Does Socialism hurt more people than it helps?

[Symmetry]

I don't think you're being judged for your pro-capitalism, bradleybadly.

It might have more to do with with being obnoxious:

Bradleybadly wrote:

nonsensical socialist idiots

LMFAO

wanted to point out just how right I was

What's your problem?

selfish, selfish, selfish

[unriggable]

I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

Ignorance is bliss...

Socialism is essentially being required by law to help people less fortunate than you. The common argument is 'they're all slackers' but universal healthcare, which is a socialist program, would help tens of millions of americans (I guarantee you they aren't slackers); and welfare which is also a socialist program helps more single white mothers than any other group of people.

[unriggable]

Just because you do not like the ways the current economy leads to social activism does not mean you can take your ball and go home.

See: Marx's theory of history.

[Napoleon Ier]

I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

Socialism has only ever been,and can only ever be a primitive response to an almost equally bad system somewhere between capitalism and feudalism in specific conditions such as the European Industrial Revolution.

although as you may realize napoleon im a bit reticent to post in threads about socialism because i dont really think you will play fair so to speak. i question if you see the irony in claiming a primitive response when your politically libertarian views are seemingly an equally primitive response to the increasingly integreated global economy.

Just because you do not like the ways the current economy leads to social activism does not mean you can take your ball and go home.

Not really, I would argue that Libertarianism is accepting the individual as a sovereign of his own and is an ideal way to protect liberties. do also like to see myself as supporting certain nuances within Liberterianism I hold, namely a governmentwhich could set up higher tariffs on foreign imports so as to favour domestic businesses, which to me seem an intelligent way t respond to certain aspects of globalization.

[unriggable]

Not really, I would argue that Libertarianism is accepting the individual as a sovereign of his own and is an ideal way to protect liberties.

It's not like you're in danger because you in a socialist community...

[bradleybadly]

I don't think you're being judged for your pro-capitalism, bradleybadly.

It might have more to do with with being obnoxious:

Bradleybadly wrote:

nonsensical socialist idiots

LMFAO

wanted to point out just how right I was

What's your problem?

selfish, selfish, selfish

Yes, because we all know that radiojake has NEVER called PhatJoey's son a murderer or chump. You guys can dish it out but not take it.

Ignorance is bliss...

Aww, go back to sodomizing your inflatable Al Gore sex doll.

[Snorri1234]

Yes, because we all know that radiojake has NEVER called PhatJoey's son a murderer or chump. You guys can dish it out but not take it.

I see.

And this helps your argument how?

Ignorance is bliss...

Aww, go back to sodomizing your inflatable Al Gore sex doll.

I see your point. Socialism is indeed very bad for everyone.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yes, because we all know that radiojake has NEVER called PhatJoey's son a murderer or chump. You guys can dish it out but not take it.

I see.

And this helps your argument how?

Ignorance is bliss...

Aww, go back to sodomizing your inflatable Al Gore sex doll.

I see your point. Socialism is indeed very bad for everyone.

Well, rj doesn't exactly seem capable of leading a correct debate, so frankly, the comment is entirely justified.

[got tonkaed]

napoleon, although that idea is nice it in fact reflects the very opposite of what macro level forces are briging on both the individual and the government. Frankly the imf/world bank and other international lenders are making high tariffs very economically impractical. Keynesian economics do not work when you have creditors who will zap your rating if you use protectionist policies.

While attempting to turn to the individual to assure sovernigty is also a nice notion, it should stand to reason that one of the many products of the current opening of society is that each individual person has less sovergnity and to attempt to infuse libertarian values will not address the systematic causes of this.

In short, its still a bit bunk.

[Snorri1234]

Yes, because we all know that radiojake has NEVER called PhatJoey's son a murderer or chump. You guys can dish it out but not take it.

I see.

And this helps your argument how?

Ignorance is bliss...

Aww, go back to sodomizing your inflatable Al Gore sex doll.

I see your point. Socialism is indeed very bad for everyone.

Well, rj doesn't exactly seem capable of leading a correct debate, so frankly, the comment is entirely justified.

I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

Yeah, totally justified....

[strike wolf]

I don't think anything in it's pure and undisturbed form is a good thing.

[graeme89]

Democrats believe in Socialism. It's just steal from the successful and give to the lazy in order to create equality. Why should everybody be equal? I say reward hard work and punish the lazy. Survival of the fittest baby!

What utter bullshit. There are billions of poor people in the world, are you saying that they are all lazy.
But what do you regard as socialism? Is it that people want to better their situation? So it's ok for you do do that but not those born into a less privelidged position. You stuck up hypocrite.
Soft middle class fucks like you dont realise that the so called socialist or union movements of the past gave you your soft arsed cushy lifestyle which you inherited from you parents and which you sell down the river to corporatism - another 'ism' no less extreme than socialism.

[bradleybadly]

To Snorri: Yeah, I'm just using the same tactics that socialist idiots here use. So if you don't like what I'm doing then so what. Obviously you're not there to reprimand radiojake when he does it. In fact you probably look at him as a hero of some sort because he was brave enough to hide behind his computer and shout out names against someone he didn't even know. Once again you guys know how to throw out the insults but you can't take it when someone returns the favor.

[Snorri1234]

To Snorri: Yeah, I'm just using the same tactics that socialist idiots here use. So if you don't like what I'm doing then so what. Obviously you're not there to reprimand radiojake when he does it. In fact you probably look at him as a hero of some sort because he was brave enough to hide behind his computer and shout out names against someone he didn't even know. Once again you guys know how to throw out the insults but you can't take it when someone returns the favor.

Oh yes, I worship Radiojake totally. You're right! I wish I could marry him!

But that's not actually what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that your insults do NOTHING to lend credibilty to your claims. Just as RJ's comments didn't do anything for his claims.

Claiming intellectual superiority because you can't think of a decent argument is just plain stupid. At least radiojake also put arguments in his posts.

[Napoleon Ier]

napoleon, although that idea is nice it in fact reflects the very opposite of what macro level forces are briging on both the individual and the government. Frankly the imf/world bank and other international lenders are making high tariffs very economically impractical. Keynesian economics do not work when you have creditors who will zap your rating if you use protectionist policies.

While attempting to turn to the individual to assure sovernigty is also a nice notion, it should stand to reason that one of the many products of the current opening of society is that each individual person has less sovergnity and to attempt to infuse libertarian values will not address the systematic causes of this.

In short, its still a bit bunk.

High tariffs are entirely possible. True, the world bank have been able to bully African nations, but look at India, which gives some goods a 68% import tariff. Honestly, I think protectionism should be limited. Its just a nuance in the vision I have of applied Libertarianism.

As for individual freedoms being restricted by the market that should do the opposite, I disagree. I believe a healthy nation infused with libertariansim will have exactly the kind of free market that will allow for competition to give he consumer unprecedented power.

[radiojake]

Don't think i've ever seen my name talked about in a thread so much. Also didn't think calling a marine a murderer would stir up so much shit (considering, a) if he has killed anyone before, he is, and b) that was in another thread)

Now some of the comments here seem a bit odd. The Al Gore sex doll? Is he some poster child for socialism now? Some people really do have a warped view of what it actually is. Apparently the democrats are socialists now!? Shhesh.

Obviously, growing up in the USA you would be the most qualified person here to ask this question. You wouldn't even know the first thing about socialism besides the rhetoric that would be fed to you from the 'red mongers'

Hear that everyone! If you grew up in the USA you are not qualified to even ask the question. LMFAO

By the way, that's what I'm talking about by socialist sympathizers judging other people.

Judging other people? What are you talking about. If this poll had started with neutral undertones, I don't think I would've written that quite so harsh, but straight after the poll question you came out with this:

I think this site is just full of nonsensical socialist idiots who judge anyone who doesn't believe like them. Let's find out just how many there are.

So it seemed quite clear to me that the point of this thread was to 'bash' socialism, rather than actually converse about it. I don't think I actually 'judged' you at all. I do stand by my comment that growing up in the US you would have limited knowledge, if at all, of how socialist countries and communities work. (Same with myself, which is why I quoted the guys I know who used to live in such situation) - but thats right. I'm the bad guy who didn't respect the soldier (sorry, marine!)

Yet, ironically, rj, socialism probably flouts every "liberal" principle you like to espouse. Socialism is very troubling as a political ideology due to its inherent nature : assuming that collective majority can appoint a grand overlording structure to regulate every aspect (directly or indirectly) of your life,is just extremely...well, wrong. Individuals cannot be made subservient to any state superstructure : they are entlitled to their govern their own life, liberty, and property.

Not bad, though having said this, I dont think I can agree with the notion (if you are implying it) that capitalism and democracy indeed gives people freedom to live their own 'life'. (I don't actually agree with land property all that much, but that is another issue).

Again, I must point out, that I am not a socialist! (seems to be a number who think I am) - and if you read carefully, I don't actually go out of my way to defend or endorse it. I merely re-told the story of the two guys I worked with.

[radiojake]

As for individual freedoms being restricted by the market that should do the opposite, I disagree. I believe a healthy nation infused with libertariansim will have exactly the kind of free market that will allow for competition to give he consumer unprecedented power.

That's all well and good for the consumer, but for the labourer forced into slave wage jobs to make the company 'competitive' it's not really lending itself to living a 'free and prosperous' life. Problem with free markets and capitalism is that profits and companies are given more rights and are more important than actual people.

[unriggable]

Ignorance is bliss...

Aww, go back to sodomizing your inflatable Al Gore sex doll.

Libertarianism says that corporations can make their working conditions as bad as they want, so if your so poor you can't afford health insurance because the pricks in the Oval Office don't support that type of shit and you get a broken arm by faulty machinery, its your fault, you're fucked. Now socialism says that the corporation has to meet a set of requirements and if their employees are hurt at work then they are required to pay for their injuries as it is their fault.

Care to re-evaluate?

[got tonkaed]

napoleon, although that idea is nice it in fact reflects the very opposite of what macro level forces are briging on both the individual and the government. Frankly the imf/world bank and other international lenders are making high tariffs very economically impractical. Keynesian economics do not work when you have creditors who will zap your rating if you use protectionist policies.

While attempting to turn to the individual to assure sovernigty is also a nice notion, it should stand to reason that one of the many products of the current opening of society is that each individual person has less sovergnity and to attempt to infuse libertarian values will not address the systematic causes of this.

In short, its still a bit bunk.

High tariffs are entirely possible. True, the world bank have been able to bully African nations, but look at India, which gives some goods a 68% import tariff. Honestly, I think protectionism should be limited. Its just a nuance in the vision I have of applied Libertarianism.

As for individual freedoms being restricted by the market that should do the opposite, I disagree. I believe a healthy nation infused with libertariansim will have exactly the kind of free market that will allow for competition to give he consumer unprecedented power.

if your not willing to admit that china and india get to play by different rules than the average country in this global system....then theres probably not much we can really say that would matter. Obviously india will be allowed certain oppertunities that other nations have, and that is certainly the execption rather than the rule.

[unriggable]

To Snorri: Yeah, I'm just using the same tactics that socialist idiots here use. So if you don't like what I'm doing then so what. Obviously you're not there to reprimand radiojake when he does it. In fact you probably look at him as a hero of some sort because he was brave enough to hide behind his computer and shout out names against someone he didn't even know. Once again you guys know how to throw out the insults but you can't take it when someone returns the favor.

Answer the fucking questions.

[bradleybadly]

To Snorri: Yeah, I'm just using the same tactics that socialist idiots here use. So if you don't like what I'm doing then so what. Obviously you're not there to reprimand radiojake when he does it. In fact you probably look at him as a hero of some sort because he was brave enough to hide behind his computer and shout out names against someone he didn't even know. Once again you guys know how to throw out the insults but you can't take it when someone returns the favor.

Answer the fucking questions.

Such a big boy now who knows how to say f*ck.

[radiojake]

To Snorri: Yeah, I'm just using the same tactics that socialist idiots here use. So if you don't like what I'm doing then so what. Obviously you're not there to reprimand radiojake when he does it. In fact you probably look at him as a hero of some sort because he was brave enough to hide behind his computer and shout out names against someone he didn't even know. Once again you guys know how to throw out the insults but you can't take it when someone returns the favor.

Answer the fucking questions.

Such a big boy now who knows how to say f*ck.

You really haven't put much discussion forward on the table yet bradley, please prove my assumption that you know nothing about socialism wrong. Please enlighten us with a nugget of wisdom that one would think you would have with starting this thread.

[bradleybadly]

You really haven't put much discussion forward on the table yet bradley

Now look who's talking, that's a riot! I seem to remember a certain thread about positive things happening in Iraq which you turned into a personal vendetta against PhatJoey. All from the safety of your computer you moronic piece of filth.

Please enlighten us with a nugget of wisdom that one would think you would have with starting this thread.

Alright but only a few nuggets. I know how opening yourself up to ideas which don't involve trashing the United States, capitalism, or the military might upset you.

Socialism is defined as having weak or non-existent property rights, high tariffs, high taxes against individuals, and heavy regulation of businesses.

In a capitalist country you can expect to have a higher average income, there is less than a 1% chance that your child will die during infancy, and you can expect to have a higher chance of living a longer life than if you lived in a socialist country. The poorest 10% of the populations living in the most capitalistic countries in the world still make more money than those who make the average income in the most socialist countries of the world.

Now I'm going to wait and see how you will say that what I wrote is biased and all bullshit. It's not a matter of if, just how.

[Symmetry]

In spite of its title, this thread belongs in flame wars. It was clearly started as an excuse to flame anyone who replied to it, and it will continue in that manner.

Don't feed the trolls.

[comic boy]

You really haven't put much discussion forward on the table yet bradley

Now look who's talking, that's a riot! I seem to remember a certain thread about positive things happening in Iraq which you turned into a personal vendetta against PhatJoey. All from the safety of your computer you moronic piece of filth.

Please enlighten us with a nugget of wisdom that one would think you would have with starting this thread.

Alright but only a few nuggets. I know how opening yourself up to ideas which don't involve trashing the United States, capitalism, or the military might upset you.

Socialism is defined as having weak or non-existent property rights, high tariffs, high taxes against individuals, and heavy regulation of businesses.

In a capitalist country you can expect to have a higher average income, there is less than a 1% chance that your child will die during infancy, and you can expect to have a higher chance of living a longer life than if you lived in a socialist country. The poorest 10% of the populations living in the most capitalistic countries in the world still make more money than those who make the average income in the most socialist countries of the world.

Now I'm going to wait and see how you will say that what I wrote is biased and all bullshit. It's not a matter of if, just how.

Please tell us what 'Socialist' countries you base these figures on.