To be less flippant, although, I don't see why I should, since your post is rather.....umm....pointless, the minimum standard would NOT be enforced by anyone. The Government would pay for all education, healthcare, public transport (no, NOT your car, YES the train you go to work on) and the like. Everything else would be bought with that radical concept of "money" which would be handed out to those on the dole at a government determined level dependant upon wages at the time and inflation, as well as other factors.

I'm not on about handing out TV's here. If you break your TV you go without or save up for a new one. The very fact that high end products cost more would be sufficient to stop Joe Douche from claiming that his minimum standard would be plasma screens, unless he enforced price fixing, or raised the dole and minimum wage up to astronomical levels, thus rendering the economy useless.

Please, try to keep up with the rest of the class.

Texas

8th August 2008, 07:14 PM

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 07:19 PM

What about housing? Should that be free for all?

No...Housing costs would be covered by the amount of, once again, money, that one has.

Lowest tier houses would be like they are now, council houses.

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street. I am not advocating spoonfeeding people here, merely allowing anyone to gain access to the tools needed to (theoretically) rise to the top.

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

Texas

8th August 2008, 07:28 PM

No...Housing costs would be covered by the amount of, once again, money, that one has.

Lowest tier houses would be like they are now, council houses.

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street. I am not advocating spoonfeeding people here, merely allowing anyone to gain access to the tools needed to (theoretically) rise to the top.

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

Well we already have that arrangement with public housing. What is state mandated dole money? If that is welfare then we have that also. We have Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the seniors and permanently disabled. We have free public education through high school and heavily subsidised state universities with very low tuition and financial aid. It appears that the US already fits your model.

MarkCorrigan

8th August 2008, 07:31 PM

Well we already have that arrangement with public housing. What is state mandated dole money? If that is welfare then we have that also. We have Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the seniors and permanently disabled. We have free public education through high school and heavily subsidised state universities with very low tuition and financial aid. It appears that the US already fits your model.

No, it doesn't.

Are you joking? Your healthcare system is a joke. Your education system is failing and you do not have free transport, fuel, heating, water....the list goes on.

The US is NOTHING like the model I want.

You are either being obtuse or you have no idea what I'm talking about and how your own system works.

Well done, you managed an epic fail. Be proud.

No wait, don't.

ETA: For starters I want free top level healthcare FOR ALL. Private options would not exist except for non emergency plastic surgery.

Texas

8th August 2008, 07:52 PM

No, it doesn't.

Are you joking? Your healthcare system is a joke. Your education system is failing and you do not have free transport, fuel, heating, water....the list goes on.

The US is NOTHING like the model I want.

You are either being obtuse or you have no idea what I'm talking about and how your own system works.

Well done, you managed an epic fail. Be proud.

No wait, don't.

ETA: For starters I want free top level healthcare FOR ALL. Private options would not exist except for non emergency plastic surgery.

Why do you say that our health care system is a "joke" Have you ever used it? So you really believe that there is some funding mechanism to provide true "free top level Health care"? What is wrong with private options? You stated earlier that if you had the money you would permit those that had it to spend it as they wish. Do you know any place on earth that provides free fuel, transport, heating, etc? If so please provide a cite or two. Can you ride the tube in London for free? Take a cab gratis? How about the buses are they free also? Our universities turn out more scientists, engineers, doctors, attorneys and teachers that any place on earth. Is it that you are just proposing a Utopian model that has yet to be reality?

Magtor

8th August 2008, 08:33 PM

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street.

So what will happen to the stupid people that make wrong choices in your dream society? Let them live on the streets or provide, "reward", them with shelter anyway?

(Your society being one which I have identified as the democratic socialist one, ie the ones to the left of the social democrats. A fair assumption?)

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

So you are for some form, or a variant, of free market regulation when it comes to (some) goods, but not for salaries, why?

9th August 2008, 12:39 AM

Not to derail this topic but how would this work? If everyone is guaranteed this so called "minimum level of comfort", who would determine what the minimum level is and what jobs qualify for which level, the government? If so would people who only get the minimum still be allowed to vote? Because I would think that as time went by a sure fire way to get elected would be to say " I promise if I am elected, the minimum level of comfort would include a giant plasma screen TV". Also, if I am guaranteed this minimum level of comfort, what happens if I drop below due to my own fault? For example I have my small TV that is guaranteed and I accidently break it? Do I get another? What if I on purpose break it? Who determines if I did it on purpose or not? I think that it would fairly quickly be a large mess. If the difference between minimum and the other levels is not great enough, what incentive is there to acheive?

My point is that anytime we try to set an arbitrary standard of what fair is, the effort is bound to fail.

In Switzerland we have already kinda such a system. you have a minimum granted.
we pay a insurance monthly, so in case we get jobless, we have 2.5 years we atleast 65% of the last income we had. if you still didnt find a job after 2.5 years you dont count as jobless anymore (to sexyup the unemployment statistics) from then on you are a "Sozialfall" . there is a limit of what you atleast need in switzerland to survive, money for renting a apartment, money for food, clothes etc. and the "Sozialamt" will pay that minimum you need dependen on the size of your family. untill you are able to earn your own money. it is not much money you will get, but atleast you can get food for you and your family and an apartment.

gtc

9th August 2008, 03:13 AM

Heh. Zhis you iz funney, gtz! :cool:

Zhank zhou vezhy muzh.

Billdave2

9th August 2008, 02:30 PM

....There's this strange new fangled concept called "money" that people are talking about.

You might want to look into it.

To be less flippant, although, I don't see why I should, since your post is rather.....umm....pointless, the minimum standard would NOT be enforced by anyone. The Government would pay for all education, healthcare, public transport (no, NOT your car, YES the train you go to work on) and the like. Everything else would be bought with that radical concept of "money" which would be handed out to those on the dole at a government determined level dependant upon wages at the time and inflation, as well as other factors.

I'm not on about handing out TV's here. If you break your TV you go without or save up for a new one. The very fact that high end products cost more would be sufficient to stop Joe Douche from claiming that his minimum standard would be plasma screens, unless he enforced price fixing, or raised the dole and minimum wage up to astronomical levels, thus rendering the economy useless.

Please, try to keep up with the rest of the class.

Not to be nitpicking, but you are the one who said that a small TV for those at the bottom in your own post. So what if these people who are own the dole spend all there money but don't pay for food and shelter? Do we let them starve until there next check? hat if they have children? Do we take their kids away? If they keep having children do they get more money to support them? And even if you talk in terms of money, what is to stop politicians from saying "the dole isn't big enough! We need to increase the minimum!"? Do you think there aren't politicians who would do this just to get votes?

Billdave2

9th August 2008, 02:37 PM

No...Housing costs would be covered by the amount of, once again, money, that one has.

Lowest tier houses would be like they are now, council houses.

If you decide that buying an X-Box 360 is more important than your rent, you will be out on the street. I am not advocating spoonfeeding people here, merely allowing anyone to gain access to the tools needed to (theoretically) rise to the top.

The severely disabled and the very old would be the only ones with state provided housing and care support. Everything else is either delivered at the time it's needed, like education or healthcare, or is bought from the money that is gained from work, or your state mandated dole money.

What if you have someone and they tear the public housing up? We have public housing in the US and it is almost always in bad shape, not because it is cheaply built. Lots of public housing residents do not take care of their housing very well. Should they be able to move or demand repairs if they do not take care of them? What if they sell drugs out of them should they be allowed to stay? If they knock holes in the walls, or let the filth build up till the housing is unlivable should they be given new housing? What about the peopel who don't want to rise to the top but are perfectly happy at the bottom as long as they don't have to do anything?

Billdave2

9th August 2008, 02:42 PM

In Switzerland we have already kinda such a system. you have a minimum granted.
we pay a insurance monthly, so in case we get jobless, we have 2.5 years we atleast 65% of the last income we had. if you still didnt find a job after 2.5 years you dont count as jobless anymore (to sexyup the unemployment statistics) from then on you are a "Sozialfall" . there is a limit of what you atleast need in switzerland to survive, money for renting a apartment, money for food, clothes etc. and the "Sozialamt" will pay that minimum you need dependen on the size of your family. untill you are able to earn your own money. it is not much money you will get, but atleast you can get food for you and your family and an apartment.

We have the same thing in the US, except that unemployment lasts only 6 months. The thing is if you can't find a job in 6 months you aren't really trying. It may not be the greatest job, but you can aways get a job somewhere (afterall there are all these jobs we have to have the illegals here because to one here wants them anyway, right?) What about the "Sozialfall" that take thier dole and don't spend it on food or rent? Do you let them starve/freeze?

10th August 2008, 01:40 AM

We have the same thing in the US, except that unemployment lasts only 6 months. The thing is if you can't find a job in 6 months you aren't really trying. It may not be the greatest job, but you can aways get a job somewhere (afterall there are all these jobs we have to have the illegals here because to one here wants them anyway, right?) What about the "Sozialfall" that take thier dole and don't spend it on food or rent? Do you let them starve/freeze?

you cannot always find a job here in switzerland even if you want.

there are ppl that cant handle the money they get, then the goverment will pay your bills for the apartment and phone and such and you will have to get everyday to get your money for food. some of those spend that money on alcohol or drugs instead for food. they mostly end up in a clinic sooner or later. but for the huge majority it works. and compared to other countrys, the standard of living on the minimum is ok.
and it mostly works.

Thunder

10th August 2008, 01:29 PM

i always saw socialism as just communism without sharp teeth.

Kotatsu

13th August 2008, 07:41 AM

Do you know any place on earth that provides free fuel, transport, heating, etc? If so please provide a cite or two. Can you ride the tube in London for free? Take a cab gratis? How about the buses are they free also?

In several areas of Sweden, public transportation is for free. I believe Hultsfred is one of them, but I can't remember at the moment. One of the communes that has it is over there in that end somewhere at least.

Texas

15th August 2008, 07:56 PM

Communism is a form of governance and Socialism is an economic system.

Magtor

16th August 2008, 12:57 PM

In several areas of Sweden, public transportation is for free. I believe Hultsfred is one of them, but I can't remember at the moment. One of the communes that has it is over there in that end somewhere at least.

we have no "free" public transportation in Sweden, in some cities the taxpayer funds a larger part of the fare, that's all. Nor do we have any "communes", we have "kommuner" in Swedish, but "kommuner" translate to "municipality" in English.

nexalacer

18th August 2008, 05:08 AM

....There's this strange new fangled concept called "money" that people are talking about.

You might want to look into it.

To be less flippant, although, I don't see why I should, since your post is rather.....umm....pointless, the minimum standard would NOT be enforced by anyone. The Government would pay for all education, healthcare, public transport (no, NOT your car, YES the train you go to work on) and the like. Everything else would be bought with that radical concept of "money" which would be handed out to those on the dole at a government determined level dependant upon wages at the time and inflation, as well as other factors.

I'm not on about handing out TV's here. If you break your TV you go without or save up for a new one. The very fact that high end products cost more would be sufficient to stop Joe Douche from claiming that his minimum standard would be plasma screens, unless he enforced price fixing, or raised the dole and minimum wage up to astronomical levels, thus rendering the economy useless.

Please, try to keep up with the rest of the class.

How does the government pay for all those things? Do they use this "money" you talk about just like that which they give to those on the dole? Where does this thing you call "money" come from?

18th August 2008, 05:21 AM

How does the government pay for all those things? Do they use this "money" you talk about just like that which they give to those on the dole? Where does this thing you call "money" come from?

taxes

nexalacer

18th August 2008, 05:41 AM

taxes

Just to make sure I'm clear on your position, you're saying that ALL of the money that goes towards ALL of the programs that the government pays for and ALL of the money that's paid for on the dole comes from taxes?

18th August 2008, 05:49 AM

Just to make sure I'm clear on your position, you're saying that ALL of the money that goes towards ALL of the programs that the government pays for and ALL of the money that's paid for on the dole comes from taxes?

in Switzerland it is payed with taxmoney.

nexalacer

18th August 2008, 05:59 AM

in Switzerland it is payed with taxmoney.

If all of the above mentioned government expenses are paid for with tax money, why is there a nearly $186 billion national debt in Switzerland? I may be wrong of course, but my understanding of national debt is that it accumulates as a result of deficits, which are in turn based on spending more than the government brings in on taxes. Of course, when we're playing a paper game, it's easy to write these things off with names like "national debt" but in reality, the "money" has to exist in order to be spent. The difference between the income through taxes and the amount spent by Switzerland must come from somewhere, so where does it come from?

18th August 2008, 06:06 AM

If all of the above mentioned government expenses are paid for with tax money, why is there a nearly $186 billion national debt in Switzerland? I may be wrong of course, but my understanding of national debt is that it accumulates as a result of deficits, which are in turn based on spending more than the government brings in on taxes. Of course, when we're playing a paper game, it's easy to write these things off with names like "national debt" but in reality, the "money" has to exist in order to be spent. The difference between the income through taxes and the amount spent by Switzerland must come from somewhere, so where does it come from?

Switzerland is working to pay back all its debts. we have a law since 2003 that trys to prevent making new debt.

but our politicans also spend more than they have. (im still pissed we bueyd those silly F/A 18's) most countrys do that.
we spend more than we have, where does that money come from? thats an interesting question. when you take a look at all the national debts worldwide, one has to ask, who is our owner?

where is Bush geting the money from he is spending?

Rob Lister

18th August 2008, 06:26 AM

.To be less flippant, although, I don't see why I should, since your post is rather.....umm....pointless, the minimum standard would NOT be enforced by anyone. The Government would pay for all education, healthcare, public transport (no, NOT your car, YES the train you go to work on) and the like. Everything else would be bought with that radical concept of "money" which would be handed out to those on the dole at a government determined level dependant upon wages at the time and inflation, as well as other factors.

For increasingly large values of "dole.

nexalacer

18th August 2008, 06:27 AM

Switzerland is working to pay back all its debts. we have a law since 2003 that trys to prevent making new debt.

but our politicans also spend more than they have. (im still pissed we bueyd those silly F/A 18's) most countrys do that.
we spend more than we have, where does that money come from? thats an interesting question. when you take a look at all the national debts worldwide, one has to ask, who is our owner?

where is Bush geting the money from he is spending?

I'd say anyone who is a proponent of actions that use money, without knowing the source of said money, likely doesn't have any idea of the real consequences of the actions that they are supporting.

Does anyone who supports social programs such as those I've mentioned before have any idea where the money comes from, other than taxes, which clearly don't cover the entire cost of said programs?

18th August 2008, 06:42 AM

I'd say anyone who is a proponent of actions that use money, without knowing the source of said money, likely doesn't have any idea of the real consequences of the actions that they are supporting.

Does anyone who supports social programs such as those I've mentioned before have any idea where the money comes from, other than taxes, which clearly don't cover the entire cost of said programs?

the system very similar to what Marksman posted, is already in use since decades in switzerland, and it is funded by taxmoney, we even have other things we pay with that taxmoney. we also spend billions of that taxmoney on our useless Army. compared to other european countrys we have a low debt.

i dont know where your problem is.

18th August 2008, 06:45 AM

where does the money come from that the USA is spending on the Carlyle group eeehm the defence budget ?

nexalacer

18th August 2008, 07:17 AM

the system very similar to what Marksman posted, is already in use since decades in switzerland, and it is funded by taxmoney, we even have other things we pay with that taxmoney. we also spend billions of that taxmoney on our useless Army. compared to other european countrys we have a low debt.

i dont know where your problem is.

Besides a philosophical aversion to the use of coercion to solve problems, the practical problem is in who pays the debt. If the debt is paid for by future generations, then that means that you are stealing from your children and very likely your grandchildren in order to pay for social programs today, as it's not economically feasible in a world of scarcity to provide solutions for all of the ills that government tries to solve funded by taxes alone. This is rooted in the law of supply and demand.... if you provide a service for "free" or close to free, the demand will increase accordingly, eventually leading to a point where the taxes required to appease such a demand will exceed the level people will pay without rioting in the streets. So the choice you're left with is to keep the services at the level they are, accept the debt, and demand that your children and other future generations will have to pay the debt, or you have to reduce the services to the point where tax income exceeds the costs, so that you pay the debt back before the generations who've accumulated the current debt retire. Of course, any politician who puts forward such a solution would never be voted in by the electorate, as the cuts of the magnitude required to pay back the debt would have to be large enough that they'd effect a portion of the population that would surely have a majority.

There's another problem as well. If the debt is paid for by the current generation, then the only way to pay off the debt is to increase the money supply (as the monetary systems don't allow for debt to be paid off with the current money supply), which actually hurts the people that the social programs are meant to help, since the increase of the money supply leads to inflation, which leads to increased prices. If the prices increase, and you wish to keep the same level of comfort for those people, then you must increase the dole which then increases the debt again, bringing us back to the problem of stealing from your children. Or don't increase the dole, but that then has the same effect of people getting rid of the politicians who got them to such a bad situation, which usually leads to them electing politicians who will allow a national debt!

It's a circular problem that has no escape as long as you attempt to solve problems using coercion.

nexalacer

18th August 2008, 07:24 AM

where does the money come from that the USA is spending on the Carlyle group eeehm the defence budget ?

Oh, it comes from the printing of billions of dollars a day by the Federal Reserve, which is charged to future generations bill before they're even born. And in order to allow such massive printing of money based on the laws, the banks were allowed an extremely low interest rate for a long, long time in order to attract more and more debtors. As people borrowed money for their sub-prime loans, they increased the amount of money the banks could loan, which then increased the amount of money the central bank printed. So, now you have loans collapsing because they were built on a mountain of debt, and the common people wondering how a gallon of milk went from $1.79 to over $4.00 (last I heard) in two or three years.... which will surely lead to cries of price gouging and more government regulation.... which will increase the budget.... which will increase the inflation, until the currency becomes toilet paper and the cycle starts again with another mafia.

18th August 2008, 08:31 AM

nexalacer

19th August 2008, 02:19 AM

i fully agree that we are using the money of our kids and theyr kids, prolly even theyr kids money. thats why we try to prevent politicans to spend more money than we actually have.
Most countrys do that, while the diffrence is where it is spend on.

The key word here is TRY. How do you expect to prevent politicians from spending more money when they are the ones who control the police, military, and the printing of said money?

mrbaracuda

19th August 2008, 02:36 AM

The key word here is TRY. How do you expect to prevent politicians from spending more money when they are the ones who control the police, military, and the printing of said money?

Don't forget to add state-owned media to that.

19th August 2008, 03:30 AM

The key word here is TRY. How do you expect to prevent politicians from spending more money when they are the ones who control the police, military, and the printing of said money?

we the pople have a little bit more controll on it. we made a law that will not allow politicans to make new debt. now we have to look how politicans will avoid that law and prevent em to do so :)

19th August 2008, 03:31 AM

Don't forget to add state-owned media to that.

its not really state owned and is not payed with taxmoney.

mrbaracuda

19th August 2008, 03:43 AM

Am I the only one here treading on hypothetical terrain right now, or is Cheney's inability to comprehend things showing again?

19th August 2008, 03:58 AM

Am I the only one here treading on hypothetical terrain right now, or is Cheney's inability to comprehend things showing again?

aah you tried to be funny, it failed, sorry.

nexalacer

19th August 2008, 04:12 AM

we the pople have a little bit more controll on it. we made a law that will not allow politicans to make new debt. now we have to look how politicans will avoid that law and prevent em to do so :)

Well, you can keep trying to wrestle down the 10-ton gorilla holding the giant AK-47 to your head, but I don't play that game anymore.

Anyhow, you're missing the main point.... how can you prevent the individuals who control the creation and enforcement of laws from ignoring the laws that you try and control them with?

mrbaracuda

19th August 2008, 04:22 AM

aah you tried to be funny

Uh, no.

19th August 2008, 06:22 AM

MarkCorrigan

19th August 2008, 07:47 AM

How does the government pay for all those things? Do they use this "money" you talk about just like that which they give to those on the dole? Where does this thing you call "money" come from?

Are you.....joking?

The two portions of my comment you highlighted are about seperate things.

The government uses tax money to pay for healthcare education et al.

EVERYTHING ELSE, as I quite plainly stated (televisions, radios, CD's etc.) would be bought by the individual.

I fail to see where people are having problems, it's quite simple. People get paid by their jobs, they pay a portion back to the government in taxes, which are used to by essentials such as healthcare, and the rest is spent on consumer products, sending the money back into the economy.

MarkCorrigan

19th August 2008, 07:49 AM

Well, you can keep trying to wrestle down the 10-ton gorilla holding the giant AK-47 to your head, but I don't play that game anymore.

Anyhow, you're missing the main point.... how can you prevent the individuals who control the creation and enforcement of laws from ignoring the laws that you try and control them with?

Politicians are elected. If they mess about and don't follow the laws they can be voted out, if they do so to a significant level, they can be removed by the government in a similar way to how they are at the moment.

Unless you're talking about a military coup, but if your nation is in a state where that can happen you're screwed either way.

Alex Libman

19th August 2008, 10:11 AM

Define collectivism. Some people consider having a police force to be collectivism.

It's a subjective term.

Collectivism can be a broader concept than just government, because a collective of any size can exist on voluntary basis. Even in a truly 100% free society, the vast majority of people would still choose to restrict themselves in accordance to the rules of churches, clubs, homeowners' associations, ethical societies, insurance contracts, family Constitutions, etc, etc, etc. But just as having one drink doesn't automatically imply alcoholism, the *ism term is typically only used in a derogatory sense.

Just as theft and murder can never be avoided completely in any sizable society, the same also applies to government and other forms of collectivism. I would definitely use the word "collectivism" to express antipathy for most government functions, but I have more antipathy for some more than others. I might also use the word "collectivist" when summarizing my criticism of some nutty cult, but as long as they don't violate the non-aggression principle I probably will have better things to do than whine about them every day.

Paying a minuscule property tax to hire a few municipal "peace officers" to go after murderers and thieves isn't so bad (though in theory voluntary insurance could do the same thing). Being pulled over for talking on a cell phone is bad, but in a free society some road owners might have similar rules, though probably more rational and flexible. And going to jail for growing dope on your own property or not charging sales tax is clearly a symptom of a collectivist society!

Billdave2

19th August 2008, 10:24 AM

It's a subjective term.

Collectivism can be a broader concept than just government, because a collective of any size can exist on voluntary basis. Even in a truly 100% free society, the vast majority of people would still choose to restrict themselves in accordance to the rules of churches, clubs, homeowners' associations, ethical societies, insurance contracts, family Constitutions, etc, etc, etc. But just as having one drink doesn't automatically imply alcoholism, the *ism term is typically only used in a derogatory sense.

Just as theft and murder can never be avoided completely in any sizable society, the same also applies to government and other forms of collectivism. I would definitely use the word "collectivism" to express antipathy for most government functions, but I have more antipathy for some more than others. Paying a minuscule property tax to hire a few municipal "peace officers" to go after murderers and thieves isn't so bad, though in theory voluntary insurance could do the same thing. Being pulled over for talking on a cell phone is.

What kind of insurance would protect you from murder? Unless you mean insurance, like a gun or a bodyguard, I can't see what the difference in murder insurance and regular life insurance would be. I also would rather have police than just know that my wife would get a fat check if I was murdered.

Also, I would say getting pulled over for talking on a cellphone is not bad. If you are talking and driving you are a danger to yourself, and more importantly others. While I will admit to the occasional thought that speed traps are a big waste of time, I still realize that there are a lot of maniacs that drive too fast (ie faster than me) that need to be kept under control.

dann

19th August 2008, 10:26 AM

Being pulled over for talking on a cell phone is bad, ...

You are not pulled over for talking on your cell phone, you are pulled over for doing so while driving (http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html). I very much doubt that the policeman doing so has collectivist leanings.

Why we don’t make a pitch for communism with a “well thought-out concept of a planned economy” (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/communist-vision.html)

Alex Libman

21st August 2008, 06:56 AM

You are not pulled over for talking on your cell phone, you are pulled over for doing so while driving.

What about sipping a coke while driving? What about scratching my nose? What about one-handed people? You shouldn't punish people for minuscule risk factors like that. (Unless you're an insurance company, and a self-interested insurance company would probably understand that pulling over and then merging back in -- that would have been a total of 6 lane changes in tight high-speed traffic for me once -- can be a far greater risk factor than talking on the phone.) You should only punish people when someone gets hurt. To do otherwise would be like punishing a person for wearing running shoes, because people who wear running shoes are statistically more likely to snatch purses.

Now, the reason why I say "should" above is because private road owners can make whatever rules they see fit, but in a free market I as a consumer would have some degree of choice which roads I drive on. (Not much choice, but still more choice than in a POTUS election.) In a socialist system, all roads are owned by the state. And I would agree that privatizing highways is pretty darn low on the libertarian agenda, and by the time we get to it most people will have flying cars instead, but that moral point needs to be made nonetheless.

I very much doubt that the policeman doing so has collectivist leanings.

I'm sure he does - collectivism pays his salary and benefits, and provides him with a job where he can bully people around all day, which he clearly enjoys doing. In a free society, he might still able to get a job in private security, but that field would be much more competitive, and require far better customer service skills.

Alex Libman

21st August 2008, 07:35 AM

Unless you mean insurance, like a gun or a bodyguard ...

Those are good ideas, and, like safety features on a car, I'm sure they would make your hypothetical free-market life insurance rate go down (or benefits go up). There are many other safety components as well, from non-lethal weapons to security cameras to deter crime.

Imagine a publication like Consumer Reports ranking various neighborhoods, supermarkets, social establishments, roads, etc with "customer safety" as a criterion. If supermarket A has taken measures to make mugging in their parking lot less likely than supermarkets B through Z, their "customer safety" rating would be higher, and your risk factors choosing to shop there instead would be lower. Etc.

I also would rather have police than just know that my wife would get a fat check if I was murdered.

The insurance could be one means of financing your security measures.

Your insurance company always has a financial interest in keeping you safe. The government sometimes does not. Your insurance company has an interest in squeezing every cent of danger out of your life, while also respecting your privacy, because if they don't their profit-seeking competitors will. The government bureaucrats get the same jelly donuts whether you live or die. What're you gonna do, pick up the phone and switch governments?

While I will admit to the occasional thought that speed traps are a big waste of time, I still realize that there are a lot of maniacs that drive too fast (ie faster than me) that need to be kept under control.

Dangerous drivers are dangerous. Fast drivers - not necessarily. In a free market, privately-owned roads would obviously still have rules, but due to competition those rules would be optimized for driver comfort as well, not just the state's need to maintain authority.

This would lead to various competing standards of driver certification, insurance, and performance tracking. A driver with good "karma" (no accidents, no complaints from fellow drivers, well-tuned car, good grades in racing classes, etc) passing you at 120 MPH in the fast lane may in fact be less danger to you than some nut screwing with his radio behind you. Risk factors would affect road access and insurance / toll price. Speed limits can be electronically adjusted based on weather, road congestion, and time of day. And of course some drivers will want to drive on special lanes with lower speed limits, which the free market would also have the incentive to provide. Etc.

Alex Libman

21st August 2008, 07:43 AM

i always saw socialism as just communism without sharp teeth.

I would rather represent those systems by the length of the dog-leash the government keeps its slaves on. There is a positive-feedback cycle between the government making the leash longer and it getting more profit from its slaves creating more economic growth. Of course in any government system - if you stop paying your taxes, then the teeth come out.

Alex Libman

21st August 2008, 07:46 AM

Don't forget to add state-owned media to that.

Media doesn't need to be state-owned to be state-influenced. If a TV network doesn't color within the lines, it won't get any interviews with "important" government critters. If it makes more trouble, there are many things the state can do: FCC and even IRS problems have a way of materializing... Of course when all major TV networks are owned by big conglomerates already in bed with the government, it will never get even that far. It doesn't matter if you can't fool all of the people all of the time - all you need is a voting majority.

Politicians are elected.

No politician I ever voted for got elected. (But maybe Bob Barr will get more than 1%, yaay!)

And if a mafia boss comes to you and lets you vote for which of his enforcers he will send after you to collect "protection money", does that make him legitimate?

dann

21st August 2008, 10:19 AM

What about sipping a coke while driving?

Not always a particularly good idea. It probably does cause some accidents, in particular when people spill and it distracts them from driving. But it doesn't have a lot of buttons and functions, does it?

What about scratching my nose?

What about it? (I hope that you don't spill.)

What about one-handed people?

Does having only one hand distract you? Does it draw attention away from driving? I don't think so.

And if a mafia boss comes to you and lets you vote for which of his enforcers he will send after you to collect "protection money", does that make him legitimate?

Not a bad argument. :)

Magtor

22nd August 2008, 12:16 AM

[deleted]

Magtor

22nd August 2008, 12:18 AM

And if a mafia boss comes to you and lets you vote for which of his enforcers he will send after you to collect "protection money", does that make him legitimate?

According to his own rules (the laws of the nation in this metaphor), yes.

nexalacer

22nd August 2008, 01:06 AM

Are you.....joking?

The two portions of my comment you highlighted are about seperate things.

The government uses tax money to pay for healthcare education et al.

EVERYTHING ELSE, as I quite plainly stated (televisions, radios, CD's etc.) would be bought by the individual.

I fail to see where people are having problems, it's quite simple. People get paid by their jobs, they pay a portion back to the government in taxes, which are used to by essentials such as healthcare, and the rest is spent on consumer products, sending the money back into the economy.

I'm not joking, I am not understanding your position. You are saying that the government will use "tax" money to pay for things and everyone else would use money. With the adjective, "tax," added to money, it appears that you are attempting to make a distinction between two different types of money, and I'm curious what is your intention in making such a distinction? ...if you are in fact doing so, of course.

Also, you should be more clear in your words, so I'll help you out:

"People get paid by their jobs, they have a portion of their pay taken from them under threat by the government, which are used to by essentials such as healthcare, and the rest is spent on consumer products, sending the money back into the economy."

Also, if "essentials" should be paid for by government, do you support the nationalizing of the food industry as well? I mean, surely food is more essential than health care.

nexalacer

22nd August 2008, 01:12 AM

our democracy runs a little diffrent here. we actually have influence.

Oh, so in your democracy, if you don't agree with a public policy, you can stop paying for it? Or do you mean that once every four* years, you can choose someone else who may or may not do what you want them to?

*Enter what ever arbitrary period of time you wish because, of course, no democracy allows for instant feedback. Instant feedback is something only possible through voluntary exchanges.

nexalacer

22nd August 2008, 01:19 AM

Politicians are elected. If they mess about and don't follow the laws they can be voted out, if they do so to a significant level, they can be removed by the government in a similar way to how they are at the moment.

Unless you're talking about a military coup, but if your nation is in a state where that can happen you're screwed either way.

So if I hold elections in my town, can I then become a politician in that area? If I can't hold the elections myself, why does someone else have the right to hold the elections and I don't?

So there's quite a bit of documentation on the internet about George Bush "messing about"* and not following laws, yet he wasn't voted out. And apparently, many people think that he's broken enough laws to validate impeachment (in fact, many more laws than Clinton did, yet he faced impeachment for lying about infidelity, surely a more heinous act than being responsible for the death of over half a million people at least) yet he has not yet been indicted and all signs seem to indicate that he won't be. And if we remember that his first election is still considered suspicious by many people, I'm having problems following where people have any control over those who are in government, could you show me what I'm missing?

22nd August 2008, 01:27 AM

Oh, so in your democracy, if you don't agree with a public policy, you can stop paying for it? Or do you mean that once every four* years, you can choose someone else who may or may not do what you want them to?

*Enter what ever arbitrary period of time you wish because, of course, no democracy allows for instant feedback. Instant feedback is something only possible through voluntary exchanges.

oc i have to pay aslong it is a law. while i can start a referendum and gather signatures so there will be a "Volksabstimmung" where everyone is asked to vote for or against it.

we have a direct Democracy, we have direct influence on the politics.
we are the bosses of the politicans, not the other way around :) (but also here you have to tell that the politicans from time to time, they tend to forget, we also do not call them leaders :) )
we are even able to change our constitution.

In Switzerland, there are binding referendums at federal, cantonal and municipal level. They are a central feature of Swiss political life. It is not the government's choice whether or when a referendum is held, but it is a legal procedure regulated by the Swiss constitution. There are two types of referendums:

Facultative referendum: Any federal law, certain other federal resolutions, and international treaties that are either perpetual and irredeemable, joinings of an international organization, or that change Swiss law may be subject to a facultative referendum if at least 50,000 people or eight cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days. In cantons and municipalities, the required number of people is smaller, and there may be additional causes for a facultative referendum, e.g., expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money. The facultative referendum is the most usual type of referendum, and it is mostly carried out by political parties or by interest groups.
Obligatory referendum: There must be a referendum on any amendments to the constitution and on any joining of a multinational community or organization for collective security. In many municipalities, expenditures that exceed a certain amount of money also are subject to the obligatory referendum. Constitutional amendments are either proposed by the parliament or the cantons, or they may be proposed by citizens' initiatives, which—on the federal level—need to collect 100,000 valid signatures within 18 months, and must not contradict international laws or treaties. Often, parliament elaborates a counter-proposal to an initiative, leading to a multiple-choice referendum. Very few such initiatives pass the vote, but more often, the parliamentary counter proposal is approved.
The possibility of facultative referendums forces the parliament to search for a compromise between the major interest groups. In many cases, the mere threat of a facultative referendum or of an initiative is enough to make the parliament adjust a law.

The referendums are said, by their adversaries, to slow politics down. On the other hand empirical scientists, e.g. Bruno S. Frey among many, show that this and other instruments of citizens' participation, direct democracy, contribute to stability and happiness.

The votes on referendums are always held on a Sunday, typically three or four times a year, and in most cases, the votes concern several referendums at the same time, often at different political levels (federal, cantonal, municipal). Elections are as well often combined with referendums. The percentage of voters is around 40 to 50 percent unless there is an election. The decisions made in referendums tend to be conservative. Citizens' initiatives are usually not passed. The federal rule and referendums have been used in Switzerland since 1848.

Earthborn

22nd August 2008, 01:45 AM

What about sipping a coke while driving? What about scratching my nose? Where I live (and probably where you live as well) it is illegal for anyone operating a motor vehicle to do anything that impairs their ability to operate a motor vehicle. A short scratch of the nose probably doesn't, if your nose scratches so badly that you feel the need to furiously scratch it continuously, you have to find a place to stop to do so. Sipping a coke while driving is also illegal, just as applying make-up, typing on a computer or anything else that is incompatible with operating your vehicle.

What about one-handed people?One handed people drive cars that they can operate with one hand, and they are not allowed to drive any other cars.

You should only punish people when someone gets hurt.In this case people are "punished" (most people don't experience a fine as much punishment) to prevent not only others but also themselves from getting hurt. When people do get hurt in traffic they usually get so severely hurt that it is something you want to prevent instead of reacting to it after it happened. It also often means that the person who caused the suffering is suffering him/herself making the accident more than punishment enough.

I do however believe that punishment to get people to drive safer are not the most effective method of getting them to drive safer. I think it would be much more effective if people were rewarded for doing so.

dann

22nd August 2008, 01:52 AM

we are the bosses of the politicans, not the other way around :)

So you (i.e. the Swiss, I suppose) rule, the politicians don't rule?! They are merely the executives carrying out your instructions?
Why do I find it so hard to believe you?
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/GSARCHIV/H/GS1997H3/GS973145DOKU.HTM
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/msz/html/80/80_6/schweiz.htm

22nd August 2008, 02:00 AM

So you (i.e. the Swiss, I suppose) rule, the politicians don't rule?! They are merely the executives carrying out your instructions?
Why do I find it so hard to believe you?
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/GSARCHIV/H/GS1997H3/GS973145DOKU.HTM
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/msz/html/80/80_6/schweiz.htm

Karawalle sind keine Volksinitiative.

i dont really get your point.

Chaos

22nd August 2008, 06:07 AM

*snip*
No politician I ever voted for got elected. (But maybe Bob Barr will get more than 1%, yaay!)

Just because your person flavor of nuts doesn´t get elected, it doesn´t mean there are no legitimate elections.

MarkCorrigan

23rd August 2008, 02:27 AM

So if I hold elections in my town, can I then become a politician in that area? If I can't hold the elections myself, why does someone else have the right to hold the elections and I don't?

So there's quite a bit of documentation on the internet about George Bush "messing about"* and not following laws, yet he wasn't voted out. And apparently, many people think that he's broken enough laws to validate impeachment (in fact, many more laws than Clinton did, yet he faced impeachment for lying about infidelity, surely a more heinous act than being responsible for the death of over half a million people at least) yet he has not yet been indicted and all signs seem to indicate that he won't be. And if we remember that his first election is still considered suspicious by many people, I'm having problems following where people have any control over those who are in government, could you show me what I'm missing?

You KNOW your system is a lot different to, for example, the British one, which I was referencing as a point at which the change should come from, since I'm, you know, British, right?
Anyway, if you seriously think that "not getting kicked out" is equivalent to, or likely to lead to "total gubmint control!!11!1" then you're an idiot, or you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of it.

Either way it does not reflect well on you.

Incidentally, if you don't think that governments can be removed from power.....well.....why not live under a dictator? Same thing right? I mean, you can't remove THEM from office either.

(Ok now I'M deliberately being an idiot. I'll stop now)

mrbaracuda

23rd August 2008, 02:29 AM

Isn't it great, this socialism stuff? (http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/080822/b0822143A.html) A lot of happy people it produces.
Here you are, in your cement factory, and suddenly the comrades storm the place and occupy it. Next thing you know they force your boss to give up the factory.

How nice.

dann

23rd August 2008, 03:23 AM

How nice, indeed!
This, however, doesn't sound right:
"Venezuela's offer to pay $650 million for a majority stake in its local operations".
Your is much better:
"the comrades storm the place and occupy it. Next thing you know they force your boss to give up the factory", but I guess Chavez fears the reactions from abroad too much to let that happen.

nexalacer

23rd August 2008, 03:24 AM

You KNOW your system is a lot different to, for example, the British one, which I was referencing as a point at which the change should come from, since I'm, you know, British, right?
Anyway, if you seriously think that "not getting kicked out" is equivalent to, or likely to lead to "total gubmint control!!11!1" then you're an idiot, or you're being deliberately obtuse for the sake of it.

Either way it does not reflect well on you.

Incidentally, if you don't think that governments can be removed from power.....well.....why not live under a dictator? Same thing right? I mean, you can't remove THEM from office either.

(Ok now I'M deliberately being an idiot. I'll stop now)

A strawman and an ad hominem. Well, I see debate isn't going to be possible with you. Good luck!

mrbaracuda

23rd August 2008, 03:30 AM

How nice, indeed!
This, however, doesn't sound right:
"Venezuela's offer to pay $650 million for a majority stake in its local operations".

That doesn't mean they have indeed paid for the factory or that the owners have agreed, now does it?
Of course not. Fail again, dann, fail again.

Oliver

23rd August 2008, 04:04 AM

So what is the diffrence between Communism and Socialism, mrbaracuda?

I really would like to know since this thread is popping up all the time - and
won't disappear anyway... :p

dann

23rd August 2008, 04:32 AM

That doesn't mean they have indeed paid for the factory or that the owners have agreed, now does it?
Of course not. Fail again, dann, fail again.

Failed what? You seem to think that I defend the nationalizations by pointing at the payment that the (former) owners of the companies receive. They shouldn't have paid them at all.
By the way, why didn't we hear about this rally?
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3734
Could it be because it wasn't against Chavez?

mrbaracuda

23rd August 2008, 05:12 AM

They shouldn't have paid them at all.

It's always amazing to see again how alike you are. For one it's the rich and evil bourgeois, for the other the rich and evil Jews. Carry on at failing.

dann

23rd August 2008, 05:18 AM

Now they are also evil?
Carry on with your strawman argument. You do it so well.

Thunder

28th August 2008, 04:40 PM

Communism starts with a "C" and Socialism starts with an "S".

=)

mrbaracuda

28th August 2008, 04:50 PM

Communism starts with a "C" and Socialism starts with an "S".

=)

Heh. The real question remains though: What is this 'Sozialism' he talks about in the title? :p

28th August 2008, 10:24 PM

Heh. The real question remains though: What is this 'Sozialism' he talks about in the title? :p

no question remains. it clearly showed you have no clue about it :)

mrbaracuda

29th August 2008, 01:05 AM

no question remains. it clearly showed you have no clue about it :)

Nope, but your very post, the post I am quoting here now, shows your inability to comprehend yet again.

29th August 2008, 01:07 AM

Nope, but your very post, the post I am quoting here now, shows your inability to comprehend yet again.

you did not know anything about Communism nor Socialism....

the only thing coming from you is the facepalm......

mrbaracuda

29th August 2008, 01:31 AM

you did not know anything about Communism nor Socialism....

Just because I don't want to waste my time arguing about it with a maroon like you? Right. Brilliant logic! I am sure that with this kind of superior logic you will defeat the NWO any time now.

the only thing coming from you is the facepalm......

I don't see no facepalm up there! Nuh uh! :eusa_snooty:

Aaany time now. Better put out a memo to the other NWO agents here to be aware of your flawless reasoning skills.

29th August 2008, 02:40 AM

Just because I don't want to waste my time arguing about it with a maroon like you? Right. Brilliant logic! I am sure that with this kind of superior logic you will defeat the NWO any time now.

I don't see no facepalm up there! Nuh uh! :eusa_snooty:

Aaany time now. Better put out a memo to the other NWO agents here to be aware of your flawless reasoning skills.

yeah keep namecalling kiddy. you have no arguments but alot of names to call.

impressive...

mrbaracuda

29th August 2008, 03:22 AM

FtHQh-llCLA
Flawless victory.

29th August 2008, 03:24 AM

FtHQh-llCLA
Flawless victory.

a computer game......

ok.......

29th August 2008, 04:03 AM

MrBaracuda posting on JREF

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA

MarkCorrigan

29th August 2008, 08:31 AM

A strawman and an ad hominem. Well, I see debate isn't going to be possible with you. Good luck!

Well I pointed out that the strawman was there, so you can't have a go at me for slipping one in and pretending it was a proper debate. I do not see an ad-hom though. I see me speculating as to whether you are stupid or being obtuse, which is indeed unpleasant and an insult (again, I appologise for being a git) but I still see no "You are stupid therefore wrong" or similar.

The truth of the matter is I have no idea what you are on about. You seem to be stating that because there is a traditional (and technically government run) setup for elections etc. then this means that the government controls ALL power....

If that isn't what you meant please explain what the glib comment about holding your own elections was in reference to.