At what point is a country finally labeled "Socialistic"?

Iamme · 1st October 2005, 10:13 AM

Aren't we sort of kidding ourselves? Isn't the U.S. quite socialistic? Isn't the duty of a government, really, to incorporate socialistic programs for the good of the country? (So they think.). And isn't even free-enterprise insurance a form of socialism? Isn't the idea of insurance to spread the costs out among everyone so that no one person has to bear the burden of an entire loss themselves? Isn't the practices of socialism going to kick in full bore after the losses we have have suffered at the hands of Katrina and Rita?

Does a country have to have 'socialized medicine' before one tags that country as being socialistic? They may have government funded medicine...but if you think about it...what is really the difference if the government collects the money and then spreads out the cost for all, or, if the money is collected by private insurance companies? Does the answer lie in the fact that with government health care, everyone receives care, where with private insurance, it's only those who pay in that get care?

Well, there are certain lines that get crossed with both these systems: With government health care, it is my understanding that not everyone DOES get treated, because there is such a waiting list. And with private insurance companies...especially at one time, there were so many people being covered either out of pocket by individuals or through employers, that many were able to get care. (It has only been of late that many employers are either dropping coverage and or shifting the burden more to the employee.) And of those who aren't insured, the hospitals see patients anyway and give them at least life sustaining care.

So, in essence, there is some form of care that one can expect in the health industry, whether or not it is called socialized medicine, or if it comes from private insurance carriers. In either case the money has to come from somewhere and comes from the peoples, right? Directly orr indirectly...who cares?...what's the difference? An indirect form would be that if the people did not not have to pay additional taxes or insurance premiums, but rather would pay more for goods because costs are taken from companies instead, let's say.

And what are some of the other things that make a country undeniably socialistic?

It's a good thing to keep on top of this topic so that we can see how are leanings are becoming this way. Where we might be headed. And if that is where we want to be headed.

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 10:30 AM

A couple of comments about socialised health care: in Canada, everybody gets treated eventually. It's just that you might have to wait a while before you get your treatment, depending on its availability and the seriousness of your disease. Also, the Canadian health care system isn't "governmental". The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors are private. Each province has its own system and its own unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for treatment of any Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital in the country.

In other words, the doctors and hospitals are private (if I'm not mistaken, usually not-for-profit foundations for the big hospitals and smaller doctor owned private clinics), but the insurance costs are "socialised".

Kerberos · 1st October 2005, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Aren't we sort of kidding ourselves? Isn't the U.S. quite socialistic?

Originally socialism meant a system where private property was abolished, according to that standard I'd say it's pretty clear that the US is not socialistic. Today we frequently use the word to describe a system where the limitations on private property has passed some totally arbitrary threshold which makes all western countries or no western countries socialistic depending on what you ate this morning.

Quote:

Isn't the duty of a government, really, to incorporate socialistic programs for the good of the country? (So they think.).

I'd say so, at least according to the modern definition of socialism.

Quote:

And isn't even free-enterprise insurance a form of socialism? Isn't the idea of insurance to spread the costs out among everyone so that no one person has to bear the burden of an entire loss themselves?

Definitely not, insurance caries no limitations on property rights, it's a way for you to reduce the risks you fear. Socialism includes wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, not just from those who haven't had accidents to those who have and it includes everybody (more or less) not just those who chose insurance. Bill Gates could for example get insurance for far less than what he pays in taxes while poor people would generally have to pay more.

CapelDodger · 1st October 2005, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Originally socialism meant a system where private property was abolished ...

Actually socialism is a system where ownership of the means of production is communal. People can own homes, books, cars, dogs (cats would be abolished under any rational system, of course), a bit of land, their own workshop. Large estates, mines, industries, forests and so on would be communal property, administered by representative institutions.

Much blood has been shed over how big a bit of land, how big a workshop or how big a house.

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Large estates, mines, industries, forests and so on would be communal property, administered by representative institutions.

Citizen: Who owns that Mercedes?
Beauraucrat: The people.
Citizen: Who are the people?
Beauraucrat: Everyone.
Citizen: Does that include me?
Beauraucrat: Of course it does.
Citizen: Can I use the car?
Beauraucrat: No.
Citizen: Who can use the car?
Beauraucrat: Beauraucrats.
Citizen: So the car belongs to the Beauracrats?
Beauraucrat: No, the car belongs to the people...

Kerberos · 1st October 2005, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Actually socialism is a system where ownership of the means of production is communal. People can own homes, books, cars, dogs (cats would be abolished under any rational system, of course), a bit of land, their own workshop. Large estates, mines, industries, forests and so on would be communal property, administered by representative institutions.

Much blood has been shed over how big a bit of land, how big a workshop or how big a house.

Sorry, you're of course right.

Tmy · 1st October 2005, 02:02 PM

America HAS quite a lg govt healthcare system. It doent cover everyone but basically all elderly and children are covered.

shanek · 1st October 2005, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Iamme

Aren't we sort of kidding ourselves? Isn't the U.S. quite socialistic?

There isn't a binary libertarian/socialist line. We are socialistic in many ways--and that's been the source of our problems.

Quote:

Isn't the duty of a government, really, to incorporate socialistic programs for the good of the country?

Oh? What do you think governments did for all those centuries before Socialism?

Quote:

And isn't even free-enterprise insurance a form of socialism?

No, because it's voluntary, and because people feel they are getting a benefit worth what they're paying into. If they didn't feel that way, they wouldn't pay for it.

Quote:

what is really the difference if the government collects the money and then spreads out the cost for all, or, if the money is collected by private insurance companies?

Private insurance companies have an incentive to economize and spend the money efficiently. Government doesn't. Government paying for health care only makes it more expensive. It's exactly the reason health care costs are out of control. That's exactly what Socialism does. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

shanek · 1st October 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Originally socialism meant a system where private property was abolished, according to that standard I'd say it's pretty clear that the US is not socialistic.

Tell that to the people in New London, Connecticut.

Quote:

Bill Gates could for example get insurance for far less than what he pays in taxes while poor people would generally have to pay more.

Not once you figure in how cheap health care would be then. It'd be the price of a power bill, whereas taxes consume 50% of American incomes. The average household spends $10,000 a year in Federal Income Tax alone. There's no way insurance is that expensive.

CapelDodger · 1st October 2005, 05:02 PM

RandFan : I think you're making reference to implementations of socialism, rather than the principle. Socialism in principle is highly democratic, in that society is governed by representational bodies, at all sorts of levels - from street to ... well, no limit really; from factory to industry to economy. Ownership economies have little of that representational element. Yes, you can elect a President, and yes, he and all his little imps believe they can have no more control over the economy - you know, everything - than they can over the weather. Or you could have elected a President who believes much the same, except for band-aids for the injured. The President elected doesn't believe in band-aids. "Let them form their own clots!"

That was until New Orleans, anyway. Hard to tell now.

CapelDodger · 1st October 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

America HAS quite a lg govt healthcare system. It doent cover everyone but basically all elderly and children are covered.

As I understand it, it doesn't kick in until you're pretty much indigent. Home gone, pension gone. Scare stories, no doubt. A job with health-care insurance seems to be the US equivalent of the Iron Rice-Bowl. As I recall, health-care costs about 13% of US GDP. Given income distribution, that's a lot for even the middle-class to cough-up on their own.

Elind · 1st October 2005, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Iamme

And what are some of the other things that make a country undeniably socialistic?

It's a good thing to keep on top of this topic so that we can see how are leanings are becoming this way. Where we might be headed. And if that is where we want to be headed.

Well, one could appoint politically pure people to positions of importance?

One could pretend to do everything in the name of the people, or on the basis of the political capital that they gave to the leadership?

One could conduct wars on the basis that the effort has to be in the proportion of the perceived social support for them, and limit the effort accordingly?

One could never ever admit to making bad decisions that had bad consequences for the people (as opposed to for the party)?

Of course you realize I'm talking about Castro. Right?

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by shanek

There isn't a binary libertarian/socialist line. We are socialistic in many ways--and that's been the source of our problems.

Yep. Every red blooded american knows that private enterprise always gets all the credit when things go well, and the government (with its bureaucrats and "socialistic ways") is always to blame for what goes wrong.

Originally Posted by shanek

Oh? What do you think governments did for all those centuries before Socialism?

Very little except exploit the many to the advantage of the few. That's why socialism eventually came along, as a way to redress things. In its revolutionary form, socialism pretty much failed. But, in the west, most of the population owns quite a large debt to socialism's reformist tendencies.

Originally Posted by shanek

No, because it's voluntary, and because people feel they are getting a benefit worth what they're paying into. If they didn't feel that way, they wouldn't pay for it.

So, if the overwhelming majority of americans are in favour of socialised health care insurance, does that mean that the gov. should give it to them?

Originally Posted by shanek

Private insurance companies have an incentive to economize and spend the money efficiently. Government doesn't. Government paying for health care only makes it more expensive. It's exactly the reason health care costs are out of control. That's exactly what Socialism does. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

Quote:

The United States spend more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—of health-care-related paperwork an administration, whereas Canada, for example spends only about three hundred dollars per capita.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050829fa_fact

shanek · 1st October 2005, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

Well, one could appoint politically pure people to positions of importance?

It doesn't work. The problem isn't bad people in power; it's the lack of incentive to economize and the lack of accountability on the part of the people who are elected, appointed, and hired.

shanek · 1st October 2005, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

Yep. Every red blooded american knows that private enterprise always gets all the credit when things go well, and the government (with its bureaucrats and "socialistic ways") is always to blame for what goes wrong.

Why do you have more problems the more regulated an industry is (like health care), and fewer problems the less regulated an industry is (like computers)?

Quote:

But, in the west, most of the population owns quite a large debt to socialism's reformist tendencies.

Yes, socialist "reforms" have created a mountain of debt for us to pay off...

Quote:

So, if the overwhelming majority of americans are in favour of socialised health care insurance, does that mean that the gov. should give it to them?

No. We're not a democracy. We're a republic.

CapelDodger · 1st October 2005, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

Yep. Every red blooded american knows that private enterprise always gets all the credit when things go well, and the government (with its bureaucrats and "socialistic ways") is always to blame for what goes wrong.

The followers of the demon TGICH (Those Guys In City Hall) that everybody runs against. To no avail.

Quote:

Very little except exploit the many to the advantage of the few. That's why socialism eventually came along, as a way to redress things. In its revolutionary form, socialism pretty much failed. But, in the west, most of the population owns quite a large debt to socialism's reformist tendencies.

Socialism evolved from previous concepts of government, it's advent is not that special an event. Government has long done more than exploit the many, it has in fact limited the exploitation of the many by the few, which is the natural order of things. Governments that do that have prospered, generally, in competition with absolutists. The Baron-Peasant relationship is based on the peasant being protected from the Baron over the hill, against whom they have no other defence. The peasant benefits, the Baron benefits. If the Baron tries to benefit too much, the peasants can always defect to the Baron over the hill if he's more sympatico. Their own Baron will have lost the Mandate of Heaven ...

The Roman Empire was exploitative, but for many generations after it was looked back on by ordinary folk as a golden age. They maintained the law, they kept the peace (and a big piece for themselves), they kept up the roads and ports. You could plant a field in confidence that you'd harvest it, weather permitting, even though you'd have to give a good proportion away. At least you knew what proportion. You could ship a cargo from Cornwall to Antioch and know it wouldn't be impounded by some local potentate. The Roman Empire worked for the majority, which is why it worked for so long.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050829fa_fact[/quote]

CapelDodger · 1st October 2005, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by shanek

Why do you have more problems the more regulated an industry is (like health care), and fewer problems the less regulated an industry is (like computers)?

Sophistry. You surely can see the fundamental difference between the computer industry and health-care. Who ever lost a limb from having an inferior PC?

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 07:06 PM

Healthcare services aren't like any other consumer goods. You can't pick and choose the care you need. If I need to have my appendix taken out, I have no choice, I have to do it. I am not going to haggle over the price of the procedure, and I am not going to ask myself "mmm can some other surgeon do this better and cheaper?".

Private insurance services like the ones that most US citizens have don't work as well as the socialised schemes used by virtually every other western country: not only the US system is more expensive, it also happens to have more overhead, and to top it all, about 45 million americans are uninsured.

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Socialism evolved from previous concepts of government, it's advent is not that special an event. Government has long done more than exploit the many, it has in fact limited the exploitation of the many by the few, which is the natural order of things. Governments that do that have prospered, generally, in competition with absolutists. The Baron-Peasant relationship is based on the peasant being protected from the Baron over the hill, against whom they have no other defence. The peasant benefits, the Baron benefits. If the Baron tries to benefit too much, the peasants can always defect to the Baron over the hill if he's more sympatico. Their own Baron will have lost the Mandate of Heaven ...

The Roman Empire was exploitative, but for many generations after it was looked back on by ordinary folk as a golden age. They maintained the law, they kept the peace (and a big piece for themselves), they kept up the roads and ports. You could plant a field in confidence that you'd harvest it, weather permitting, even though you'd have to give a good proportion away. At least you knew what proportion. You could ship a cargo from Cornwall to Antioch and know it wouldn't be impounded by some local potentate. The Roman Empire worked for the majority, which is why it worked for so long.

Uh, I know, I was being lazy...

Elind · 1st October 2005, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by shanek

It doesn't work. The problem isn't bad people in power; it's the lack of incentive to economize and the lack of accountability on the part of the people who are elected, appointed, and hired.

I didn't say (tongue in cheek and all) that any of those people were actually "bad", did I?

Do you know what is meant by all the seven letters in sarcasm, or do you just write in order to reread what you wrote?

Dr Adequate · 1st October 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Citizen: Who owns that Mercedes?
Beauraucrat: The people.
Citizen: Who are the people?
Beauraucrat: Everyone.
Citizen: Does that include me?
Beauraucrat: Of course it does.
Citizen: Can I use the car?
Beauraucrat: No.
Citizen: Who can use the car?
Beauraucrat: Beauraucrats.
Citizen: So the car belongs to the Beauracrats?
Beauraucrat: No, the car belongs to the people...

So... are governments which own swanky cars necessarily "socialistic", or is your comment a complete non sequitur?

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So... are governments which own swanky cars necessarily "socialistic", or is your comment a complete non sequitur?

To whom does the presidential limo belong to?

Dr Adequate · 1st October 2005, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

To whom does the presidential limo belong to?

That's what I was thinking. Apart from the spare preposition.

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

So... are governments which own swanky cars necessarily "socialistic", or is your comment a complete non sequitur?

I was making a commentary on the propoganda of socialism through the use of satire. In non-socialist countries we don't pretend that the poor own swanky cars.

I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you.

Member of the proletariat: Who owns that Mercedes?
Bourgeois capatilist pig: I do.
Member of the proletariat: Oh.

Do you see the difference?

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I was making a commentary on the propoganda of socialism through the use of satire. In non-socialist countries we don't pretend that the poor own swanky cars.

I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you.

Member of the proletariat: Who owns that Mercedes?
Bourgeois capatilist pig: I do.
Member of the proletariat: Oh.

Do you see the difference?

Relax, Randfan, we're just making fun of your caricatural views on state owned industries. Do you know that in Quebec electrical utilities belong to HydroQuebec, a public company owned by the province? There are quite a lot of countries around the world with similar arrangements.

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

Relax, Randfan, we're just making fun of your caricatural views on state owned industries.

Orwell, relax, I'm simply mocking socialism and capitalism.

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

Relax, Randfan, we're just making fun of your caricatural views on state owned industries.

BTW, how does mocking socialism make my views a caricature?

Orwell · 1st October 2005, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

BTW, how does mocking socialism make my views a caricature?

Caricature: a representation of a person (or in this case, a thing) that is exaggerated for comic effect.

A caricature is a kind of mockery. Therefore, if you were mocking socialism (and you say you were), your views were necessarily caricatural. We were just mocking you back...

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

Caricature: a representation of a person (or in this case, a thing) that is exaggerated for comic effect.

A caricature is a kind of mockery. Therefore, your views were caricatural.

But they were not necassarily my views. My "speach" was a cricature. There is a difference.

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Orwell

We were just mocking you back...

Which I have no problem with at all. Just be sure not to confuse that which I think with that which I mock.

peptoabysmal · 1st October 2005, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Citizen: Who owns that Mercedes?
Beauraucrat: The people.
Citizen: Who are the people?
Beauraucrat: Everyone.
Citizen: Does that include me?
Beauraucrat: Of course it does.
Citizen: Can I use the car?
Beauraucrat: No.
Citizen: Who can use the car?
Beauraucrat: Beauraucrats.
Citizen: So the car belongs to the Beauracrats?
Beauraucrat: No, the car belongs to the people...

Originally Posted by RandFan;

Member of the proletariat: Who owns that Mercedes?
Bourgeois capatilist pig: I do.
Member of the proletariat: Oh.

peptoabysmal · 1st October 2005, 10:45 PM

At what point is a country finally labeled "Socialistic"?

For myself, I've set the high water mark at when the government controls more than 50% of the total economy. The U.S is headed there at a rapid pace.

RandFan · 1st October 2005, 10:52 PM

Thank you, hey, someone got it.

Kerberos · 1st October 2005, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by shanek

Tell that to the people in New London, Connecticut.

Should I ever meet one I'll be happy to.

Originally Posted by shanek

Not once you figure in how cheap health care would be then. It'd be the price of a power bill, whereas taxes consume 50% of American incomes. The average household spends $10,000 a year in Federal Income Tax alone. There's no way insurance is that expensive.

Ahh yes, with the Free Market(TM) we'd obviously all get twice the quality for a tenth of the price, just close your eyes and chant "perfect competition" three times while turning around and it is so. Besides I where refering to the poor who presumably pay less than the average household, and I highly doubt they could get Insurance (and roads and military and FBI and...) for whatever price they pay. But oh wait I forgot the charities which will of course magically correct any problems that the Free Market (still TM) didn't solve. Long live Libertopia!

shanek · 2nd October 2005, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Sophistry. You surely can see the fundamental difference between the computer industry and health-care. Who ever lost a limb from having an inferior PC?

What does that point have to do with the economic realities?

What about UL? Surely there is a far greater potential danger from electronic equipment than from health care, if for no other reason than we're around electronic equipment daily. Yet, UL does a very good job at making sure electrical equipment is safe, and electronics are getting cheaper all the time.

shanek · 2nd October 2005, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Orwell

Healthcare services aren't like any other consumer goods. You can't pick and choose the care you need. If I need to have my appendix taken out, I have no choice, I have to do it.

But you should have your choice of who you have do it.

Quote:

I am not going to haggle over the price of the procedure, and I am not going to ask myself "mmm can some other surgeon do this better and cheaper?".

Why not? Why haven't you done this ahead of time with your health care providers? Actually, this is one of the things that insurance companies do on behalf of their clients.

Quote:

Private insurance services like the ones that most US citizens have don't work as well as the socialised schemes used by virtually every other western country: not only the US system is more expensive, it also happens to have more overhead, and to top it all, about 45 million americans are uninsured.

45 million Americans are uninsured because the US system is so expensive, and the US system is so expensive because of government meddling.

shanek · 2nd October 2005, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

Should I ever meet one I'll be happy to.

How are you going to explain to them how the government gets to sieze their property to give to a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company to build a research lab?

[Kerberos's usual pathetically biased rant he trots out whenever he's been shown to be wrong deleted]

Kerberos · 2nd October 2005, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by shanek

How are you going to explain to them how the government gets to sieze their property to give to a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company to build a research lab?

Privatly owned phamaceutical company right? Well there you have it, not a socialist system,

epepke · 2nd October 2005, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

As I understand it, it doesn't kick in until you're pretty much indigent. Home gone, pension gone. Scare stories, no doubt. A job with health-care insurance seems to be the US equivalent of the Iron Rice-Bowl. As I recall, health-care costs about 13% of US GDP. Given income distribution, that's a lot for even the middle-class to cough-up on their own.

Well, yes in the sense of no.

If you're a child, you can get it. If you're an adult with dependents and your yearly income is below a certain amount, you can get it. You don't lose your home and pension (but you may not have a pension in the first place). If you're over 65 or 67 or whatever it is these days, you can get it. If you've been declared disabled, you can get it.

If you're like me, below the poverty line but not disabled nor with dependents, you can't get it. From my experience, you can get a lot, however. You can get prompt, in some cases immediate treatment for any emergency condition. You can get most of this for free. The hospital gets a massive tax break for doing this. You can get prompt medically necessary treatment, and you can get it for between %50 and %75 off. They will send you bills later. You can pay these off over an extended period of time, up to five years, with no interest. You can get regular treatment at free clinics and money for prescriptions and home care.

Ed · 2nd October 2005, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by shanek

Private insurance companies have an incentive to economize and spend the money efficiently. Government doesn't. Government paying for health care only makes it more expensive. It's exactly the reason health care costs are out of control. That's exactly what Socialism does. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.

What about that study showing that on an average cost basis, the US is above Sweden, for example. I think Darat posted it.

1st October 2005, 10:13 AM	#1
Iamme Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Western Wisconsin Posts: 4,622	At what point is a country finally labeled "Socialistic"? Aren't we sort of kidding ourselves? Isn't the U.S. quite socialistic? Isn't the duty of a government, really, to incorporate socialistic programs for the good of the country? (So they think.). And isn't even free-enterprise insurance a form of socialism? Isn't the idea of insurance to spread the costs out among everyone so that no one person has to bear the burden of an entire loss themselves? Isn't the practices of socialism going to kick in full bore after the losses we have have suffered at the hands of Katrina and Rita? Does a country have to have 'socialized medicine' before one tags that country as being socialistic? They may have government funded medicine...but if you think about it...what is really the difference if the government collects the money and then spreads out the cost for all, or, if the money is collected by private insurance companies? Does the answer lie in the fact that with government health care, everyone receives care, where with private insurance, it's only those who pay in that get care? Well, there are certain lines that get crossed with both these systems: With government health care, it is my understanding that not everyone DOES get treated, because there is such a waiting list. And with private insurance companies...especially at one time, there were so many people being covered either out of pocket by individuals or through employers, that many were able to get care. (It has only been of late that many employers are either dropping coverage and or shifting the burden more to the employee.) And of those who aren't insured, the hospitals see patients anyway and give them at least life sustaining care. So, in essence, there is some form of care that one can expect in the health industry, whether or not it is called socialized medicine, or if it comes from private insurance carriers. In either case the money has to come from somewhere and comes from the peoples, right? Directly orr indirectly...who cares?...what's the difference? An indirect form would be that if the people did not not have to pay additional taxes or insurance premiums, but rather would pay more for goods because costs are taken from companies instead, let's say. And what are some of the other things that make a country undeniably socialistic? It's a good thing to keep on top of this topic so that we can see how are leanings are becoming this way. Where we might be headed. And if that is where we want to be headed.
	__________________ I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.

1st October 2005, 10:30 AM	#2
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	A couple of comments about socialised health care: in Canada, everybody gets treated eventually. It's just that you might have to wait a while before you get your treatment, depending on its availability and the seriousness of your disease. Also, the Canadian health care system isn't "governmental". The Canadian system is a publicly funded insurance program where costs are controlled and both hospitals and doctors are private. Each province has its own system and its own unique way of funding it. In spite of this decentralized approach, there are agreements among all provinces that provide for treatment of any Canadian citizen regardless of where the need occurs. Any Canadian can go to any doctor or hospital in the country. In other words, the doctors and hospitals are private (if I'm not mistaken, usually not-for-profit foundations for the big hospitals and smaller doctor owned private clinics), but the insurance costs are "socialised".
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..." Last edited by Orwell; 1st October 2005 at 10:32 AM.

1st October 2005, 10:43 AM	#3
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Iamme Aren't we sort of kidding ourselves? Isn't the U.S. quite socialistic? Originally socialism meant a system where private property was abolished, according to that standard I'd say it's pretty clear that the US is not socialistic. Today we frequently use the word to describe a system where the limitations on private property has passed some totally arbitrary threshold which makes all western countries or no western countries socialistic depending on what you ate this morning. Quote: Isn't the duty of a government, really, to incorporate socialistic programs for the good of the country? (So they think.). I'd say so, at least according to the modern definition of socialism. Quote: And isn't even free-enterprise insurance a form of socialism? Isn't the idea of insurance to spread the costs out among everyone so that no one person has to bear the burden of an entire loss themselves? Definitely not, insurance caries no limitations on property rights, it's a way for you to reduce the risks you fear. Socialism includes wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, not just from those who haven't had accidents to those who have and it includes everybody (more or less) not just those who chose insurance. Bill Gates could for example get insurance for far less than what he pays in taxes while poor people would generally have to pay more.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

1st October 2005, 12:53 PM	#4
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by Kerberos Originally socialism meant a system where private property was abolished ... Actually socialism is a system where ownership of the means of production is communal. People can own homes, books, cars, dogs (cats would be abolished under any rational system, of course), a bit of land, their own workshop. Large estates, mines, industries, forests and so on would be communal property, administered by representative institutions. Much blood has been shed over how big a bit of land, how big a workshop or how big a house.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

1st October 2005, 01:13 PM	#5
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Quote: Large estates, mines, industries, forests and so on would be communal property, administered by representative institutions. Citizen: Who owns that Mercedes? Beauraucrat: The people. Citizen: Who are the people? Beauraucrat: Everyone. Citizen: Does that include me? Beauraucrat: Of course it does. Citizen: Can I use the car? Beauraucrat: No. Citizen: Who can use the car? Beauraucrat: Beauraucrats. Citizen: So the car belongs to the Beauracrats? Beauraucrat: No, the car belongs to the people...
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 1st October 2005 at 01:15 PM.

1st October 2005, 01:24 PM	#6
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Actually socialism is a system where ownership of the means of production is communal. People can own homes, books, cars, dogs (cats would be abolished under any rational system, of course), a bit of land, their own workshop. Large estates, mines, industries, forests and so on would be communal property, administered by representative institutions. Much blood has been shed over how big a bit of land, how big a workshop or how big a house. Sorry, you're of course right.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

1st October 2005, 02:02 PM	#7
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	America HAS quite a lg govt healthcare system. It doent cover everyone but basically all elderly and children are covered.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

1st October 2005, 04:24 PM	#8
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Originally Posted by Iamme Aren't we sort of kidding ourselves? Isn't the U.S. quite socialistic? There isn't a binary libertarian/socialist line. We are socialistic in many ways--and that's been the source of our problems. Quote: Isn't the duty of a government, really, to incorporate socialistic programs for the good of the country? Oh? What do you think governments did for all those centuries before Socialism? Quote: And isn't even free-enterprise insurance a form of socialism? No, because it's voluntary, and because people feel they are getting a benefit worth what they're paying into. If they didn't feel that way, they wouldn't pay for it. Quote: what is really the difference if the government collects the money and then spreads out the cost for all, or, if the money is collected by private insurance companies? Private insurance companies have an incentive to economize and spend the money efficiently. Government doesn't. Government paying for health care only makes it more expensive. It's exactly the reason health care costs are out of control. That's exactly what Socialism does. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st October 2005, 04:28 PM	#9
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Originally Posted by Kerberos Originally socialism meant a system where private property was abolished, according to that standard I'd say it's pretty clear that the US is not socialistic. Tell that to the people in New London, Connecticut. Quote: Bill Gates could for example get insurance for far less than what he pays in taxes while poor people would generally have to pay more. Not once you figure in how cheap health care would be then. It'd be the price of a power bill, whereas taxes consume 50% of American incomes. The average household spends $10,000 a year in Federal Income Tax alone. There's no way insurance is that expensive.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st October 2005, 05:02 PM	#10
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	RandFan : I think you're making reference to implementations of socialism, rather than the principle. Socialism in principle is highly democratic, in that society is governed by representational bodies, at all sorts of levels - from street to ... well, no limit really; from factory to industry to economy. Ownership economies have little of that representational element. Yes, you can elect a President, and yes, he and all his little imps believe they can have no more control over the economy - you know, everything - than they can over the weather. Or you could have elected a President who believes much the same, except for band-aids for the injured. The President elected doesn't believe in band-aids. "Let them form their own clots!" That was until New Orleans, anyway. Hard to tell now.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

1st October 2005, 05:09 PM	#11
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by Tmy America HAS quite a lg govt healthcare system. It doent cover everyone but basically all elderly and children are covered. As I understand it, it doesn't kick in until you're pretty much indigent. Home gone, pension gone. Scare stories, no doubt. A job with health-care insurance seems to be the US equivalent of the Iron Rice-Bowl. As I recall, health-care costs about 13% of US GDP. Given income distribution, that's a lot for even the middle-class to cough-up on their own.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

1st October 2005, 05:26 PM	#12
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,621	Originally Posted by Iamme And what are some of the other things that make a country undeniably socialistic? It's a good thing to keep on top of this topic so that we can see how are leanings are becoming this way. Where we might be headed. And if that is where we want to be headed. Well, one could appoint politically pure people to positions of importance? One could pretend to do everything in the name of the people, or on the basis of the political capital that they gave to the leadership? One could conduct wars on the basis that the effort has to be in the proportion of the perceived social support for them, and limit the effort accordingly? One could never ever admit to making bad decisions that had bad consequences for the people (as opposed to for the party)? Of course you realize I'm talking about Castro. Right?

1st October 2005, 05:35 PM	#13
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	Originally Posted by shanek There isn't a binary libertarian/socialist line. We are socialistic in many ways--and that's been the source of our problems. Yep. Every red blooded american knows that private enterprise always gets all the credit when things go well, and the government (with its bureaucrats and "socialistic ways") is always to blame for what goes wrong. Originally Posted by shanek Oh? What do you think governments did for all those centuries before Socialism? Very little except exploit the many to the advantage of the few. That's why socialism eventually came along, as a way to redress things. In its revolutionary form, socialism pretty much failed. But, in the west, most of the population owns quite a large debt to socialism's reformist tendencies. Originally Posted by shanek No, because it's voluntary, and because people feel they are getting a benefit worth what they're paying into. If they didn't feel that way, they wouldn't pay for it. So, if the overwhelming majority of americans are in favour of socialised health care insurance, does that mean that the gov. should give it to them? Originally Posted by shanek Private insurance companies have an incentive to economize and spend the money efficiently. Government doesn't. Government paying for health care only makes it more expensive. It's exactly the reason health care costs are out of control. That's exactly what Socialism does. It's the Tragedy of the Commons. Quote: The United States spend more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—of health-care-related paperwork an administration, whereas Canada, for example spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050829fa_fact
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..."

1st October 2005, 05:45 PM	#14
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Originally Posted by Elind Well, one could appoint politically pure people to positions of importance? It doesn't work. The problem isn't bad people in power; it's the lack of incentive to economize and the lack of accountability on the part of the people who are elected, appointed, and hired.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st October 2005, 05:47 PM	#15
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Originally Posted by Orwell Yep. Every red blooded american knows that private enterprise always gets all the credit when things go well, and the government (with its bureaucrats and "socialistic ways") is always to blame for what goes wrong. Why do you have more problems the more regulated an industry is (like health care), and fewer problems the less regulated an industry is (like computers)? Quote: But, in the west, most of the population owns quite a large debt to socialism's reformist tendencies. Yes, socialist "reforms" have created a mountain of debt for us to pay off... Quote: So, if the overwhelming majority of americans are in favour of socialised health care insurance, does that mean that the gov. should give it to them? No. We're not a democracy. We're a republic.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

1st October 2005, 06:12 PM	#16
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by Orwell Yep. Every red blooded american knows that private enterprise always gets all the credit when things go well, and the government (with its bureaucrats and "socialistic ways") is always to blame for what goes wrong. The followers of the demon TGICH (Those Guys In City Hall) that everybody runs against. To no avail. Quote: Very little except exploit the many to the advantage of the few. That's why socialism eventually came along, as a way to redress things. In its revolutionary form, socialism pretty much failed. But, in the west, most of the population owns quite a large debt to socialism's reformist tendencies. Socialism evolved from previous concepts of government, it's advent is not that special an event. Government has long done more than exploit the many, it has in fact limited the exploitation of the many by the few, which is the natural order of things. Governments that do that have prospered, generally, in competition with absolutists. The Baron-Peasant relationship is based on the peasant being protected from the Baron over the hill, against whom they have no other defence. The peasant benefits, the Baron benefits. If the Baron tries to benefit too much, the peasants can always defect to the Baron over the hill if he's more sympatico. Their own Baron will have lost the Mandate of Heaven ... The Roman Empire was exploitative, but for many generations after it was looked back on by ordinary folk as a golden age. They maintained the law, they kept the peace (and a big piece for themselves), they kept up the roads and ports. You could plant a field in confidence that you'd harvest it, weather permitting, even though you'd have to give a good proportion away. At least you knew what proportion. You could ship a cargo from Cornwall to Antioch and know it wouldn't be impounded by some local potentate. The Roman Empire worked for the majority, which is why it worked for so long. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../050829fa_fact[/quote]
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

1st October 2005, 06:15 PM	#17
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,740	Originally Posted by shanek Why do you have more problems the more regulated an industry is (like health care), and fewer problems the less regulated an industry is (like computers)? Sophistry. You surely can see the fundamental difference between the computer industry and health-care. Who ever lost a limb from having an inferior PC?
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

1st October 2005, 07:06 PM	#18
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	Healthcare services aren't like any other consumer goods. You can't pick and choose the care you need. If I need to have my appendix taken out, I have no choice, I have to do it. I am not going to haggle over the price of the procedure, and I am not going to ask myself "mmm can some other surgeon do this better and cheaper?". Private insurance services like the ones that most US citizens have don't work as well as the socialised schemes used by virtually every other western country: not only the US system is more expensive, it also happens to have more overhead, and to top it all, about 45 million americans are uninsured.
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..." Last edited by Orwell; 1st October 2005 at 07:53 PM.

1st October 2005, 07:20 PM	#19
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Socialism evolved from previous concepts of government, it's advent is not that special an event. Government has long done more than exploit the many, it has in fact limited the exploitation of the many by the few, which is the natural order of things. Governments that do that have prospered, generally, in competition with absolutists. The Baron-Peasant relationship is based on the peasant being protected from the Baron over the hill, against whom they have no other defence. The peasant benefits, the Baron benefits. If the Baron tries to benefit too much, the peasants can always defect to the Baron over the hill if he's more sympatico. Their own Baron will have lost the Mandate of Heaven ... The Roman Empire was exploitative, but for many generations after it was looked back on by ordinary folk as a golden age. They maintained the law, they kept the peace (and a big piece for themselves), they kept up the roads and ports. You could plant a field in confidence that you'd harvest it, weather permitting, even though you'd have to give a good proportion away. At least you knew what proportion. You could ship a cargo from Cornwall to Antioch and know it wouldn't be impounded by some local potentate. The Roman Empire worked for the majority, which is why it worked for so long. Uh, I know, I was being lazy...
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..." Last edited by Orwell; 1st October 2005 at 07:53 PM.

1st October 2005, 07:24 PM	#20
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,621	Originally Posted by shanek It doesn't work. The problem isn't bad people in power; it's the lack of incentive to economize and the lack of accountability on the part of the people who are elected, appointed, and hired. I didn't say (tongue in cheek and all) that any of those people were actually "bad", did I? Do you know what is meant by all the seven letters in sarcasm, or do you just write in order to reread what you wrote?

1st October 2005, 07:35 PM	#21
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by RandFan Citizen: Who owns that Mercedes? Beauraucrat: The people. Citizen: Who are the people? Beauraucrat: Everyone. Citizen: Does that include me? Beauraucrat: Of course it does. Citizen: Can I use the car? Beauraucrat: No. Citizen: Who can use the car? Beauraucrat: Beauraucrats. Citizen: So the car belongs to the Beauracrats? Beauraucrat: No, the car belongs to the people... So... are governments which own swanky cars necessarily "socialistic", or is your comment a complete non sequitur?

1st October 2005, 07:55 PM	#22
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate So... are governments which own swanky cars necessarily "socialistic", or is your comment a complete non sequitur? To whom does the presidential limo belong to?
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..."

1st October 2005, 08:04 PM	#23
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Orwell To whom does the presidential limo belong to? That's what I was thinking. Apart from the spare preposition.

1st October 2005, 09:19 PM	#24
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate So... are governments which own swanky cars necessarily "socialistic", or is your comment a complete non sequitur? I was making a commentary on the propoganda of socialism through the use of satire. In non-socialist countries we don't pretend that the poor own swanky cars. I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you. Member of the proletariat: Who owns that Mercedes? Bourgeois capatilist pig: I do. Member of the proletariat: Oh. Do you see the difference?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

1st October 2005, 09:36 PM	#25
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	Originally Posted by RandFan I was making a commentary on the propoganda of socialism through the use of satire. In non-socialist countries we don't pretend that the poor own swanky cars. I'm sorry if that was too subtle for you. Member of the proletariat: Who owns that Mercedes? Bourgeois capatilist pig: I do. Member of the proletariat: Oh. Do you see the difference? Relax, Randfan, we're just making fun of your caricatural views on state owned industries. Do you know that in Quebec electrical utilities belong to HydroQuebec, a public company owned by the province? There are quite a lot of countries around the world with similar arrangements.
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..."

1st October 2005, 09:50 PM	#26
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Originally Posted by Orwell Relax, Randfan, we're just making fun of your caricatural views on state owned industries. Orwell, relax, I'm simply mocking socialism and capitalism.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

1st October 2005, 09:55 PM	#27
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Originally Posted by Orwell Relax, Randfan, we're just making fun of your caricatural views on state owned industries. BTW, how does mocking socialism make my views a caricature?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

1st October 2005, 10:12 PM	#28
Orwell Nattering Nabob of Negativism Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,364	Originally Posted by RandFan BTW, how does mocking socialism make my views a caricature? Caricature: a representation of a person (or in this case, a thing) that is exaggerated for comic effect. A caricature is a kind of mockery. Therefore, if you were mocking socialism (and you say you were), your views were necessarily caricatural. We were just mocking you back...
	__________________ Charles de Gaulle fut arrêté par des journalistes devant un graffiti disant "mort aux cons". Il commenta: "Vaste programme..."

1st October 2005, 10:16 PM	#29
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Originally Posted by Orwell Caricature: a representation of a person (or in this case, a thing) that is exaggerated for comic effect. A caricature is a kind of mockery. Therefore, your views were caricatural. But they were not necassarily my views. My "speach" was a cricature. There is a difference.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

1st October 2005, 10:20 PM	#30
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Originally Posted by Orwell We were just mocking you back... Which I have no problem with at all. Just be sure not to confuse that which I think with that which I mock.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

1st October 2005, 10:39 PM	#31
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	Originally Posted by RandFan Citizen: Who owns that Mercedes? Beauraucrat: The people. Citizen: Who are the people? Beauraucrat: Everyone. Citizen: Does that include me? Beauraucrat: Of course it does. Citizen: Can I use the car? Beauraucrat: No. Citizen: Who can use the car? Beauraucrat: Beauraucrats. Citizen: So the car belongs to the Beauracrats? Beauraucrat: No, the car belongs to the people... Originally Posted by RandFan; Member of the proletariat: Who owns that Mercedes? Bourgeois capatilist pig: I do. Member of the proletariat: Oh.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

1st October 2005, 10:45 PM	#32
peptoabysmal Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,467	At what point is a country finally labeled "Socialistic"? For myself, I've set the high water mark at when the government controls more than 50% of the total economy. The U.S is headed there at a rapid pace.
	__________________ OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

1st October 2005, 10:52 PM	#33
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,109	Thank you, hey, someone got it.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

1st October 2005, 10:54 PM	#34
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by shanek Tell that to the people in New London, Connecticut. Should I ever meet one I'll be happy to. Originally Posted by shanek Not once you figure in how cheap health care would be then. It'd be the price of a power bill, whereas taxes consume 50% of American incomes. The average household spends $10,000 a year in Federal Income Tax alone. There's no way insurance is that expensive. Ahh yes, with the Free Market(TM) we'd obviously all get twice the quality for a tenth of the price, just close your eyes and chant "perfect competition" three times while turning around and it is so. Besides I where refering to the poor who presumably pay less than the average household, and I highly doubt they could get Insurance (and roads and military and FBI and...) for whatever price they pay. But oh wait I forgot the charities which will of course magically correct any problems that the Free Market (still TM) didn't solve. Long live Libertopia!
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

2nd October 2005, 07:33 AM	#35
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Sophistry. You surely can see the fundamental difference between the computer industry and health-care. Who ever lost a limb from having an inferior PC? What does that point have to do with the economic realities? What about UL? Surely there is a far greater potential danger from electronic equipment than from health care, if for no other reason than we're around electronic equipment daily. Yet, UL does a very good job at making sure electrical equipment is safe, and electronics are getting cheaper all the time.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.