Socialism Vs Capitalism (round one)

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Menchise, your anger at Capitalist society I believe is unjustified. Not one person in America has been denied any help that would guarantee their survival.

---

I never said that capitalism was Darwinist, especially since it was invented before Darwin was born.

quote:

---

There is no injustice, you see only unfairness because not everyone can buy the most expensive things.

If they wanted expensive things that bad enough, they would get off their butts, and go earn it.

---

If you had read any of the articles I linked to, you would know that the workers' lack of ability to buy expensive items is not an issue in the Marxist critique of capitalism. The issues involved include the nature of the work itself (Wage Labour), particularly its dehumanizing effect, and how capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction.

quote:

---

One very localized instance. Your example is of a very small socialist system that, however successful, was not around long enough to prove its viability before it was conquered. Furthermore, a system that will work in a relatively small area may not be so successful on a larger scale. Observe, for example, true democracy. It worked in Athens, it worked in a number of early New England towns, but a large-scale democracy is simply not feasible.

---

The biggest limit on large scale direct democracy has been the lack of sophisticated communication tools to facilitate participation in decision making.

In Ancient Athens, all of the voters could go and meet in one space to debate the issues, which became impossible later on. Many tend to assume that this makes direct democracy obsolete in today's large scale society.

This is not true, because, in the past, direct democracy was actually way ahead of its time. This is proven by two things: 1) Athenian democracy only represented a minority of the population: the male citizenry; slaves and women were not recognized. 2) The ruling class consisted of male citizenry, so the system would always tend to support the status quo, which was obviously against the interests of the majority, namely women and slaves.

The attempted implementation of socialism in Russia and China was also way ahead of its time, because those countries were still very feudal (only the urban areas of China were capitalist). This meant that the means of production were too underdeveloped to support any fundamentally socialist system on a large scale other than the extreme versions of Marxism-Leninism, which were rejected by Lenin and Trotsky because they were too drastic. This is why Lenin started to roll back parts of the system in the New Economic Policy, which allowed for limited private enterprise. After Lenin's death, Stalin made a U-turn into his extreme form of Marxism-Leninism, and Mao followed soon after.

quote:

---

Oh really? That is quite a leap of logic, to figure that employment statistics based on a world in which a number of people are lazy and donÔÇÖt work because welfare supports them (at lest for a time) is viable in a hypothetical scenario in which everyone works hard.

---

There was once a time when state welfare didn't exist, government intervention was minimal, and the employment situation was even worse.

quote:

---

There will be just as many slackers and incompetents in a socialist society as in a capitalist one, more really because people wouldnÔÇÖt have as much reason to work (I believe the term welfare state describes this quite nicely).

---

The people would have the same reason to work as they would in capitalism: to support their lifestyle. No socialist system advocates supporting the lifestyles of slackers, although it does advocate the support of life (i.e. providing the absolute basics so that they don't starve).

The advantage of socialism in terms of employment is that all people who can work can get secure jobs, thus sustainable full employment, which is impossible in capitalism.

[ 05-17-2002, 01:05: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Just FYI, the General welfare clause has been perverted by liberals and yes, socialists to mean just what you think it means, when in fact that is not what it means at all.

---

I hope you're not including me in that equation. I always knew that it didn't mean that and I never said that it did.

quote:

---

and this stuff about the bottom % of the population living like they do forever is one of the greatest falsehoods that has been put out.

I started out at 1.85 an hour, then I got another job at 2.85 an hour and I continued to move up. I won't tell you what I make now, because it would piss you off. The fact is that people in the lower part of the economy do not stay there, they are mobile they move up and others move into their place. NO ONE stays that way forever in our economy, and that is a fact you can take to the bank.

A poor person now, 99% of the time will not be poor 5 years from now, unless they choose to be there.

---

That is not true. Some move up, but nowhere near the figure that you claim.

About the part where you say that "others move into their place": where do you think those others come from?

[ 05-17-2002, 01:08: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Epsilon 5]

I get confused at times here.. I would like to know, in a short and quick way, how does the welfare system or equivalent works in the US?

In Canada, you have welfare itself, and "working insurance". You get working insurance when you lose your job and wait for another, or when you have a seasonal job ... working insurance gives you about 2/3 (I think) of what you got when you were working (average). Welfare itself is for when you cannot work before quite a while for some reason. You get the "survival minimum", which is somewhat lower than the minimum wage. In both situations, whenever possible the government will try to get you off and make you work, which is normal.

Other kinds pf "funding" you can get is the family allowance, which is an amount of money given which depends on the age and number of kids you have and the income the family has. It's a booster for lower income families, which we actually get here at home. This is provincial, but the federal government has a similar plan.

The Canadian government is liberal, and I like it. Too socialistic is not good (the contrary is true), but I prefer socialism to capitalism.

Btw, I'm a liberal, if you haven't noticed.

[Raven]

quote:

---

It is sad that you ignore this truth of this American reality....or accept it and choose to write those people off. Your system needs an underclass bottom line. And for the time being you have a large crowd to draw upon. Poor people from other counties meet this requirement and work jobs for pay and in conditions other Americans would never dream of. You may think itÔÇÖs ok but I do not.

---

Well somebody has to do the miserable and repulsive jobs, where would we find people to degrade themselves so in a society in which no one was desperate for money?

quote:

---

And I am sick of hearing about twisted Darwinist views on the way that society should work.

---

Not how it should work, how it does and has worked. Those societies that are based at least in part on survival of the fittest are the ones that last. Period.

quote:

---

Because in that case Dragon Lady you can shut your mouth and get back in kitchen..I would prefer to have you here discussing points and ideas but we can just let Darwin take care of that. (no offense intended, and if I singled you out by gender and that makes you feel uncomfortable let me know and I wont do it again)

---

ThatÔÇÖs just low. The fact that you would attack my gender in an intellectual debate shows either your lack of sophistication or a desperate need to discredit my ideas.

quote:

---

and oh my.... IT SAYS GENERAL WELFARE!!! WERE THE FOUNDING FATHERS SOCIALISTS AT HEART!?!

---

Yea, as in general wellbeing, they didnÔÇÖt have social security back then. And before you argue that we need to dish out money to provide this general welfare, I would say that the 90+ percent of the population that are currently employed (as well as those who are only temporarily unemployed) qualifies nicely.

quote:

---

There is no mention of a ruling elite using a mob to their own ends. The mob is what keeps the higher end of society in power and comfortable and what will one day bring them down.sorry but that is moral side of human survival of the fittest.believe itpeople are looking for ways to be as moral as possible (well most) and it causes them to do all kinds of horrible things to each other.. amazing eh?

---

You will note that while the constitution makes no overt mention of control by an elite class, the requirements to vote in the original document insured such a ruling class would exist. Furthermore, though the constitution never made any mention of this elite class using the mob for there own ends, it did support slaver (this was changed later, but were talking about the original constitution here).

quote:

---

Just as a master thesis or anything else will tell you what it intends to prove, it is NOT PART of the document, it just tells you what it's goals are.

---

Absolutely correct, I'm looking at a copy of the constitution right now and there is no preamble.

quote:

---

I never said that capitalism was Darwinist, especially since it was invented before Darwin was born.

---

Irrelevant, the system was not created to be Darwinian, it simply EVOLVED that way. We donÔÇÖt argue that evolution of the species isnÔÇÖt Darwinian because it happened before DarwinÔÇÖs time, so why should we argue that way for economics.

quote:

---

The biggest limit on large scale direct democracy has been the lack of sophisticated communication tools to facilitate participation in decision making.

In Ancient Athens, all of the voters could go and meet in one space to debate the issues, which became impossible later on. Many tend to assume that this makes direct democracy obsolete in today's large scale society.

---

No mention of the New England townships?

No matter, communication is not the only problem with a democracy, and the framers of our constitution knew this (Clearly stated in article 3 section 4 if I recall correctly). Even if technology allowed a populace to participate directly in every government decision, are the people responsible and knowledgeable enough to vote well? It would be mob rule of the worst kind. I could go on and on, but this is quite off topic. If you really want to discuss the viability of a true democracy start another thread and let's have at it.

quote:

---

The advantage of socialism in terms of employment is that all people who can work can get secure jobs, thus sustainable full employment, which is impossible in capitalism.

---

ThatÔÇÖs assuming everyone is employable and that everyone is willing to work. Two very large assumptions that you have yet to address.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Other kinds pf "funding" you can get is the family allowance, which is an amount of money given which depends on the age and number of kids you have and the income the family has.

---

Paying people to reproduce, how ghastly. You would think there are enough people on this planet already.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

Because in that case Dragon Lady you can shut your mouth and get back in kitchen..I would prefer to have you here discussing points and ideas but we can just let Darwin take care of that. (no offense intended, and if I singled you out by gender and that makes you feel uncomfortable let me know and I wont do it again)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ThatÔÇÖs just low. The fact that you would attack my gender in an intellectual debate shows either your lack of sophistication or a desperate need to discredit my ideas.

---

There was no attack. A simple illustration how you might (and others do have) have a special interest in having morality mixed in with politics and economics. Life is not about making the most money and establishing the best system of production. Life, in my and others opinion, is about living a good, fair, and just life. Moral people want this for everyone not just the privileged. But your arguments show a lot of contempt for your fellow citizens and that it something I cannot stand by and watch without commenting. But like I said I won't choose to make comments in this format again.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I am sick of hearing about twisted Darwinist views on the way that society should work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not how it should work, how it does and has worked. Those societies that are based at least in part on survival of the fittest are the ones that last. Period.

---

The longest lasting civilizations have always been oppressive and have always been destroyed or changed. England is a good example of this. Over time the people have changed government from a very small ruling elite to more participation by the people. This is the natural way of things....an ongoing moral growth of people and societies.

Everyday people wonder why other people live such horrible lives. They either stick their head in the ground and maybe even defend a morally bankrupt system of they try to change things.

quote:

---

It sets the goals of the document, it tells you what the following document is supposed to do, it is NOT a part of the document itself.

Just as a master thesis or anything else will tell you what it intends to prove, it is NOT PART of the document, it just tells you what it's goals are.

Just FYI, the General welfare clause has been perverted by liberals and yes, socialists to mean just what you think it means, when in fact that is not what it means at all.

It states goals, nothing more.

---

Preamble - A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.

Ok but an introduction to a letter is still part of a letter. I'm not sure how you can leave this part out.

The wonderful thing about the Constitution is the goals are put out in the beginning and the rest is an attempt to empower the people to fairly set a system to achieve that goal. The statement is what it is....there is no ambiguity like Amendment two. "Promote the general welfare"....I really don't know how one can twist this....it is what it is.

[Raven]

quote:

---

Life is not about making the most money and establishing the best system of production. Life, in my and others opinion, is about living a good, fair, and just life. Moral people want this for everyone not just the privileged. But your arguments show a lot of contempt for your fellow citizens and that it something I cannot stand by and watch without commenting.

---

To go over it again, morality is a form of social control. ItÔÇÖs only validity is that which any individual gives it. Because, as a whole, moral action promotes a successful society it is necessary that most people have some type of morality. Your personal brand of morality (no doubt shared by many, but none the less only a single example) may require that everyone be placed on an equal footing (or some approximation there of), but nothing necessitates that all moral people share this view.

Furthermore, because morality is totally artificial and without any intrinsic value itÔÇÖs validity is limited by its adherence. If I feel that something you consider amoral is ok, then as far as I'm concerned its ok. Period.

quote:

---

The longest lasting civilizations have always been oppressive and have always been destroyed or changed. England is a good example of this. Over time the people have changed government from a very small ruling elite to more participation by the people. This is the natural way of things....an ongoing moral growth of people and societies.

---

So your saying that for a civilization to last a long time it has to be oppressive? That is very possibly true, but only because those civilizations that you called oppressive were realistic and feasible. A socialist society (or, I should say a predominantly socialist society) has not been proven to be realistic and feasible.

Even more importantly, though, I will point out that just because government has been evolving in a given direction for the last few hundred years doesnÔÇÖt mean that is the only way. We had something of a democratic movement with the ancient Greeks as well, followed by the Romans, but that didnÔÇÖt last indefinitely so there is no reason that the present one will.

quote:

---

The wonderful thing about the Constitution is the goals are put out in the beginning and the rest is an attempt to empower the people to fairly set a system to achieve that goal. The statement is what it is....there is no ambiguity like Amendment two. "Promote the general welfare"....I really don't know how one can twist this....it is what it is.

---

Since you have such a firm grasp on what the framers had in mind when they wrote the preamble, why donÔÇÖt you explain it for the rest of us rather then simply stating that it is obvious.

The real wonderful thing about the constitution, by the way, is that it can be interpreted to mean just about anything that you want it to mean.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dragon Lady:

quote:

---

Other kinds pf "funding" you can get is the family allowance, which is an amount of money given which depends on the age and number of kids you have and the income the family has.

---

Paying people to reproduce, how ghastly. You would think there are enough people on this planet already.

---

... but most of the that population is found in poor countries. Some industrialised countries have a birth rate so low tat there is starting to be more deaths than births.

Go here and select all countries (click on first, then shift-click on last) and select "rate of natural incr.", then submit. Look at some countries, like Germany. Canada has a 0.3% birth rate, which mean in canada we have only ~95000 more people per year over a ~31.5 million population. Russia and Ukraine show the lowest, with -0.7%, while Palestine shows a 3.7% increase. the world average is 1.3% increase per year.

quote:

---

The real wonderful thing about the constitution, by the way, is that it can be interpreted to mean just about anything that you want it to mean.

---

Then what's the constitution for? If it can mean anything, then there's no point to it

[ 05-17-2002, 15:39: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Guest]

quote:

---

The wonderful thing about the Constitution is the goals are put out in the beginning and the rest is an attempt to empower the people to fairly set a system to achieve that goal. The statement is what it is....there is no ambiguity like Amendment two. "Promote the general welfare"....I really don't know how one can twist this....it is what it is.

---

There is nothing questionable about what the 2nd amendment means, it is straight and to the point, it is an individual right, and it is so blatant that only a person wishing to pervert its meaning will.

Now as far as the General welfare clause of the Constitution. That phrase is also in an article of the constitution, can you tell me which one?

That phrase in it's truest sense was about the states, NOT individual citizens. In other words, the states would be on equal footing with each other, that is why we have a house of representatives, based on population, and a Senate, 2 per state. That is also why we have the electoral college to give less populous states more of a say in who becomes president. This is why our government is a representative form of democracy, or as most of you know a republic.

There you go, the general welfare clause is not for the people, it is for the states, which therefore means that welfare, SSI, medicare etc cannot be legal under the General welfare clause.

The consitution CANNOT be misinterpreted, it is very specific, when the 10th amendment was gutted by the Supreme court during the New deal in the 40's, that is when the federal government really went apenuts and went all powerful on us and chose to IGNORE the constitution. Which the federal government has and continues to do.

Study the history of the constitution, read the federalist papers, read quotes by our founding fathers, the meaning and why they wrote what they wrote is VERY CLEAR!!!

[Steve Schacher]

General Welfare

Preamble

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Article I Section 8 Clause 1

quote:

---

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

---

Commentary:

The "General Welfare", by Thomas Sobran

Frenzied Spending and the "General Welfare", by John C. Eastman

[Guest]

Thank you Steve,

as usual, very insightful and well thought out articles, and not one thing that I disagree with!!

And no fair that you answered my question Steve, I wanted to see if Lotharr would research it and figure it out.

[ 05-17-2002, 18:08: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Mano Faber]

Originally posted by Epsilon 5:

In Canada, you have welfare itself, and "working insurance". You get working insurance when you lose your job and wait for another, or when you have a seasonal job ... working insurance gives you about 2/3 (I think) of what you got when you were working (average).

In Holland this about the same. Unemployment insurance: It's about 70% of your last earned wage. You need to have worked for at least 5 years to have the right to use it longer than 6 months.

Welfare itself is for when you cannot work before quite a while for some reason. You get the "survival minimum", which is somewhat lower than the minimum wage. In both situations, whenever possible the government will try to get you off and make you work, which is normal.

Same here.

Other kinds pf "funding" you can get is the family allowance, which is an amount of money given which depends on the age and number of kids you have and the income the family has. It's a booster for lower income families, which we actually get here at home.

Same here, we call it "child support". It's for additional cost that come with education etc. The odd thing is it is doesn't depend on income as all other "insurances" do.

But wait there's more , this will be a nightmare for some ( or most) of you , additional "collective insurances" - insurances that are available to everyone - such as;

healtcare insurance: If you have to go to the doctor, dentist, or have a broken leg.

disabilty insurance: I you are a carpenter and you have accident, fell of a roof, he now has a tranverse lesion and is unable to continue his work as a carpenter.

Elderly insurance: If you're above 65 you receive a basic-pension.

Education: Is free upto 16 after that you'll (most likely the parents) have pay about USD1000 + books a year. If you go higher education or go universities this is much higher. You'll have to loan and/or work for it. In additon you'll have a scholarship which depends on the salary of your parents and if you live at home (with your parents) or near the campus/city of the univercity. They also have a card to freely use public transportation with some resticions.

So i guess we already have a welfare-state and i support it . I think for the average taxplayer (s)he has to pay a fourth of his monthly gross salary.

I've seen may definitions but i would like use the definition by my websters dictionary:

"...Democratic solialism stresses the political aspect , accepting a compromise in the economic field between state and private enterprise. All forms of the theory (solcialism) agree in being opposed to the uncontrolled capitalism and seeking equality of opportunity for all members of the community"

It doesn't have to be "equal" but it has to b "fair" if it comes to healthcare or education , which had too many budgetcuts here.

I also believe the state should keep a close eye on the public services such as public transportation, powersupply, waterdistribution since the last two are vital in todays world. I don't see how competition could give me "better water" or "better electricity" or they should always be good.

Btw, I'm a liberal, if you haven't noticed.

Me too, i wouldn't use liberal though. I associate them with the more conservative "liberals" here.

So my question to you. Which service of the services above are you willing to pay for for your people any why? or why not?

ps: Jaguar you're welcome to live in our country oh and you aready gave some indication of your salary some threads ago

Btw if you think the taxes are high you hust do what some rich dudes do. You let your money go through Cyprus (company resides here) they have low(er) taxes and The Netherlands has some kinda trade-agreement so you don't have to play taxes here. Well maybe it has changed (with EU) but that is how i know someone did it in the past. He worked in Saudi Arabia for a while or some other rich people got to Belgium just a few miles from the Dutch border.

[Guest]

And Mano, you had better check those tax rates again, you're a little off I believe.

Your tax rates are from 33% to 60% of income, based on Income level. This is just personal income tax, then you must add the corporate income tax of 35%, which of course as a consumer you pay as well.

Your tax rate is MUCH higher then you believe, look at the property tax as well, here in the states, my tax rate is closer to 50% when all is said and done, probably a bit more, so I guarantee that your tax rate is a bit higher then that.

Everyone seems to forget those little hidden taxes that are everywhere.

Ain't the government just grand?

and to answer your question about what services I think that should be paid for by myself to the government so that the government can do it?

NONE OF THEM, the government has no place and no need to do that. If I want unemployment insurance, I should be able to go to an insurance company and buy it myself, if I want health insurance, I should be able to go out to the open market and pay for it myself, if I want a retirement fund, I should be able to put my money in the bank and make it myself.

It is called personal responsiblity, it is called freedom of choice. It is called FREEDOM, PERIOD!!

If the government here had stayed out of the healthcare industry, helath care costs would have remained manageable and we would not have the prices for insurance that we have now.

Only since the government got involved have we seen costs go up 10-20% a year. YES, 10-20% a year, totally insane, but if the government had stayed out of it, deregulated and let the free market do its thing, then health care costs would be low enough for ANYONE to afford. Don't believe me? look at history, and you will see that that is true!!

[ 05-17-2002, 19:43: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Commander Elio Jason]

well it bits the sh** out of living in a HORRIBLE country.

[Raven]

quote:

---

The consitution CANNOT be misinterpreted, it is very specific

---

Not really, the constitution was left very vague in a number of instances so that it could be adapted to changing times. The general welfare clause you referred to is one of the prime examples of this, often called the elastic clause because it can be stretched to allow the federal government to do most anything. Other parts of the constitution (such as the second amendment) are clear, but people find ways of misinterpreting them to say what they want anyway.

quote:

---

Canada has a 0.3% birth rate, which mean in canada we have only ~95000 more people per year over a ~31.5 million population. Russia and Ukraine show the lowest, with -0.7%, while Palestine shows a 3.7% increase. the world average is 1.3% increase per year.

---

Which is about 1.3% above where it should be.

[Guest]

I am sorry Dragon Lady, but on the constitution, I must disagree, it was not meant to be reinterpreted, it says what it says. It is NOT a living breathing document as so many like to claim.

NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE!!

Sorry, on pretty much everything else I agree with you, but on this, not even close.

[Commander Elio Jason]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I am sorry Dragon Lady, but on the constitution, I must disagree, it was not meant to be reinterpreted, it says what it says. It is NOT a living breathing document as so many like to claim.

NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE!!.

---

Jaguar i don't want to disagreee or anything with you but if the Constitution ISN'T a living, breathing docoument then could you explain why the writers of it made the "AMENDMENT PROCESS" which has righted many wrongs over the 200 and so years this coutnry has existed.

tell me Jaguar. why did the writers make an amendment process?

[ 05-17-2002, 20:14: Message edited by: Commander Elio Jason ]

[Steve Schacher]

The Constitution, by itself, is not the only source of the meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as well as other jurisdictions, looks to additional writings by the Founding Fathers for guidance to their meaning, including the Federalist Papers, diaries, and other writings amongst and between the parties involved at the time.

The amendment process is meant to alter the Constition. This is the only way that it "lives" and "breathes." You cannot simply interpret a new meaning to an existing phrase and call that living and breathing. If you want the new meaning, you must alter the existing meaning.

The recent debate over the second amendment is an interesting example of this. The government, back in 1939, used a little case of bootleggers caught with sawed-off shotguns as the basis for questioning the second amendment. The case never made it to trial, as one bootlegger was killed and another never showed up. The argument was that sawed-off shotguns are not "militia" weaponry, hence the second amendment doesn't apply. In other words, they claimed that the second amendment only gave the right of the military to carry weapons, instead of the right of all the people to carry weapons. (See Ashcroft is right on guns, by Cal Thomas, and "Gun Rights Do Not Compute," Say Media Cyborgs, by Richard Poe for more background).

Using that kind of interpretation to other phrases of the Constitution, one could say that first amendment only gives those who speak the right to free speech, or only those who speak political speech (campaign finance reform, anyone?), or media speech, the right to speak. One could try to argue that only those people who own homes have fourth amendment protections. The American Taliban is using the first amendment right to congregate as his defense, claiming he can associate with anyone he wants. I don't know if an American can export his rights to another sovereign country, though. I would imagine that his right to associate only applies to associations that occur here.

quote:

---

no fair that you answered

---

Sorry...

[ 05-17-2002, 21:18: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

But wait there's more , this will be a nightmare for some ( or most) of you [big Grin] , additional "collective insurances" - insurances that are available to everyone - such as;

healtcare insurance: If you have to go to the doctor, dentist, or have a broken leg.

---

Yup we have that. And medication is free, paid by taxes.

quote:

---

disabilty insurance: I you are a carpenter and you have accident, fell of a roof, he now has a tranverse lesion and is unable to continue his work as a carpenter.

---

Paid off the salary. We have that

quote:

---

Elderly insurance: If you're above 65 you receive a basic-pension.

---

We have it, but it's more than basic.

quote:

---

Education: Is free upto 16 after that you'll (most likely the parents) have pay about USD1000 + books a year. If you go higher education or go universities this is much higher. You'll have to loan and/or work for it.

---

The government pays most of the costs for scolarship even at university. University still costs alot thought, depending on where you are going.

quote:

---

In additon you'll have a scholarship which depends on the salary of your parents and if you live at home (with your parents) or near the campus/city of the univercity. They also have a card to freely use public transportation with some resticions.

---

Something similar here. And you get good loans and (forgot the calling) "given money" depending on the available you and your parents have.

quote:

---

By Jaguar:

Your tax rates are from 33% to 60% of income, based on Income level. This is just personal income tax, then you must add the corporate income tax of 35%, which of course as a consumer you pay as well.

---

Here a minimum wage worker will pay about 30% of it's salary in taxes, and as the pay grows the % goes up to about 50%. And there's a sales tax of 7% at federal and 7.5% at provincial, 15.025% total.

quote:

---

and to answer your question about what services I think that should be paid for by myself to the government so that the government can do it?

NONE OF THEM, the government has no place and no need to do that. If I want unemployment insurance, I should be able to go to an insurance company and buy it myself, if I want health insurance, I should be able to go out to the open market and pay for it myself, if I want a retirement fund, I should be able to put my money in the bank and make it myself.

---

A minimum wage worker CANNOT pay himself such things. Everyone has to pay for the care of those who make less. And I'm not sure a private insurance will pay indefinitely for medication and treathments if you get a serious sickness. And since we pay with taxes, all is much simpler. When I'm sick and need to see a doctor, I just show my card and I get an appointment. Then, if I need medication, I go to the pharmacy, and get it for free, nothing asked (only if prescribed of course)

Some people here need over 20k dollars a year to pay all the threatment and medication they need to survive.

I got 2 operations to my feets due to ingrown nails. They had to be removed. One time in a clinic (was unsuccessful thought), one time at an hospital. I got medication to reduce the pain (Triatec pills). Cost of all this? 20 dollars.

The difference between a governmental insurance and private one is that the government is there to HELP PEOPLE, the private societies are there to MAKE A PROFIT.

quote:

---

Only since the government got involved have we seen costs go up 10-20% a year. YES, 10-20% a year, totally insane, but if the government had stayed out of it, deregulated and let the free market do its thing, then health care costs would be low enough for ANYONE to afford. Don't believe me? look at history, and you will see that that is true!!

---

The costs of healthcare have been growing steadily lately not because of mis-management, but becasue the population is growing old. Look at age distribution charts, you will see. More elderlies means more sick people. Sad but true. And it will go worse.

[ 05-17-2002, 22:20: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Raven]

quote:

---

I am sorry Dragon Lady, but on the constitution, I must disagree, it was not meant to be reinterpreted, it says what it says. It is NOT a living breathing document as so many like to claim.

NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE!!

---

Whether it was meant to be a ÔÇ£living breathingÔÇØ document I donÔÇÖt know, but it was meant to allow flexibility in at least some key areas (the elastic clause for example). Judicial review (which was not part of the constitution, by the way) allows the Supreme Court to act as the final arbitrator of the constitution. Everyone likes bringing up the second amendment and saying how interpretation of the constitution has gone horribly awry, and in this case I agree, but we should also look at the fourth amendment. There is no mention of wire taps or other forms of electronic ÔÇ£searchesÔÇØ yet the supreme court has ruled that such searches (wiretaps anyway, I donÔÇÖt know about the rest) do in fact require a warrant. I agree with Steve that changing the constitution is better then simply reinterpreting it, but thatÔÇÖs the way it goes. The constitution is interpreted and people find ways to misinterpret parts of it (such as the second amendment) in such a way so as to say what they like.

Lets keep this thread on topic though, if you want to argue about the constitution then make another thread and lets have at it.

[Charles Lindsey]

Heh. The only thread ABOUT socialism vs capitalism gets hijacked to a debate on the constitution.

Anyone ready for a newt?

[Raven]

quote:

---

And medication is free, paid by taxes.

---

Actually its not free, its PAID FOR BY TAXES.

quote:

---

Something similar here. And you get good loans and (forgot the calling) "given money" depending on the available you and your parents have.

---

There called grants (at least they are in the US). This I approve of, by the way. Our economy needs trained workers to continue to succeed.

quote:

---

A minimum wage worker CANNOT pay himself such things. Everyone has to pay for the care of those who make less. And I'm not sure a private insurance will pay indefinitely for medication and treathments if you get a serious sickness. And since we pay with taxes, all is much simpler. When I'm sick and need to see a doctor, I just show my card and I get an appointment. Then, if I need medication, I go to the pharmacy, and get it for free, nothing asked (only if prescribed of course)

---

I have no interest in being forced to pay for an incompetent or incapable individualÔÇÖs health care. A smart person would be able to work at a job paying more than minimal wage, I donÔÇÖt care about dumb or lazy people. I do not like having my standard of living lowered just so that some looser can have his standard of living raised. I have no obligation to pay for others survival, I do, however, have an obligation to myself and those I care about. If I feel like giving then I will give to a charity but let it be my choice.

quote:

---

Some people here need over 20k dollars a year to pay all the threatment and medication they need to survive.

---

Would they really NEED all that money if the government didnÔÇÖt give it to them? If someone is disserving of 20 grand a year then they will have been smart enough to have 20 grand a year, or at least insurance.

quote:

---

I got 2 operations to my feets due to ingrown nails. They had to be removed. One time in a clinic (was unsuccessful thought), one time at an hospital. I got medication to reduce the pain (Triatec pills). Cost of all this? 20 dollars.

---

You got other people to pay for your convenience, you should be proud. You talk about how necessary it is to have the government pay for health care so that the wretched masses can survive, and then you talk about how you use it to take care of a matter of convenience. Makes my argument that much easier.

Did it ever occur to you that socialism is a form of abuse of minorities? Because there are more poor people then rich people they use there majority to steal money from those who earn it while preaching about how right it is. Perhaps you didnÔÇÖt know, but its quite common for thieves to tell themselves that what they are doing is right and that they are only getting what they deserve from a society that has somehow cheated them.

quote:

---

The difference between a governmental insurance and private one is that the government is there to HELP PEOPLE, the private societies are there to MAKE A PROFIT.

---

There is another way to look at that; private insurance companies are there to make a profit while providing a service (its something a lot of companies do) while the congressmen (and women, for that matter) are trying to please there constituencies by giving them money. ItÔÇÖs a ploy to get reelected.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

The only thread ABOUT socialism vs capitalism gets hijacked to a debate on the constitution.

---

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it was an illustrative diversion.

Our capitalist form of society is what it is because the Constitution was meant to be a limiting document, narrowly specifying what the government was allowed to do, and leaving the rest ofr human affairs to the people via the ninth and tenth amendments. The federal power grabs that result in the country slowly inching towards socialism is related to the constitutional abuses by the government (read Senate, and to a lesser degree, the House) by usurping more and more rights belonging to the states, and weakening the rights belonging to the people.

Judicial activism (read reinterpreting the constitution) is the favored tool of the day to accomplish what the Left can't accomplish through legislation.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Actually its not free, its PAID FOR BY TAXES.

---

Well that's what i said. Still It's better that way.

quote:

---

There called grants (at least they are in the US). This I approve of, by the way. Our economy needs trained workers to continue to succeed.

---

and where does it come from?

quote:

---

I have no interest in being forced to pay for an incompetent or incapable individualÔÇÖs health care. A smart person would be able to work at a job paying more than minimal wage, I donÔÇÖt care about dumb or lazy people. I do not like having my standard of living lowered just so that some looser can have his standard of living raised. I have no obligation to pay for others survival, I do, however, have an obligation to myself and those I care about. If I feel like giving then I will give to a charity but let it be my choice.

---

How insulting. So you believe anyone working at minimum wage is either stupid or incompetent? What about those that are on the minimal wage and that are stuck there? It's not easy when you are over 40 and haven't worked for 20 years because you were married. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

quote:

---

Would they really NEED all that money if the government didnÔÇÖt give it to them? If someone is disserving of 20 grand a year then they will have been smart enough to have 20 grand a year, or at least insurance.

---

YES they need it. sometimes it's not enough. I can't point you to a specific article (as all avbout it was in local newspapers), but some people cought a serious sickness which demands to take over 80 pills a day from 8 to 10 different costly medication. And how could they get 20k a year, if their sickness prevents them from working? and how could they get and insurance like that? Do you know how much that would cost???

quote:

---

You got other people to pay for your convenience, you should be proud. You talk about how necessary it is to have the government pay for health care so that the wretched masses can survive, and then you talk about how you use it to take care of a matter of convenience. Makes my argument that much easier.

---

Yeah right. Without the governmental medical insurance it could have cost around 800 f*ckin dollars. That would take us YEARS to accumulate. It's not like we can spend the money we have on anything. I suffered enough. My mother has problems at accumulating 200 dollars to pay for school stuff, so where could she find the money for the operation?

quote:

---

Did it ever occur to you that socialism is a form of abuse of minorities? Because there are more poor people then rich people they use there majority to steal money from those who earn it while preaching about how right it is. Perhaps you didnÔÇÖt know, but its quite common for thieves to tell themselves that what they are doing is right and that they are only getting what they deserve from a society that has somehow cheated them.

---

You're jealous because your extra money is took to help those who need more, huh? Pretty selfish IMNHO. I suppose the money they take from you is used to buy poor people Rolls Royce's? NO, it's used to help them in time of needs.

Whatever you think, while some people abuse the system, most are correct and honest. It's like a manifestation : all you notice is the violence and the minority who wreck everything, but you forget the majority of peaceful manifestants.

quote:

---

There is another way to look at that; private insurance companies are there to make a profit while providing a service (its something a lot of companies do) while the congressmen (and women, for that matter) are trying to please there constituencies by giving them money. ItÔÇÖs a ploy to get reelected.

---

Pure BS. If I was on welfare, I'd still vote for what I think is better. The fact that someone receives a check from the government doesn't mean the person is getting brainwashed to think that the current elected party is perfect and all others suck.

[ 05-18-2002, 01:41: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]

[Mano Faber]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

And Mano, you had better check those tax rates again, you're a little off I believe.

Your tax rates are from 33% to 60% of income, based on Income level. This is just personal income tax, then you must add the corporate income tax of 35%, which of course as a consumer you pay as well.

---

Hehe, you're absolutely right. I didn't want to go into details but i was doubt if i should use a fourth or a third. The 60% has been changned to 52%, see it's much better - which is only for the higher incomes -.