Excessive taxation. Public monopolies over choice.
Last time I checked the government in Sweden were right wing, lowering taxes and disbanding monopolies to the best of their ability. But perhaps you know something I don't.
Topic: Why do people in USA fear socialism so much? - page 21. (Read 34889 times)
Last time I checked the government in Sweden were right wing, lowering taxes and disbanding monopolies to the best of their ability. But perhaps you know something I don't.
Excessive taxation. Public monopolies over choice.
Last time I checked the government in Sweden were right wing, lowering taxes and disbanding monopolies to the best of their ability. But perhaps you know something I don't.
You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.
Yes. Black or white. No shades of grey exists.
Welcome to the real world where all you have is the illusion of freedom then.
The same would be true in your anarco-capitalistic society where you would have to subject to the tyranny and force of whatever master that happen to hold your current contract.
Anarcho-capitalism allots for alienable rights?
You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.
Yes. Black or white. No shades of grey exists.
Welcome to the real world where all you have is the illusion of freedom then.
The same would be true in your anarco-capitalistic society where you would have to subject to the tyranny and force of whatever master that happen to hold your current contract.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.
Socialism entails planning. That includes planning of your career, your life and maybe even your spouse - Plato's pretty idea of an ideal state. Hayek made a pretty good point that "some socialism" is not stable. Only bad thing, some egocentric, individualistic, freedom loving people don't like their life planned by commitees - to the point that they actively resist. So society must educate them. With force, if need be. And dispose of them if they can't be cured. If many like you don't see that slippery slope to totalitarianism, we'll just slide down again.
But then, why not? Why not risking to sacrifice another couple hundred million on the altar of socialism? Possibly socialism doesn't go bad in all instances. Swedish socialism didn't, but Swedish socialism wasn't/isn't complete yet. But from what I hear, the Swedes are well on their way to their own totalitarian nightmare now. Let's see what a socialist Feminism gonna look like in the real world.
Where are the death camps in Sweden, Norway, Denmark then? Or are there no individualistic, freedom loving people there? Do you actually believe that all Finns have their lives planned by a committee? That the German state selects the spouse for them? Are you insane?
Unchecked, anything will go bad. That goes for socialism as well as capitalism.
What's the totalitarian nightmare Swedes have to look forward to? I must not have kept up with current events.
Excessive taxation. Public monopolies over choice.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.
Socialism entails planning. That includes planning of your career, your life and maybe even your spouse - Plato's pretty idea of an ideal state. Hayek made a pretty good point that "some socialism" is not stable. Only bad thing, some egocentric, individualistic, freedom loving people don't like their life planned by commitees - to the point that they actively resist. So society must educate them. With force, if need be. And dispose of them if they can't be cured. If many like you don't see that slippery slope to totalitarianism, we'll just slide down again.
But then, why not? Why not risking to sacrifice another couple hundred million on the altar of socialism? Possibly socialism doesn't go bad in all instances. Swedish socialism didn't, but Swedish socialism wasn't/isn't complete yet. But from what I hear, the Swedes are well on their way to their own totalitarian nightmare now. Let's see what a socialist Feminism gonna look like in the real world.
Where are the death camps in Sweden, Norway, Denmark then? Or are there no individualistic, freedom loving people there? Do you actually believe that all Finns have their lives planned by a committee? That the German state selects the spouse for them? Are you insane?
Unchecked, anything will go bad. That goes for socialism as well as capitalism.
What's the totalitarian nightmare Swedes have to look forward to? I must not have kept up with current events.
You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.
Yes. Black or white. No shades of grey exists.
You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.
Yes. Black or white. No shades of grey exists.
You can't have a mix of socialism and capitalism. You can either have autonomous freedom or a lack of it.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.
Socialism entails planning. That includes planning of your career, your life and maybe even your spouse - Plato's pretty idea of an ideal state. Hayek made a pretty good point that "some socialism" is not stable. Only bad thing, some egocentric, individualistic, freedom loving people don't like their life planned by commitees - to the point that they actively resist. So society must educate them. With force, if need be. And dispose of them if they can't be cured. If many like you don't see that slippery slope to totalitarianism, we'll just slide down again.
But then, why not? Why not risking to sacrifice another couple hundred million on the altar of socialism? Possibly socialism doesn't go bad in all instances. Swedish socialism didn't, but Swedish socialism wasn't/isn't complete yet. But from what I hear, the Swedes are well on their way to their own totalitarian nightmare now. Let's see what a socialist Feminism gonna look like in the real world.
I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this:
http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpg
That shoud be reason enough.
Why does it have to be all or nothing? What's with this fetish for "slippery slope" argumentation? OP claims to prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. Which I interpret as a mix. I think that's the right way. How much of each component should be re-evaluated often and changed according to needs of the people, in a democratic fashion.
So your metric is something like "the number of positive news articles"....jk. I will check it out, keeping my eye out for politician defined terms as I go.
What does it mean that Germany has "one of the best working economies in Europe"? I.e what metrics are you using?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Germanyhttp://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,797895,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/german-economy-strengthens-amid-europes-gloom/article2255727/
Feel free to read it yourself. Germany, despite being a socialistic nightmare with lazy citizens and zero innovation, actually does quite well. There are challenges ahead, but that's true for every single country on the planet, one way or another.
I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this:
http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpg
That shoud be reason enough.
I don't understand, maybe I'm just too young with whole cold-war mentality born just around collapse. Sure communism didn't work out very well.
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
But, I do prefer some socialism to pure capitalism. So I don't realy get this whole fear of it in USA, it can't be all bad or is it? Can someone explain it to me?
No idea what it feels like to be American, but according to Hayek, the end result of (national) socialism looks like this:
http://therealsouthkorea.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/s-killing-fields2.jpg
That shoud be reason enough.
There's some self-indulgent fantasy bnllshlt about the good old days that never actually existed.
Really?? Would you infringe on me knowing that there was a high likelihood of me killing you for doing it. What's it like to live in fear?
What does it mean that Germany has "one of the best working economies in Europe"? I.e what metrics are you using?
If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need??
Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too.
I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it.
So you're saying that there aren't any thieves in the Arab countries where they punish thieves by cutting their hand off?
And there's the death penalty in Texas. I can safely assume that no murders are ever committed there?
Funny thing about innovation. It works best under no stress conditions. Where you actually have the time to sit and think about how to do things. Not when you have to figure out where the next meal should come from. Sounds like something a socialist state is better at providing, don't you think?
And are you seriously suggesting that the whole country of Germany are lazy people? They're pretty socialist. Good thing that they are so lazy then, because if they weren't they'd probably take over the world, seeing how they are one of the best working economies in Europe, and have been for some time.
Quote
You obviously have no idea what socialism truly is.
you too 
Quote
If you mean classic socialism, how do you think the means of production, distribution, and exchange can be owned or regulated without some central authority ??
it does not need to be "owned or regulated".Quote
Even if you take it to the Marxist extreme of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism, how do you think it can be done without a central authority ??
Simple, people decides to do so.Quote
and if you take it to its most current version of an RBE-type existance where everyone throws their shit in a huge pile and shares, how will you get them to throw their shit into that pile without direct force ?? And who will be doing it if not a government or UN-like central authority making mandates and enforcing them ??
either anyone realizes that its a good idea to throw their shit into the pile. or would getting forced by people how thinks so(who does not have a central authority)Quote
Do you realize that under classic common law where there were no government and statutes, communities worked together in harmony and agreement, while retaining ALL of their birth rights, producing, distributing, and exchanging as they saw fit anmd as needed ??
i have absolutly no idea about what "classic common law" is, so i can not argue this point. BUT you are still talking about rights, which i already have clarified for you that they are no more then an illusion.Quote
It was how the world survived before government and politics. Their politics was surviving by working together.
They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.
have you considered that these people could be to some use for the society? and do you even have any proof of your claim of "little crimewith such penalties"?They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.
My proof of claim is common sense. There was alot of common sense back then. My proof is also YOU. If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need?? If you knew you would be killed for unlawfully killing someone else, would you still kill them?? If you knew you would be castrated for raping a woman, would you still rape her?? If you knew that you would be shot and killed for infringing on me or my property, would you still infringe on it, or would you develop labor and trade relationships to get what you need to survive??
your arguments seems flawed...
neither of us truly believes that.edit: and i needed to add my support for for following:
kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed.
Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too.
I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it.
also innovating is simple: people thinks its funny to explore and discover. their are often doing it not for profit, but for fun.
example: G.H. Hardy a mathematician who found it fun to do useless math, and even if it was useless at his time of living, his number theory have come to great help if making modern cryptography work. he did something he called clear mathematics(not sure if thats the best translation, but anyway im danish.) which was essentially useless math.
