Jump to content

SocialismÆs Trojan Horse


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

But, to be honest, some of your argument hinges on the communist-style socialism while others were just weird, some did make a bit of sence fortunatly. Oh, and for a person who bashed nomad on his insults you certainly don't mind breaking your own rule.

First, there's no difference between a little socialism and a lot of socialism. Is there a difference if you are enslaved 50% or 100%? You are still enslaved, and it is still wrong. Just because they take 50% from you instead of taking it all, and give it to another, doesn't make it ok. What's the difference? What if they were to pass a law in Canada? You don't get to keep ANY money from your paycheck. You have a job, any job, work 8 hours a day, 5 days a wee, and based on whatever criteria, you get monthly allotment from the government. So you are taken care of, you get to eat, you get a roof over your head, you get health care, and you get retirement. It doesn't matter if you work or not, you still get all those things, the ONLY difference would be, is how much your monthly allotment would be, a little more if you work, a little less if you don't. You think that's ok? What you have now is not that much different. You are ALLOWED, instead of ENTITLED, to keep about 50% of what you make. The rest of your labor, goes towards providing a living for someone else, YOU therefore by DEFENITION and LITERALLY are a slave of that whom you are FORCED TO SUPPORT, without your concent, with your labor. And your retirement will be only marginally better than the other person whom you supported all your life. You ended up paying for the roof over their head, for their food, for their clothes, for their healthcare, and for their retirement. All of that came at the expense of a better car for yourself, a better house for yourself, a better life for your kids, a better education for your kids, more/better vacations for you and your wife, and at the expense of your OWN retirement. Now does that sound good to you if you are a self sufficient human being? Of course not. Does that sound good to you if you are the leech? Of course it does. The ONLY people who support liberalism/socialism are the leeches themselfs, those who benefit from the labor of another person by obtaining the products of his labor through socialism (looting), the slave drivers themselfs (politicians, judges, ect...the people who keep the system in place), and thouse who have nothing to offer but want to be provided for in return. Otherwise, if you are none of the above and still support socialism, you might be an ultra rich person (like Kennedys) that has their money sheltered from the effects of socialism and the advocation of such system is their ticket to maintaining power, OR you are sick in your head and a person who has a low self esteem or self worth that is willing to hurt himself or his family by helping another, which is a recognized mental dissorder.

Second. How did you put it? Me bashing Nomad on his insults? So you saying he insulted me first and I bashed him back? Lets see, first of all, if he insulted me first and I were to bash him back, I would be FULLY justified in replying to his insult with any retort I want, however, seeing as I do not care about Nomads opinion about me, his insults mean zilch to me, I usually don't even reply to them.

So, in light of all this, why don't you go ahead and QUOTE me where I steped in and insulted Nomad first. I doubt you will. I however, can with absolute 100% certainty quote you Nomads posts insulting me outright. You know what my reply is? I laugh, because in instances like that, I picture a grown man with an under-developed sence or reasoning and the best reply that man can come up with to counter facts brought up in a disscussion he has an opposing view in, is insult thrown towards a man presenting him those facts. ROFL, guess whos position is strenghtened in that situation.

[ 12-13-2005, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

First, there's no difference between a little socialism and a lot of socialism.

I disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Second. How did you put it? Me bashing Nomad on his insults? So you saying he insulted me first and I bashed him back? Lets see, first of all, if he insulted me first and I were to bash him back, I would be FULLY justified in replying to his insult with any retort I want, however, seeing as I do not care about Nomads opinion about me, his insults mean zilch to me, I usually don't even reply to them.

So, in light of all this, why don't you go ahead and QUOTE me where I steped in and insulted Nomad first. I doubt you will. I however, can with absolute 100% certainty quote you Nomads posts insulting me outright. You know what my reply is? I laugh, because in instances like that, I picture a grown man with an under-developed sence or reasoning and the best reply that man can come up with to counter facts brought up in a disscussion he has an opposing view in, is insult thrown towards a man presenting him those facts. ROFL, guess whos position is strenghtened in that situation.

You missed my point... (oh and you just did )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dissagree? That's your whole argument? Try again Aperson. Let me teach you. Give reasons and use FACTS and logic to back up those reasons with. Emotions won't argue your points here for you. That only works on political arena in front of an ignorant audience.

And no, I didn't. I told you what I picture when I read a reply directed at me as an insult. It doesn't apply only to Nomad, it applied to ANYONE who argues facts with insults.

As for me missing your point. What was your point then? You said that I broke my rules. What would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

If you compare economic freedom, and the ability to make money to slavery over others, then you have failed to read my next post after the question. Which DISCUSSES economic freedom and compares it to government regulation. It shows how economic freedom is NOT slavery as you are free to make money or to be a beach bum.


I understood the part of text you mention above. I merely tried to show the connection between power and money(don't claim that you havent heard it before). Yes, one's money is stored labour(his or others) that can be traded. This is what the text claimed and it can be easily agreed on, at certain point.

However, if one doesen't want to be a beachbum, he may have to accept to do work that his moral disagrees on. Now he is forced to do things regardless of his opposition. I merely showed that following strictly the definations of power and slavery, almost every human action including power can be defined to be slavery of some degree.

That text you referred on also claimed that consumers have the ultimate power. Wrong again. Consumers have power to some extent, but ultimately power belongs to those owning the means of production and capital(sounds very Marxists).

It is very true, especially in modern society. Too many people are depentant on the industrialists which owns the means of production(bear in mind, that I amn speaking in large scope, not meaning you or me, but whole society. Altho you or me may be capable to find replacement work, everyone isn't). People can't just quit their jobs and start cultivating the land or something. Their living standards(which they like to keep) are depending on the salary that someone is giving you as a trade good for your work.

quote:

Second, LOL, learn history. Europe expelled their criminals to Australia, NOT America.


I honestly don't know what kind of history they teach in schools of america(not to mention the so called 'his''story'-books that may be commonly available). It must be very interesting history, tho I doubt it's accuracy. Anyway, while they expelled criminals in Aurstralia, they expelled em into america aswell. It was common rule in every imperialistic country to expel unwanted people into the colonies.

-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

He has made enough money to retire TWICE! This is America! It CAN be done!


Indeed. In many countries twice is nothing for goverment keeps taking your money everytime! But then again, there are countries where only once is suffient.

-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

You dissagree? That's your whole argument? Try again Aperson. Let me teach you. Give reasons and use FACTS and logic to back up those reasons with. Emotions won't argue your points here for you. That only works on political arena in front of an ignorant audience.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:
A little bit of socialism, is like being a "little bit" Pregnant...

Is a person who is a "little bit" religious the same as someone who is devote? Is the person who drinks a "little bit" of alcohol at the same mental state as someone who drinks copious amounts?

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

And no, I didn't. I told you what I picture when I read a reply directed at me as an insult. It doesn't apply only to Nomad, it applied to ANYONE who argues facts with insults.

Eh? It can be interpreted that way. Plus your insulting tone in your posts when someone disagrees with you (or even if they havenÔÇÖt yet) doesnÔÇÖt help your arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

As for me missing your point. What was your point then? You said that I broke my rules. What would that be?

Err, perhaps it would be clearer if I rephrased: Why did jump on nomad for insulting you (rightfully so) and yet don't mind making veiled insults?

Unless insulting for no reason (especially when your making a point ) is ok with you (which I would question).

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Do you believe that man is inherently giving, or that man is inherently greedy?

I would like to think the former, but some things make me question that. But certainly most people are generous to people they know well and like (for obvious reasons). Also experiments have shown that humans (and some other animals) have a very strong sence of "fairness", even if enforcing it results as a loss to themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:
It's funny that a guy who called me monster and abomination accuses me to insult him. Do you mind to cite any instance ?

There are lots, don't kid yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I'am glad for your daddy. However, This doesen't solve the widespread disfunctionnality of retirement plans in the US, nor the fact that you have atm a few millions elder that had to work again due to the losses they incurred in the stockmarket a few years ago.

There is absolutely no "disfunctionality" with retirement in America. It is the people who don't plan properly for retirement and expect the government to provide everything they need when they get older who are dysfunctional. The people who are infected with the socialist bug, I might add.

Retirement is not a right. It is your responsibility and no one elses to ensure that you can retire and live comfortably. The lack of proper prior planning on someone else's part does not make a crisis on mine. As a society, we take care of the elderly, the infirm, and the handicapped. Everyone else better get off their lazy butts and do for themselves, or learn to like the taste of dog food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Prez:

I'am glad for your daddy. However, This doesen't solve the widespread disfunctionnality of retirement plans in the US, nor the fact that you have atm a few millions elder that had to work again due to the losses they incurred in the stockmarket a few years ago.

So, what about not loosing your accumulated retirement capital whatever happen to the business you work for (like in the EU, for example), and enjoying guarantees that the funds managed by businesses as pension plans are legally strictly reserved for this purpose (EU again...) ?

Here's the deal. That "not loosing your accumulated retirement capital" you are talking about. Is NOT yours. It's BELONGS to the people that have WORKED their lives away, and government TOOK their work, bundled it up, and spreads it around once their generation hits retirement age. That money can be lost too. Not only is that money DILUTED by re-distributing it between the people that have worked and also the ones who have not, BUT also because if the economy declines (inflation), your retirement money that's given to you from the government, would not be worth much. And if the government compensates and tries to fullfill their promise of "good" retirement, their only choice would be to either increase taxes on the people of working age (more burden on them, more socialism created, and they become trapped deeper into socialism, that's how the system BUILD ONTO itself generation after generation till the collapse), OR to print more money and infuse it into the economy, which INCREASES the inflation even more, therefore adding to the problem of retirees allotments not being able to buy much, and STILL through higher than otherwise would be inflation increasing the burden on people of working age.

quote:

Soback:

Then, I don't know where you found your definition of capitalism, and I suspect that you mix again your whishes with semantics. The following definition, the one I use, comes from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

CAPITALISM: also called free market economy, or free enterprise economy economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which most of the means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.

As you may see, there is no endogen instrinsic political dimension in it. You may implement capitalism under a dictature, like what happened in Chile under Pinochet or in Panama under Noriega. Another matter are political systems who take a varying degree of direct control on the economy. This control exists in any country who isn't in chaos. It doesen't matter if a system gives less and takes back nothing, or gives much and takes back a good share of your income. At the end, the result is the same: you aren't free to do as you please.


You are wrong Nomad. For true Capitalism to exist, there HAVE to be laws in place that PROTECT your OWNERSHIP, and RIGHTS of freedom. Otherwise that said Capitalism as you quote it, is nothing more than anarchy or socialism. In both cases the powers be (under anarchy) or the government (under socialism) leaves you be long enough to make money, but there's NO GUARANTEE that you will be FREE to keep what is RIGHTFULLY yours, what you have obtained from your labor, be it establishing a company or actually working as laborer. When it can all be taken away by a thug demanding protection money, as would the case be in South America, or the government beurocrat knocking on your office door and sweet talking to you about the law and there's ways to "overlook" something that was passed that law to give the government the right to COLLECT or appropriate bussinesses outright. Both cases are NOT capitalism. Like I said, Capitalism doesn't go hand in hand with lawlessness, quite the contrary, for TRUE Capitalism to exist, the laws of RIGHTFULL ownership and FREEDOMS need to exist, and the reasons why Capitalism is crumbling in US even though those laws exist, is because those said laws also need to be UPHELD.

So no, when the products of your labor can be taken away and dissapear at any moment at the hands of thugs or greedy corrupt government, you are NOT free to do as you wish. Because you are not FREE to stop them and keep what you have worked to create.

quote:

It is psychologically particularly revealing that you link capitalism with happyness, and make abstraction of the millions of individuals suffering conditions like depression. The day you may reach a level of financial disponibility allowing you to spend without any kind of consideration, you will learn that what money does is buying illusions, not happyness. Happyness is something you have to find for yourself, and first comes by being wise enough to enjoy what you have and not to focus on the superficial & futile. Did you ever saw that there are individuals who always emit positivism, no matter the challenges they may face, when other ones get depressed for the smallest problem ? Mind over matter, bud, and it isn't money who will get you there...


Yes, poor people can be happy too, just like slaves can be happy too. Just because you can achieve happiness INSPITE of all the injustice, doesn't mean that it's ok to be bearing all that injustice. Just because you are happy in your personal life when you get home after working all day, and have half your labor taken away to support another, it still not ok. Your personall happiness is no justification on government taking what's yours to feed a leech. So you can't say to a person that is protesting the confiscation of his labor "Don't be foolish, money is not everything, go find your happiness with what you have left". That's what the communists told my grand granfather when they took his property away. The fact remains, taking something that doesn't belong to you, is a CRIMINAL act, and CONFISCATING part of your labor to feed another against your will, is enslaving you TO that other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

I understood the part of text you mention above. I merely tried to show the connection between power and money(don't claim that you havent heard it before). Yes, one's money is stored labour(his or others) that can be traded. This is what the text claimed and it can be easily agreed on, at certain point.

However, if one doesen't want to be a beachbum, he may have to accept to do work that his moral disagrees on. Now he is forced to do things regardless of his opposition. I merely showed that following strictly the definations of power and slavery, almost every human action including power can be defined to be slavery of some degree.


You see Volio. Money is not power, it's a common misconseption that socialists teach you, because once you think that money is power, then they can tell you that money is evil because those that have money, therefore have power, and they can use that power to make people do things. So, since I said that money is NOT power, let me make a correct statement and explain it to you. MONEY does not equal power, money equals FREEDOM. Here's why. If money equaled power, then by that judgement you would have the power to FORCE someone against their FREE WILL, that is incorrect. If you tell a person I will give you 10 million dollars to cut off your finger, he WOULD NOT do it (some would do it as BECAUSE they made a calculation in their head that that finger and the pain beared is WORTH 10 million, it will buy them FREEDOM to pursue their wants and wishes, they would be cutting off their finger WILLINGLY, and that money would be compensation EARNED, not because you have POWER over them by having money), if that said beach bum does not want to be a beach bum, money has NO POWER to go make him work, he is FREE to live without money any way he wants, HOWEVER he would have to get a job or do something to GET MONEY to expand his FREEDOM OF CHOICES to fullfill his wants/needs. Money holds no power over him, the only thing money would do, is grant him more freedom and greater range of choices. Do you see the difference? The same thing was taught to me in Russia. That money is evil, being rich is evil, ect...later on in my life I learned/understoond/comprehended WHY it was taught to me that way, because once you make a link that money is power, power can be used in bad ways, and therefore can be evil and that was their justification for only FEW SELECT individuals in government having money, because they are looking out for you and your best interests and have the money (power) to protect you from evil. In America, I learned that money does NOT equal power (Communists reasoning why only select, smart, responsible individuals should have money), money equals FREEDOM and therefore EVERYONE should be FREE to make and KEEP their money. People work and earn money because they want to be free from labor once they hit retirement, they work and earn money because they want to be free to go on the vacation to Hawaii, they work and earn money because they want to be free to do whatever it is that they want. When the government takes the products your labor (money) away from you, they are taking away your freedom, when the government gives those products of your labor (money) to someone else, they are therefore making you WORK for that person, no matter your concent, and when you HAVE to work for that persons living, you are therefore a slave to them. It does not matter if only 10% of your labor goes to that other, or 50% or 100%, you are still a slave.

quote:

That text you referred on also claimed that consumers have the ultimate power. Wrong again. Consumers have power to some extent, but ultimately power belongs to those owning the means of production and capital(sounds very Marxists).


Really, so if a company made a product that is so bad as to be useless to you, you would still buy it? The CEO, owner of that company have that much power as to get money out of you without your consent? They really hold that much power? WOW. Unbelievable. By now you probably realized what a folly that statement of yours was, and also realized who has the ultimate power, as NO BUSSINESS can FUNCTION without PROFITS. The ONLY bussiness or industry that can function without profits is GOVERNMENT RUN BUSSINESS/INDUSTRY. That's why government run bussiness/industry ALWAYS end up bleeding the country dry till collapse.

quote:

It is very true, especially in modern society. Too many people are depentant on the industrialists which owns the means of production(bear in mind, that I amn speaking in large scope, not meaning you or me, but whole society. Altho you or me may be capable to find replacement work, everyone isn't). People can't just quit their jobs and start cultivating the land or something. Their living standards(which they like to keep) are depending on the salary that someone is giving you as a trade good for your work.


You are wrong. Just like I told you that people are free to buy or not to buy ANY product on the market. So are they free to design and produce their own product if they like it better than what's available on the market. That's how MAJORITY of US bussinesses are started. A person sees the gap in the market for a particular product that can do the job better than an existing one, or there's no existing one, and he designs, patents, and hires a factory owner to make that product for him (which is surprisingly cheap by the way, considering that you will spend less than half the final value of the product when you hire on another persons factory to make it for you, obviously depending on the complexity of the product, you might even end up building your own factory for it). You are in NO WAY obligated to keep working, you are free to quit at any time. The standard of living you use to back up your statment of people being a slave to corporations, money, or thier jobs, is a REWARD for their work, it is NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. You are NOT entitled to the tv, or a car, or a nice house, or even food for that matter. ALL of those things are REWARDS that you are FREE to buy when you get return on your labor, otherwise known as money. That also backs up my point why money doesn't equal power, but rather freedom. Aren't you free to move away from society and go cultivate fields or pick berries? Of course you are, the drop in your quality of life is nothing more than a consequence of your choice. You have to trade YOUR labor for YOUR quality of life, you shouldn't be entitled to OTHERS labor to provide you with YOUR quality of life.

[ 12-14-2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

Is a person who is a "little bit" religious the same as someone who is devote? Is the person who drinks a "little bit" of alcohol at the same mental state as someone who drinks copious amounts?


So having 50% of your earnings taken away and given to another is somehow better than having 100% of your earnings confiscated? Does taking only half of your money instead of all of it, to provide for another against your will, somehow diminish the criminal act of taking it away from you without your consent? So is being 1 month pregnant as opposed to being 8 months pregnant is less pregnant? So taking 50% as opposed to taking 100% to run the society is what? Less socialist? Somehow it's better? The fact of half your labor supporting someone else instead of your family is diminshed by your excuse of "it's half and not all"? Being a slave 50% is better than being a slave 100%?

No, it's NOT. Being NO SLAVE is better than being A slave (be it 1% or 100%), PERIOD.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

And no, I didn't. I told you what I picture when I read a reply directed at me as an insult. It doesn't apply only to Nomad, it applied to ANYONE who argues facts with insults.

quote:

Eh? It can be interpreted that way. Plus your insulting tone in your posts when someone disagrees with you (or even if they havenÔÇÖt yet) doesnÔÇÖt help your arguments.

And you interpreting my reaction to facts argued with insults is a concern for me HOW? The tone I take is interpreted by YOUR brain, and therefore if you take offense to it, it's YOUR problem that you need to deal with, not mine. I present to you my statements, I reason them to you, and I back them up with facts for you. If you dissagree and take offense at my factual tone, it might have to do more with you having an opposing view point and not being able to argue that view point with reason and facts, not with the tone I use. If we were talking in person, I wouldn't raise my voice and yell, NOR would I speak with low soft voice as to try and make it psychologically easier for you to accept the reasons backed up by facts, for I don't need to be in any way appologetic for having a view point that difers from yours, nor do I need to be sorry while telling you that you are wrong and providing you with reasons and facts as to why. I talk to you respectfully, like one human being to another, it's when you try to reason and back up a statement with nothing but emotion as to whys in your reasons (in this case what makes others entitled to your labor) is when I start losing that respect, as a thug yelling at me to hand over my wallet is no better than a thug telling me he needs to feed his kids while robbing me.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

As for me missing your point. What was your point then? You said that I broke my rules. What would that be?

quote:

Err, perhaps it would be clearer if I rephrased: Why did jump on nomad for insulting you (rightfully so) and yet don't mind making veiled insults?


So me telling someone why they are wrong is veiled insults? When I take something that is wrong (like having 50% of your paycheck taken away) and show you the extreemly wrong situation (like having 100% of your paycheck taken away), and then call the person that tells me that my money is not mine, but someone elses, call that person a theif, you consider that a veiled insult? If so, then go ahead and explaing how a thug robbing you on the street to feed his kids is any different than a mother on wellfare given the money that you made, the same money that was take away from you by the government for the purpose of feeding her kids, and how a person that tells me that my money RIGHTFULLY belong to that mother on wellfare is any different from that same thug, for he is doing EXACTLY what that thug is doing.

[ 12-14-2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Well, I never name called anybody here. Furthermore, I'am interested by what Soback defines as an insult

Come now Nomad. Do you really want to go down this road? You know that I don't make a statement unless I can back it up.

So, like I told you, I took no offense at your prior insults because your personal opinion of me means nothing, as that opinion has no bearing on validity of my posts. Also, I value my time, and would regret wasting it on browsing through the forum just to prove on whos been insulting whom.

Seeing all this, why don't we come to an agreement that favors us both. You don't insult me in the future, I will do the same, and we both save the time arguing about this, and instead spend it actually debating things, like this Socialism the Trojan horse thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money can be power. However, not all things that allow a person to be powerful can acomplish the same thing, and it dosn't always have to be over people. Money of course can't directly do things that strength or intelliegnce can, e.g. move a boulder or do stupidly hard math. However it can be used to hire someone to do above, buy a peice of equipment to do so, bribe someone etc. allowing a person, indirectly, to become "more powerful". Yes, you could view it as freedom I suppose, but power can help you become "more free". Which also helps explain when some people do stupid things for it.

quote:

Really, so if a company made a product that is so bad as to be useless to you, you would still buy it? The CEO, owner of that company have that much power as to get money out of you without your consent? They really hold that much power? WOW. Unbelievable. By now you probably realized what a folly that statement of yours was, and also realized who has the ultimate power, as NO BUSSINESS can FUNCTION without PROFITS. The ONLY bussiness or industry that can function without profits is GOVERNMENT RUN BUSSINESS/INDUSTRY. That's why government run bussiness/industry ALWAYS end up bleeding the country dry till collapse.

Advertisments can be scarily effective sometimes (especialy when aimed at younger audiences).

quote:

So having 50% of your earnings taken away and given to another is somehow better than having 100% of your earnings confiscated?

Err, yeah (unless if you got to choose between losing half your money and all of it you would have an equal chance to choose one or the other). Granted having taxes that dosn't involve income tax would be best.

quote:

So taking 50% as opposed to taking 100% to run the society is what?

Mind clearning up how you "half" run a sociaty.

About your tone: Placing in the "Too much to read?", implying that people have a mental disorder and that they are uneducated etc. etc. is what I view as a having a "insulting tone". If you had only a factual tone, I would have no problem, but you don't. Also, if you are percived with a tone you don't think you have, I would think one might want to look into it a bit harder.

quote:

So me telling someone why they are wrong is veiled insults?

No this:

quote:

Too much for you to read maybe?

is what I would consider a "veiled insult".

Some things to think about:

The US has the highest cost per capita than any other country despite not having the highest life expectansy or not having the lowest child mortality rates. However, this might have more to do with the US health care system liking to pump people full of drugs rather than look at lifestyle choices.

Private company researchers are many more times likely to get a positive result for a drug than goverment agencies. However, laws implemented to stop drug companies from firing/sueing a researcher for negative results might help this problem. Also requireing companies to release research after a certain amount of time should help.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/sub...rescribing.html

(Blah, don't you hate it when you pick up a tidbit of information somewhere yet fate seems to conspire against you so you can't find it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he is trying to do, is give you reasons why you should pay for someone elses living, food, medical care. He is saying you need to be a good slave and work to support not only yourself, but also anyone and everyone else, because then, instead of having the leeches die, they will live along your side and retire with you.

Hey, I can have a slave. I can feed him, clothe him, make sure he takes his every day showers and gets treated if he gets sick. I will also send him out to work 10 hour days starting at age 15 and ending at 65. Once he is done, I will give him $1000 allowance till he kicks the bucket for good. WOW, hold on. Why have just one slave and work him 10 hour days, and take all of his labor. Lets redo the math, err, no I meant lets be more, how do socialists put it, modern? humane? progressive? yeah, all of those, lets be more modern, humane and progressive, lets say humane and kind one more time to make it sound better, and don't forget, we are all human, we are all entitled to a living, no matter the slavery, errr, sorry, no matter the costs. How about I have 20 slaves, they work 6 to 8 hour days with a month a year off, that way I won't need to work them as hard. Also, I won't need to take ALL their pay from them, I will just take 25% or so for MY living. We ALL get health care, we ALL get food, we ALL get retirement, the only difference is THEY work, and I WILL NOT, but we ALL will be taken care of by THEIR labor, they will have no choice but to support me, forget that house one of them wanted, me and my familys living is more important than what he wants in return for his labor, he HAS to support MY family first, HIS wants beyond the essentials such as shelter, food, medical, retirement, are secondary. Sounds familiar? I wouldn't be surprised, because that's the systeme they have in Canada, Europe and plethora of other Socialist countries.

So don't try to justify slavery of your fellow men by saying that their labor is confiscated for the good of the society. The Communists in Russia already tried that excuse, and we all saw the results. Once it gets started (as some say "a little bit of socialism is not bad" it means "a little bit of slavery is not bad") it's a self perpetuating circle that build onto itself and grows EVERY generation, till you have the working class toiling away and not seeing any significant improvment in their condition of life if they work 8 hours, 12 hours or don't work at all. Once that happens, guess which option they will chose. It's already happening in US, when a mother has a child, she has an option to go on government assistance or work. Once the cost of babysitting is taken out of the paycheck, it will be the same as if she were to go on government assitance. Guess which option they chose. Guess also which option the highly educated and skilled chose when they don't see a return, after having spend 6 to 10 years acuiring knowledge or skill for their career.

"The corporation has a duty to its stockholders to make a profit. Many retired people depend on their investments for a living. Professionals did not spend years of their life in school in order to just get by financially. When taxes go up, prices that corporations and professionals charge need to go up in order to maintain profits. Under Taxpayer Slavery, taxpayers end up paying for taxes on corporations and professionals twice. They pay the higher prices for goods and services plus they pay higher taxes for welfare recipients in order for those welfare recipients to be able to pay the higher prices for goods and services. This is how the prices of many goods and services such as medical services are so expensive. When the Democrats play their 'get even with the rich' games, we all suffer."

"Liberals think that life is a lottery and there are winners and losers. The winners must be forced to help the "losers of life's lottery". This point of view plays into the human nature tendencies of laziness and irresponsibility.

Conservatives believe in the individuals ability to rise above the circumstance in his individual life and make himself a winner, they believe the school of hard knocks is a good way to learn the needed lessons to be a winner. Giving them a hand out steals the lessons from them that they need to learn in order to rise above their current situation. This point of view counteracts the human nature tendencies of laziness and irresponsibility."

"For many many years the Democrats having been doing the song and dance "vote for me and I'll take the money from these people and give it to you via Medicare, Food Stamps, public housing etc. etc. etc." Since when did it become ok for one U.S. citizen to help himself to the labor of another U.S. citizen via voting for a Democrat? It is the dirtiest game in town. When a Democrat uses the leverage of the labor of the taxpayer to get elected, many times it is a Republican who ends up funding their vote buying programs, it is the worst kind of campaign finance abuse. Any Republican politicians reading this should now be clear on what is expected from them, living up to their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC! Any Republican politicians reading this should now know how to argue their case. You can start with telling the tax and spend Democrats, who continue to try and enslave me after you inform them of this information, that you are going to have them removed from office because they waived they're right to hold that office by violating their oath of office."

"As leaders of socialism in the U.S.A., Democrat politicians and the people who vote for them promote/cause the involuntary servitude taxpayers currently labor under, defined here as Taxpayer Slavery. Until Democrats aggressively start deleting government run socialism, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Slavery."

"Taxpayer servitude started with the assistance programs created by Franklin D. Roosevelt when people were willing to go along with it during the Great Depression. It was still unconstitutional and therefore illegal, but people let it slide, after all Federal taxes were not so high and it was an "emergency". As usual, when government is able to grab some power, that power extra power will cause added corruption. Today the Taxpayer Slavery is totally out of control. Many families have working mothers and their income ends up paying the amount of taxes their family has to pay each year. Think about the labor involved to pay this level of taxation and how much better off our families would be if all of that time and effort could be spent raising our own children. Money problems are the #1 reason for divorce. We need to end taxpayer slavery for the children's sake."

Quoting the average life span, and trying to justify slavery by saying that people in Socialist countries live 5 years longer. At WHAT EXPENSE. You forgot that. They get to live longer at the expense of me owning my own house, at the expense of my vacations, at the expense of my childrens education, at the expense of my retirement, and at the expense of my money, at the expense of my labor, at the expense of me fullfilling my wants with MY mone and MY labor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Capitalism is an economic model. What the heck does it have to do with mortality rates? Comparing apples to toilet brushes again?

Perhaps nothing. But currently the US health care model is horribly flawed in some way as Americans pay the most (per capita) but don't seem to get any benefit of that.

Soback: I would agree that the welfare model needs to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prices for our healthcare have been drastically inflated by government and illegals. Here's how:

When a person that does not have medical insurance, mostly illegals because they do not have a job that gives them medical, nor do they bother to buy medical insurance, walk into a hospital. The hospital CAN NOT deny them care. However, they can recieve treatment, and WALK OUT from that hospital without paying. What do you think happens when a normal American walks in, be it with insurance or without? Now the hospital has to make up the losses incurred, and therefore will charge MORE for their products/services. So they charge an obsene ammount either to his insurane provider, or if he doesn't have any, well guess what, an American citizen has a social security number, and they will be suing him to collect. So the American citizen not only ends up paying for food stamps and wellfare, but also for medical care for himself and illegals. Great isn't it.

Second. Here's how it's inflated by the government. A guy I know actually had personal experience with this one. I'll tell his story at the end.

When the government starts paying for medical as one of it's social programs, hospitals can charge whatever they want and get away with it. Government pretty much NEVER questions the bills (unlike a private insurance company, that would check and double check to make sure they are getting charged fairly). So the hospital can charge them $300 bucks for a band aid. Yes, that's right, a band aid. So what happens to the prices then? Well, they get inflated.

So now American citizen is paying for the illgelas that hospitals can never collect from, then they are also paying the prices that have been inflated on top of that by government "insurance". Really great huh. Hospitals are privately run, and over a dozen of them closed in California last year because they simply could not function with all the losses they incurred because of the illegals getting treated, and other people they can't collect from. Yet they have to follow government mandated law that says you can not refuse service to anyone. So the normal working people end up suffering the high, inflated prices, the poorer quality of care, and less hospitals all around.

Here's the story about that guy. He showed up for his appointment to get his toe wound checked. The doc looked at it, the nurse cleaned it. They slapped some medicine and a band aid on it and set him free. Later on the bill shows up for OVER $3500. He went back to the hospital to dispute the charges, as all it was is a 15 minute visit, medicine, and a band aid. When they gave him an itemized list, he saved it for laughs (that's how I know this story, I saw the list). They were charging him hundreds of dollars for a band aid, over a thousand for 5 minutes the doc spend with him, and over a thousand for the 10 minutes the nurse cleaned it and wraped it, so the medicine and band aid came to a little over a thousand too. So the guy asked to see the supervise, and went all the way up to the guy managing the hospital. Once he did that, the whole bill was dropped to a little over $400 bucks.

Yeah, you are right, our medical care is screwed up. But not the way you say it is. Our medical care is screwed up by the illegals and by government medling. Whenever government puts their paws into something, the whole operation goes to *insert*. It's ALWAYS like that, always. The medical system was great before medicare and medical got introduced. It was good, and it was affordable, everyone could have it. Now the only ones that can have it are the illegals, the leeches, and those whos job provides for it, the people that just get out of high school, go to college and work part time at McDonalds are the ones suffering. Just like the people that are slightly below middle class, they are the ones who don't qualify for leeching, but at the same time can't afford insurance nor can they pay the hospital bills. Great system.

Solution; First, if you are an illegal, guess what, you are not receiving care, you are in this country ILLEGALLY. Get rid of government medical and medicare. Prices for EVERYONE will drop drastically. If you don't work and require treatment, you will have to rely on help from charities (just like it should be), for everyone else, even with low paying jobs medical care should become more than affordable since they will not have to pay the tripple bill, once for the leeches (lower taxes), second for illegals (lower prices for medical care), and third time for government provided medical care (drastically lower prices for medical care).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct, all American citizens should get a health identification card much like Ontario (and I think the rest of Canada) has. However instead of not treating illegals (that would be immoral) said illegals should than soon after be deported (unless they have proper identification, in which case they arenÔÇÖt an illegal). If someone a visiting member they should have to pay.

And how does Medicare explain the high prices as countries that have mixed health-care systems (e.g. Canada) still manage to have lower healthcare costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not treating illegals is immoral? So, me having to pick up the bill for their treatments is not immoral? Here I am, working, earning money, and then have a portion of that money taken away and go towards treating someone that violated this countrys laws by crossing the border ILLEGALLY, that's not immoral huh? I thought we just had this whole discussion how when you take money away from the person that worked for them, it's therefore HIS LABOR that you are taking away. And when you spend his labor on things that do not benefit him, you are therefore enslaving him to the people you spend his labor on. You forcefully, without his concent, make him WORK for those peoples medical care (in this case).

Why are you justifying slavery?

And you missed the point. NO American should have a health identification card. NO American should pay for his fellow Americans health care. If you would get rid of the law that states that hospitals HAVE to treat illegals, and if you also get rid of government subsidized medical care, the prices be it private insurance or out of pocket expenses WILL drop as to be affordable for average working American. Those who do not work and therefore do not make money should then depend on good will of the people, aka CHARITY, as it should be. They should NOT be entitled to the products of others labor (aka money), without other peoples consent of giving it to them. Otherwise it's called looting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me clarify as to your next question as how would the hospital differentiate between an illegal or an American citizen. The answer is, they wouldn't have to. The option would be, either pay or leave and go to charity funded hospital. If a charity funded hospital doesn't ask for any government issued ID and don't mind treating illegals and having less money left over to treat American citizens that would relly on charity, that's their decission, and I am sure there would be charity hospitals that would advertise "We ASK for government ID to make sure you donations benefit OUR CITIZENS", and those would take in the most dontaions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider leaving someone to die to be immoral.

But really, charity seems to do the best when there is some big disaster as opposed to something being lesser at any one time, but being a continous effect.

Oh and

quote:

And how does Medicare explain the high prices as countries that have mixed health-care systems (e.g. Canada) still manage to have lower healthcare costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/news/a..._19478596.shtml

"The Wisconsin Hospital Association estimates that commercial insurersÔÇÖ hospital costs increase about 15 percent because of the shortfall in Medicare reimbursements.

While the new recommendation will help ease the federal deficit, it will do so on the backs of taxpayers who are already struggling with rising health insurance premiums and costs."

---> So not only do we ALREADY pay for their medicare through our taxes, we ALSO pay to make up the difference by having higher costs for our OWN insurance. Remember that little law the government passed, the one that states that hospitals HAVE to provide care, regardless if they get paid or not. Well guess what, WE, the taxpayers, the WORKING people end up picking up the costs, first the government takes money away from us directly, and a portion of it goes to medical coverage for the poor (mind the beurocratic waste, less than 35cents on the dollar actually makes it after the government is done with it), THEN on top of it, when even that money is not enough and the budget for medicare falls short of the hospital bills, hospitals charge more to insurance companies (we pay the primiums of course) and charges more to those who get admitted without insurance, those people are at the REAL disadvantage, as they probably work and have some money, thus could not qualify for medicare, but at the same time are so poor that they can not spend $200 bucks a month on health insurance. Once they get the bill and the collection procedures start, they really end up in the gutter, all because of the leeches that drove up up the prices in the first place. How upset would you be if you were working, making practically nothing, shelling out couple of thousand a year in taxes to support the leeches, so that they could have food, housing, and health coverage, and when YOU get sick or get into an accident, you end up losing EVERYTHING you have worked so hard for. Yeah, that sounds really moral doesn't it. Bankrupting and ruining a hard working human beings life is more moral than turning away a leech that DEMANDS his ENTITLEMENT to health care at the cost to that hard working man.

[ 12-16-2005, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

And if the entire system was socialistic, said person wouldn't lose anything besides that inherent to the accident. Thanks for that excellent argument for a socialistic health care system.


ROFLMAO!!!

OMG, you actually think that?

Man, have you got problems or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...