Freedom vs Equality • Captialism vs Socialism

[SkyNET]

In communism, however, the property belongs to the people (and in historical communism, the government)

Don't forget, in communism the land belongs to EVERYBODY, not just the people living on it.

@Twosheds:Are you accusing me of something? I'm not an anarchist.

Also, people are free to change those laws as they see fit. They don't limit freedom. Passing laws to punish murder isn't the loss of freedom. You can still do it, but people won't stand for it.

[mrtwosheds]

Selfish?  You think that us not wanting to give our hard earned cash to the lazy people and all the invading immigrants is selfish?  Keep in mind that your entire government is socialistic, ours isn't and the only thing that would change in this is healthcare.  What people need to realise is that healthcare is insurance.  What happens when everyone has the same exact insurance?  Well, unless the govt owns the hospitals too (not going to happen because our govt is so terrible at handeling money), then the hospitals will just raise their prices.  Problem solved... for them.

Lazy people...what you need to understand is relativity, it applies very much to finance, at least a quarter or so of any population will always be "the poor" no matter how much they try not to be, that is why communism does not work, simple mathematics, capitalism chooses to call them lazy, or slaves, or lesser races etc etc. It is only once the Bombs fall on your nation and you start fighting and dying together, that people start to think, good enough to fight, good enough to die, but not good enough to be tended by a doctor when they need it? The conservative (read republican) government tried to put it back like that after ww2, to firmly re-establish the old class divides between those who have and those who do not. They suffered a huge defeat for it despite having been the victorious war government.
Yes I think it is selfish and divisive. America is redeveloping the old class systems that its constitution was designed to liberate it from.
Immigrants...I used to work for Xerox! they "invaded" south America for its resources, they took its wealth for north America and now you have their people too. Greed and consequences.

@Twosheds:Are you accusing me of something? I'm not an anarchist.

No, it was a very anarchistic statement, freedom always needs to be limited, without laws nobody has freedom.
And maybe In the future without the right "world" laws nobody will have life.

[CivBase]

Lazy people...what you need to understand is relativity, it applies very much to finance, at least a quarter or so of any population will always be "the poor" no matter how much they try not to be, that is why communism does not work, simple mathematics, capitalism chooses to call them lazy, or slaves, or lesser races etc etc.

Very true with historical communism.  With true communism, however, there is no economy, there is nothing to judge wealth, just people working for the good of everyone.

It is only once the Bombs fall on your nation and you start fighting and dying together, that people start to think, good enough to fight, good enough to die, but not good enough to be tended by a doctor when they need it?

Legaly, our hospitals are required to provide care to everyone that comes in, wheather they can pay for it or not.

The conservative (read republican) government tried to put it back like that after ww2, to firmly re-establish the old class divides between those who have and those who do not. They suffered a huge defeat for it despite having been the victorious war government.

It's much harder to remove socialism than it is to apply it.

Yes I think it is selfish and divisive. America is redeveloping the old class systems that its constitution was designed to liberate it from.

It's always had that system and it's worked for over 250 years, I think it will work for a couple more.

Immigrants...I used to work for Xerox, they invaded south America for its resources, they took its wealth for north America and now you have their people too. Greed and consequences.

Interesting way of looking at it... but couldn't they at least come over here legaly?  Then they'll legaly have to pay taxes and live like any other American.

No, it was a very anarchistic statement, freedom always needs to be limited, without laws nobody has freedom.

But they do, they just don't live long enough to utalize it.

[bigbadbogie]

In other words; Free to die.

[CivBase]

That's the one way of putting it, yes.

[Avatar]

America is trying to take the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in the same way that Microsoft is trying to give you the best OS in the world...   

The idea being that the Government will provide the basic level of support needed for someone to survive.  It won't be much, it won't be pretty, it might be humiliating at times to take it, but it'll keep you alive.  The country is moving towards Government housing, welfare, health care, etc. as being an all-inclusive 'suite' of services for those who can't afford anything more.

But who wants health care that's the equivalent of Notepad, when Word will actually keep you alive if something bad comes along...

The problem is that even this basic level is SO attractive to residents of other countries that have nothing that it brings them in in droves to take advantage of it.

***

@Av:Don't forget, the US isn't a democracy but a constitutional republic. But that's besides the point, as the things you brough up(bailout and etc.) should raise said flags anyway.

Why am I suddenly thinking of Monty Python???  lol... 

-Av-

[SkyNET]

Anarchistic? Anarchists want a world without law. I said laws are not meant to restrict freedom. Laws are nessecary, but I think were having a disagreement on the meaning of the word.

@Avatar:In canada, our health care is 'free', but it's also of questionable quality. People with cancer have to wait months for treatment and so on.

[mrtwosheds]

The problem is that even this basic level is SO attractive to residents of other countries that have nothing that it brings them in in droves to take advantage of it.

The price of success. Yes of course you want to eat food grown on their land, drive a car made from their steel, run by their oil, live in a nice house, reading a newspaper both made from their forests. You are outraged they they have the cheek to follow their wealth to somewhere they can use it, clearly they should all stay back at home and starve for your benefit too.
Lock down the borders! except... um sorry do you actually need that little rain forest right now? it looks untidy, my friends need to print some lies on it to sell me your lunch.

Yes lock down your borders, but make sure nothing gets in or out... Soon your wealth will have gone and you'll be pulling the plough yourself, hoping for rain that might not come again.

[CivBase]

America is a place of freedom, something that I think people misunderstand far too often...
Freedom means that you can do something, not that you have a right to what you want.  It means that you have choices to make, that you choose your life.  You can do anything here but, mrtwosheds, that doesn't mean that there aren't conciquences.  I love how avatar made the connection with word vs notepad.  It shows how everyone gets something with socialism, but nobody has the feedom to move up.

Here's a great scenario:
Three kids have waiting for halloween for a long time and have been trick-or-treating all night.  They're all dressed up, and each carries a nearly full bag of candy.  They all agree that this next house will be their last for the night, the house of Barrack Obama.  Well, at the same time a teenager decides that he wants some candy.  So he goes to the house too, no outfit or anything.  So they all get their at the same time and ring the doorbell.  Obama comes out, simileing, and looks at all four of them.  When he sees the teenager he says, "well this isn't right, this kid has no candy."  So Obama reaches into the bags of the little kids and gives him some of their candy.  "Much better," he says and gives them each a tootsieroll from his huge box of candy.  Then he closes the door and the teenager goes on his way, as happy as can be, leaving the three crying kids.

[Avatar]

The price of success. Yes of course you want to eat food grown on their land, drive a car made from their steel, run by their oil, live in a nice house, reading a newspaper both made from their forests. You are outraged they they have the cheek to follow their wealth to somewhere they can use it, clearly they should all stay back at home and starve for your benefit too.

They control the price/availability of all of those resources, so they shouldn't have to follow the wealth.  They should have obtained it through trade for their resources.  In many countries such things are 'nationalized', such that foreigners can't own them, and are therefore entirely under the control of the country of origin.  Things like South American oil wells and refineries, which have recently been 'reclaimed' by the Government, or land in Japan, which can only be owned by Japanese born citizens.

*sigh*  It's also sad that what you describe is the usual reaction.  It's genetic, part of our basic brain function, to draw back and snarl when someone reaches for our stuff.   This planet could be a paradise if only the opposite were true.  Rather than 'close the borders' we should 'erase the borders', and all work together to make a decent basic quality of life for everyone.

What hugely traumatic event it would take to change this is beyond me...  *cough*WATCHMEN*cough*...

-Av-

 

[mrtwosheds]

It shows how everyone gets something with socialism, but nobody has the feedom to move up.

This is your misunderstanding, it does not mean that at all, (that's communism) The UK ran for centuries with an entrenched privileged class, it was impossible to "move up" unless you were already "up". It is this we keep in check with our occasional socialist government, every now and then they screw up and loose an election and the Conservative (upper class) get back in, then its tax cuts for the rich and powerful and bugger all for every one else. Now under both systems people can move up, on balance its probably easier when the socialist are in power though.

[CivBase]

How can they move up when they can't choose what to get?  Sure they can get more money, but they can't buy the better health insurance, they can't get better service, they're stuck with the govt services.  And people can move up very easily here.  This isn't the 1500s.

[bigbadbogie]

The price of success. Yes of course you want to eat food grown on their land, drive a car made from their steel, run by their oil, live in a nice house, reading a newspaper both made from their forests. You are outraged they they have the cheek to follow their wealth to somewhere they can use it, clearly they should all stay back at home and starve for your benefit too.
Lock down the borders! except... um sorry do you actually need that little rain forest right now? it looks untidy, my friends need to print some lies on it to sell me your lunch.

Yes lock down your borders, but make sure nothing gets in or out... Soon your wealth will have gone and you'll be pulling the plough yourself, hoping for rain that might not come again.

I think you just described Australia from head to toe.

[mrtwosheds]

How can they move up when they can't choose what to get?

You can choose! that's the point. A service only supplied to those who can pay is the one that removes any choice from those who can't. My Brother has very good private health insurance, it gets him the best doctors in the country for his medical problem, he chose to pay for it, because he can afford to. I can't afford it because I just have an ordinary job, so I get treated on the national health.


I can see Obama certainly has a big job to do combating divisive republican misinformation.

[Nielk1]

I can see Obama certainly has a big job to do combating divisive republican misinformation.

What?