Socialism

[LoraLie]

So, I've been reading up on it lately. And, well in my opinion (which isnt incredibly informed but still) it doesnt seem so bad.

So I guess I'd like to hear some opinionionions on it. good or bad.

[ForrestBlack]

What do you see as it's strong points?

[LoraLie]

I dont think its the greatest idea in the world the more I read

But we had a discussion in class in which it came up and in areas such as health care it seems to have a good point. (bad points too)

Thats mainly why I was asking opionions of it. Because, I'm still pretty ignorant.

[TheDeathKnight]

Socialism and communism are very nice ideas.

But the main problem is that people will never be happy sharing all the resources equally. People will always want better medical care, better houses, better cars, etc... So even if you take something as simple as socialized medicine, you may have a plan where everyone can see a doctor, and the taxpayers pay for it. But those with money will always want something better, so they will continue to pay for insurance, so they can get the very best medical care. And the poor will be left with the worst possible care. Which is not much different than what we have now.

It gets even worse with communism, because no one wants to have totally equal housing, cars, food, etc. The poor will always be for it, because to them, a simple studio appartment, and a bowl of rice, is better than what they have now. But most people will always want more, and will try to get more. There is no way to stop capitalism. Even if you eliminate money, people will still try to get ahead somehow.

You need to realize that people are animals. People come from nature. That's our genetic origin, and that drives our behavior. It's survival of the fittest. And that's how life works. It's great that we can try to make life easier for those who are less fortunate, and those who could do great things. I am all for socialized education, and ways to allow people an equal opportunity to compete. But in the end, it's always going to be about competition. Those who advocate communism today, are mostly annoyed by the fact that governments and corporations do their best to keep the average person stupid, and take away their control. To make them into consumers, not competitors. If I could make one change to the way capitalism works, is to make sure that companies and governments are not allowed to have total dominance. Let people compete, but don't let huge corporations force out all competitors. Make it a right to get an education, so at least we can have educated voters, and educated competitors. 75% of the people out there don't even have the education to understand the system they live in, or how to get ahead in it. And I really think that the government and big corporations like it that way. Because simple people make simple consumers and simple voters. Easy to manipulate. Easy to fool.

[LoraLie]

great ideas. sad thats all they can be i suppose. I didnt really believe they would ever actually work in the world we live in today. But still, I think it is an interesting idea.

But yes, I most definatly agree with you about the education part. Then again, many people choose not to take advantage of these things too. Geez, I'm stuck in a school full of idiots that do just that. They are content being dumb and led along like little sheep in a heard. Which sure, thats fine and dandy I guess. But ignorance is a killer. Ignorance, the main reason America is in the state that it is in today.

Dont know how often around where I live, I have heard about how we had to go to Iraq to get "the tearerists that knocked down the twin towers."

*sighs*



The Idiots Are Taking Over.(Nofx)

[TheDeathKnight]

Yeah, you don't even need school to be educated.
You just need to read, and learn, and be aware of life...
Some people are very smart, just from street smarts.
Some people with very little education are still very motivated.

People who chose to just sit on their ass are not going to make it.

You have to figure out the game, and get whatever tools you need
to beat the game and get what you want out of life... Those tools
could be an education, or skills with music, or whatever. But you
need motivation and you need to be adaptable.

[Wickedanima]

But the main problem is that people will never be happy sharing all the resources equally.

Ok, but the whole, intellectual problem with Socialism is not weather people are happy or not. If we start trying to make people happy, we are going to end up with problems. What was that about trying to make all the people happy all the time?

Its not about Socialism not working because people are greedy, selfish, animalistic pigs. Its about the fact that Socialism is based on Utopian ideals, which can often give one a form of Government that is faced with having to 'get rid' of people in order to maintain its order.

Equality in its own way is a paradox. Its all fine and well if idealists want things to begin with Equality. The deeper problems with Equality is when it comes to the time to enforcing it. How do they enforce this balance? How long will it be before people begin to resent this forced Equality?

The other problem is like all idealistic Governments, the whole principal of the thing is enforced by Higher Powers onto the Regular People, and these Regular People are forced to live out the precepts of this supposed idealism, while the Higher Powers can and do live without regard to their own idealism's.

But those with money will always want something better, so they will continue to pay for insurance, so they can get the very best medical care. And the poor will be left with the worst possible care. Which is not much different than what we have now.

I beg to freaking differ. I wouldn't give a rodent's behind if I got the worst healthcare, if myself and the other piss-poor in the U.S. could get any at all. The problem is that no money equals no doctor. If my arm gets broken, I will literally have no way to receive healthcare, or even worse, I will have to sell my first born just to be seen by an ER doctor.

Socialized Medicine HAS its problems, but at least really really freaking poor people can get some sort of 'bad care', rather than having to pay for the rest of their lives for the same horrible medical care.

[Morning Glory]

the idea of equality sounds nice in theory, but it has never existed in the world because it is not such a good thing at all. just like a system that is based on the individual at the expense of everyone else, everyone else at the expense of the individual is not optimal for anyone. It's a fact that people are different. there is nothing inherant about people having different status in society that means it's neccesary that some people suffer and other's don't. It's only because we live in a society of "have's and have-nots", that we concieve social class in those ways; and so imagine that it must be neccesary to abolish social class standings all together to solve the problem.

For starters how about just the idea of sharing period, nevermind equally. It would still be possible for people to live just as comfortably at the top of the social ladder and ensure that people aren't starving to death in miserable filth at the bottom.

the other big problem is the idea of competition. Or rather OUR idea of competition. the notion of survival of the fittest is not how nature works. It's that level of marginalization that is lacking in the above example. Fit and unfit are interchangable with have and have-not. It's not the benefit of one organism at the expense of all others, which we seem to beleive that it is; nor is it the opposite. it's both.

A species thrives because the individuals perform to the highest level of survival (what darwin called fitness). the individual doesn't do this out of selfishness it does it for the simple fact that the more capable of survival the organism is, the better the entire species has to thrive. If the organism acted out of self-preservation is such a way that it screwed over and caused the deaths of other organisms of it's species, than soon the entire species would have a lower rate of survival and while that one organism may live the high life, sooner or later that would mean it's own survival is threatened because it's a member of the species that is on the way down.

In short competiton in nature is to ensure balance. it's not so that one organism or species can get ahead, but rather so that no organism or species can get ahead above others. a lion and a deer have very different social roles both in thier own species survival and the ecosystem at large. You see where I'm going with this? the lion may eat the deer, but that doesn't mean the deer has a lower standard of living or a diminished sense of survival. precisely Because the lion eats the deer, it's ensured that the deer will thrive. and this relationship is not just shared between the two, but among all the species in the ecosystem so that a similair trade could be said for any of them.

Equality is not possible or diserable. Evolution breeds diversity.

I know this is not what you were asking, I used very protypical and primiitve social relationships to simplify the matter and hopefully make it easy to understand the faults and gains in some of our idealogies. Maybe not. although what i'm talking about is the basis for economics, I suppose that I will speak on that specifically as it applies to the literal context and as it's known in our own society later on.

[Morning Glory]

ok, let me add one amendment on this train of thought. the lions and deers ilustrate why capitalism, or better read as corporatism, is bad. (ok, so there's a lot more to that as well, but that's the heart of it.) what it didn't do was explain why socialism wouldn't work either. in that example socialism would have a lion for every deer. cuz after all it's not fair that the lions get to eat and the deer have to die. well for starters we're allready fudging the thing, which is what it does for us too, trust me. because it's not one lion eats, one deer dies = lion 1 deer -1. it's more like one deer feeds 3 or more lions. if a lion died for every deer, then each time it would end up with fewer lions and eventually all the lions would be dead and it would be skewed far more inequal in the other direction than it ever was in the first place. without the lions eating the deer they would eat all the grass because they breed in absurd numbers, because they are always getting eaten by lions, and so they wouldn't be able to feed themselves and they would die out. the level of competiton and diverist neccesary to sustain the ecosystem (in our case society) isn't there in equality, so the results are just as bad as if one group lived luxuriously at the expense of the other, maybe even worse.

[OliX]

politics -_-

wanna change things? go educate your self and become one of politicians if you want to change something... which you barely will... you might be remembered but you'll never change the fact that people aren't same... I hope you heard old sayings like " If you want to learn persons real personality, give them power"

socialism for exemple is great idea if everyone would follow the laws and all but on the other side is perfect system for criminal and manipulating on huge scale same as small
comunism I think is even greater BUT... show me a good example of comunism in world... none... it's ideals are pure utopia

I think dictature is way to solve earths problems...
liberal dictature by a huge computer deciding for our lives... at least it will calculate the fact that if decreasing human population and giving just people with high iq (specialy with high social inteligence) to breed beautifull

[keiko]

The thing is all of 'em, socialism, capitlaism, communism, have thier good points. As some one who has been denied medical care becasue I didn't have the right insurance (or any insurance) socialised health care would be a godsend. even comparatively bad health care is better than no health care. A roof over everyones head is better than no roof over half the peoples' heads. But everyone wants room for advancement. Progression byt being thier own boss and improving on the rof over thier head and hte car they drive, the money they make and the food they eat.

Hence why when I take over the world things will be different. A blend of all three united by my Evil Dictatorship. *evil laughter here* A Happy Medium! The end of eXtreme-ism! A license to wear Lycra! Who's with me!?

K

[TheDeathKnight]

I'm totally all for subsidizing the basic needs of your society.
Taking some portion of the overall wealth, and using it to create
basic healthcare for everyone, basic housing, and basic food.
Then, if you want more for yourself, you have to be motivated to go get it.

Sadly, the welfare system, "the dole", and communism,
kind of proves that if you give people the basics,
a lot of them will just settle for the bare minimum,
in order to just sit around and do nothing but watch tv, etc...

But I really would like to see everyone able to have a safety net,
in regards to employment, housing, and health care...

But I think people would probably just take advantage of it.

I suppose the harshest conservatives would probably claim that
the misery of not having health care, not having a job, and not
having a home, will motivate people to work. But even that does
not motivate some people.

I really do see it as survival of the fittest.
And yes, that means some people are going to get screwed.

I just don't think people should be *unfairly* screwed.
Everyone should have the opportunity for education,
and bettering themselves. If all those opportunities
were there, like free college educations to anyone
who wanted one, then I would not feel as bad for
people in shitty situations. But right now, I think a
lot of people never get a chance to do anything
worthwhile with their lives. They are left out in the
cold from the very beginning.

[OliX]

go to canada or sweden

[LoraLie]

Speaking of college costing out the wazzooooo. thats my biggest problem right now heh . . . . I am trying for scholarships (but I doubt thats gonna do me any good) but . . . . I'm worried about even getting into college.


and Keiko, I'm all for it! (Dont forget, after all I am voting for you for President) haha.

and haha, I really do love Canada. If I can't move there I at least have to visit someday



but this may seem odd that I dont comment on the main topic I posted but . . . . I posted to hear what others had to say and um Thank you for all that have posted : )

[TheDeathKnight]

You have to wonder why the govt. would not support people wanting to become more educated. It should not matter how smart someone is, or how good their grades are. If they want to learn, they should be given the ability to take classes. Even if they fail, they still learn something. And it is voluntary. It's not like you have to keep taking classes if you do not do well, or don't like it. It's not like it's easy to take classes, and earn a living, pay for rent, etc. If someone is willing to work a job, AND take a class at night, then they should be able to do that for free. Just being willing to go back to school, in addition to working, shows a ton of motivation, and that should be rewarded.

[Mr Karl]

socialism doesn't work

read atlas shrugged for a cool story about socialism

[Buster Friendly]

say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos.-walter

...and ayn rand is a festering moldy old corpse by now. socialism works just fine-ish. just ask the europeans.

and another damn thing, if anyone thinks they're living in a freemarket society, well... you just fucking aren't. corprate welfare needs to have shitty psuedo-intellectual novels written praising it. yay crap writers!!!

[Mr Karl]

from each according to ability to each according to need

how the hell does that work???

[ForrestBlack]

from each according to ability to each according to need

how the hell does that work???

Fundamentally, it rewards the fuckups.
I think that's how it works, right?

[Buster Friendly]

i agree with forrest, our corperatist system does reward the fuckups like haliburton, el presidente, and that guy who runs that supposedly empowering feminist punk porn site.

[ForrestBlack]

i agree with forrest, our corperatist system does reward the fuckups like haliburton, el presidente, and that guy who runs that supposedly empowering feminist punk porn site.

Are you somehow implying that these people who potentially lack ethics but make up for it with greed would not find their ill-gotten successes in a socialist system? You can't take the capitalist pig out of some folks, no matter what the laws are, and that is exactly the friction which makes the idealist perpetual motion machine of socialist systems come to a grinding halt.

[Buster Friendly]

i am not implying, i am stating outright that our current CORPARTE system rewards scum, and scummy behavior, nearly to the exclusion of ethical business people. i've watched all of this happen first hand.

anyone who believes we live in an actual freemarket system is deluded. we live in a socialist system already, it's just large corperations that recieve all the benefits of said system. when net neutrality goes down the tubes you'll know what i mean.

nothing is, was, or ever will be perfect. some things are preferable to others however.

[Buster Friendly]

and yes of course socialism is just as vulnerable to corruption as any system.

[ForrestBlack]

and yes of course socialism is just as vulnerable to corruption as any system.

I disagree. I think a true socialist system is significantly more vulnerable as it relies on a certain societal level commitment to equality and fairness that seems to exceed human capacity when put into practice. However, some hybrid socialist/capitalist systems have done ok in some areas.

[ForrestBlack]

i am not implying, i am stating outright that our current CORPARTE system rewards scum, and scummy behavior, nearly to the exclusion of ethical business people. i've watched all of this happen first hand.

anyone who believes we live in an actual freemarket system is deluded. we live in a socialist system already, it's just large corperations that recieve all the benefits of said system. when net neutrality goes down the tubes you'll know what i mean.

nothing is, was, or ever will be perfect. some things are preferable to others however.

Sometimes even scum work hard and make a product the people want. It's the people's problem if they want the product but don't want the source to thrive. If they don't like the source, they shouldn't buy the product. In the case of unfair government contracting, they should vote the source of the problem out of office. That is their responsibility. You will never arrive at a consensus when it comes to deciding what is and isn't good and valuable for the people, that would lead to a moralistic dictatorship. So, a competitive free market is, in many regards, fair. It allows for a diversity of lifestyle, believes, and freedoms, as it gives the individual the power of self determination, within guidelines. But I don't mean fair like welfare, I mean fair as in it gives people with ingenuity and a very strong drive, a fighting chance at success, to build a life and legacy of their own.

[Buster Friendly]

and sometimes scum work hard at fucking people over.

[ForrestBlack]

and sometimes scum work hard at fucking people over.

But that's universal.

[Buster Friendly]

the minimum wage is just line item communism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ8poT66W1U&NR

[ForrestBlack]

the minimum wage is just line item communism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ8poT66W1U&NR

Funny as that is, it's still absurd.

[Buster Friendly]

a bit like insisting we actually live in a meritocracy.

[Mr Karl]

socialism doesn't work because everyones in it for themselves

[TheDeathKnight]

This goes back to my original point, that China, which is supposed to be communist, and has some really harsh penalties for disobedience, still has tons of capitalist greed, tons of drugs, and tons of generally horrible shit going on.

Also, look at a prison as another example. You simply cannot change human nature by forcing a better system on people. People will still struggle to get the best for themselves. People will still fuck other people over. People will still shank each other to get to the top, and get what they want.

It happened in the USSR as well. People in positions of power managed to bargain with govt perks, and traded them for official vacations, government mansions, cars, etc... It's how people work. It's our animal nature.

Yes, it would be great if we could all be like John Lennon, and all be peaceful and loving. It would be great if we could all share, and get along. But that is not human nature. It's sad. It's depressing. But it's also true. It's almost as sad to me, to see people who are so strongly in favor of socialism, or communism, because they really do want the world to be fair. But sadly, it is not fair. Not at all.

All I am suggesting, is that if a country like ours is going to have social programs, and we are going to spend our tax dollars to help our citizens, one of the best ways to do that, is to give the citizens the tools they need, to compete. It's a harsh, competitive world. So give people training in how to do things. Give people an education. Give them the tools, so they can succeed. Then, if someone has all the intelligence, all the education, and all the training they want, and they still fail, or they still are lazy, then too bad... I don't have any sympathy. See, I actually *do* feel sorry for people who have shitty lives, because they had a shitty childhood, shitty education, and have a hard time getting by. Because they never had the skills to do well. But people who do have an education, and skills, and the ability to understand the system, ought to be able to make it work for them, and get ahead.

Sometimes, getting ahead just means doing what Forest and Amelia did, and figure out that people want to look at naked chicks, and doing a website, and making money off that, so you can live the life you want to live, without having to go to work in some office or factory.

Being ruthless, and intelligent, and savvy, means you figure out how to make money doing what you want to do. By being the best at it, and figuring out how to make it succeed. It doesn't mean you have to start a giant lumber company to raze the rainforest to the ground. It just means being self-sufficient. And I just wish more people would realize life is up to them to conquer. It's not up to the government to provide for you. It's always been that way since the earliest times.

The earliest caveman had to figure out how to get food, how to get what they wanted, and how to survive. We are no different. It's a different world, but we still have to struggle to survive. Some just do it better than others. And yes, it can be a harsh life. But this is no fairy tale. This is not science fiction utopia. This is brutal, Darwinian life... If you hate all the government, and the companies, go move to Alaska, and go off into the woods and live off the land. But if you want to live in the modern world, you have to deal with things like corporations, goverment, taxes, etc... It just depends if you are better at fighting off a bear, or better at the rat race. Neither one is fun. Both are challenging. But you have to work hard to survive.

That's just life...

[Morning Glory]

that's not true. there have been hundreds of thousands of societies where people have lived in relative harmony. that isn't to say that they never had problems, but it could not be said that it was the primary motivation of the individual to try to get ahead at the expense of the rest of society. it's only because our society does this and champions itself as being the best and right that it claims acting in such a way to be an unaviodable facet of human behaviour.

[ForrestBlack]

that's not true. there have been hundreds of thousands of societies where people have lived in relative harmony. that isn't to say that they never had problems, but it could not be said that it was the primary motivation of the individual to try to get ahead at the expense of the rest of society. it's only because our society does this and champions itself as being the best and right that it claims acting in such a way to be an unaviodable facet of human behaviour.

I think people are different. They run along a spectrum from givers to takers, not to mention that some givers also take a lot in other areas, just as some takers also give a lot in some areas. We are all different, so it's not reasonable to say that theft and brute force are unavoidable natural aspects of the individual, but it is also unreasonable to expect everyone to get along and agree on a common morality with common needs addressed in an even 'fair' measure. That diversity is not accounted for in communal or socialist systems very well, and it tends to be the downfall.

[Amelia G]

a bit like insisting we actually live in a meritocracy.

I wish daily that we lived in a meritocracy.

[TheDeathKnight]

Peaceful coexistence works fine in a small community, like on a tropical island, where if someone gets out of line, the whole community goes against the one causing disharmony. But in a large society, there is always going to be someone who will decide to take advantage of others to get ahead. It's just like ecosystems. There are small, quiet, peaceful ecosystems, in places like NZ, Australia, Hawaii, etc. But as soon as other animals like rats, rabbits, etc, are introduced to the fragile ecosystem, the stronger, more aggressive animals destroy all the peaceful ones. Let loose some hyenas in Australia, and see how long the peaceful Koalas and Kangaroos last... Again, I am not saying I like the violence and harshness of modern society. But it's a fact. You can try to be peaceful and loving. But if I drop you in the middle of most of Africa, or the middle east, or parts of South America, and you will get robbed, fucked, killed, in short order, if you are not strong enough to fight, take and defend what you want and need. And it's no different in a capitalist/corporate world. It's just as ruthless. Is that good? Is it nice? Hell no. It sucks. But it's the way things are. I'm sure people bemoaned society all throughout time. People hated the king, the government, the landowners, etc... But some people manage to rise to the top, others get shat upon. At least nowadays you do not have to be born into royalty to make it into the elite. Even really poor people have access to education, and the chance to make it if they really try hard. Again, back to my original point, which is that life is not fair, and may never be so in our lifetimes. So I was just suggesting that the best step in the right direction, at this stage of the world, is to give people as many tools to succeed as possible. So you can level the playing field. So it's not as easy to fool the average person. So that idiot rich kids get replaced by intelligent people who worked their way up from poverty. So that you can set the stage for change. But you can't force a bunch of hungry hyenas to act like koalas. It just won't work...

[Buster Friendly]

wrong again you silly social darwinists...

peaceful coexistance works just fine, or i'll kill you.

[Buster Friendly]

besides, koalas are vicious!!

yeah, all the eucylptus leaf munching is deceptive, but they'll tear your arm right out of it's sockets, and bugger your bleeding corpse just of laughs... and their bites fester with flesh eating bacteria.

it's true.

[xssve]

There really are only two systems, feudalism and free market, and most economic systems are a synthesis of both.

Feudal economies are esentially two tiered, with a ruling class and everybody else (the proletariat, proles), and is basically an abstraction of the centripetal component of primate social organization. Centripetal means "arranged about a center like the petals of a flower", and it mimics the basic alpha hierarchy of the primate troop, with an alpha hierarchy (usually male), with either a single alpha or a cabal on top, and the rest in a pyramidial hierarchial order.

Associated with this system, as it pertains to humans, is a tendency towards partralineal inheretance of alpha status - it's been discovered that the alphas of proximal groups of gorillas tend to be related, although this is likely due to genetic inheritence of some trait that furnishes them with some advantage, i.e., exceptional size and strength, etc.

This is mirrored in the aristocratic component of feudalism, although what is more likely is that an initial genetic advantage is bolstered by better nutrition and cultural advantages - i.e., if your one or both of your parents are professionals in say finance, the chances that you will be exposed to the culture, the dynamics, principles, terminology, etc., are much higher, as well as inheriting to some extent, the social connections that will enable you to succeed in a similar career.

Feudalism takes many shapes, fascism tends to take on feudal forms, and socialism is also prone to feudal forms, though these tend to be more oligarchic in the initial phases - the "aristocracy" may be determined by party allegience, wealth and influence, or both, but whatever it is it provides advantages in terms of opportunities which in the fuedal pattern tend to be dispensed by the alpha cabal - whether it's the King and court, dictator and his advisors, etc.

Fedual systems tend to be protectionist and static, competition is generally discouraged or assimilated, and feudal systems are organized around protecting the status quo - corporatism in the case fo fascism. The individuals on top are seldom easily displaced, and force majeure is typically employed to assure their position, usually operating under strictly enforced monopolies granted by the ruling cabal in exchange for certain considerations. These hierarchies are typically only overthrown through violent means, and quite often a new one will simply take it's place unless fundamental changes to the entire social-economy are effected.

Free market systems and dynamics are typically found where resources are abundant and populations relatively small - value is bartered by value, and specialist niches are created, and free market systems reflect the accentric sode of human organization - accentric meaning "without center"

Humans, much like the Great Apes, are accentric-centripetal, meaning that we are typically in accentric mode: each individual basically provides for themselves, hunts and gathers for themselves and their families in most cases, and while the alpha hierarchy is constantly being defined and refined, it remains mostly transparent - alpha males may bully and steal food, based on physicla intimidation, but the hierarchy itself is not enforced in an organized way, but accentrically and individually, part of the dominance dynamic itself.

The centripetal response is galvanized by the appearence of an external threat - a leopard is the common example - when this happens, the alphas organize to defend the troop, attacking or distracting the attacking animal by putting on displays, throwing things at it, etc., giving the weaker members of the group, females, the elderly, the young, etc., a chance to escape, and once they reach relative safety, the alphas withdraw as well if they have not managed to eradicate the threat.

Naturally, this is echoed in human politics, and external threats both real and imagined are often employed to generate a centripetal response - dissent further denigrated by attempts to associate the dissenters with the threat, i.e., accusations of being unpatriotic or outright treason or collaboration are often employed. This often represents an attempt to foster a feudal hierarchy, and crushing dissent is practically synonomous with this type of system.

The political economy in the United States is based on accentric, adversarial representitive democracy: leaders are elected, and appointments are made by the dominant party, most of which can be replaced when power shifts following elections. The Anglo-Saxon legal system is adversarial as well, based on the three legs of the legal tripod, common law (custom), statutes (legislated by the elected representetives), and caselaw, which includes the evaluation of existing law to assess it's fit with constitutional principles (judicial review).

Economically, we operate under capitalist principles, and if you haven't read Adam Smith, you need to in order to udnerstand what capitalism is - no offence, but Randian theory isn't really capitalism, it's a vague feudalism calling itself capitalism.

All three systems are based on essentially the same principle: principled, regulated competition designed to maintain a balance of power - where privilage of any sort is technically negated - the rule of law, i.e., all men (and women) are theoretically subject to the same laws, regardless of personal connections.

The majority of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights are concerned with preserving consensus formation, i.e., free speech - administrations cannot govern without consensus, and consensus can generally only be defied through force majeure or manipulaiton of public opinion - attempt to inhibit or abolish free consensus formation are the hallmark of feudal/fascist systems.

This all depends on regulation: government is regulated by the constitution and the bill of rights, and whatever laws they pass to regulate themselves, the legal system is regulated by the constitution and legal precedent, and commerce regulated by both to maintain the best possible state of competition - monopolies typical of feudalism, but inherently anti-thetical to capitalism, and you cannot have monopolies and call the system capitalist, the two are truely mutually exclusive.

In Capitalist systems, competion comes from the bottom up - Microsoft started in Bill Gates garage, but when it turned into a corporate behemoth, it in turn tried, and tries, to squash competition that might undermine it.

Neo-conservatives and neo-liberals alike have been promoting a sort of managed top down capitalism abroad, and recently domestically, that is really nothing more than neo-feudalism, with predictable results: most of the countries we've "aided" have turned into giant cheap-labor maquilladoras where Big C corporations can operate virtually unregulated.

Even when applied faithfully, it doesn't always work in praxis, and it turns out that not every social-economic system responds well to free market competition: education, infrastructure and research are critical to economic growth, and public investment in these things through taxation and administration creates a synergystic business environment with private business - capitalism depends on an educated, mobile labor market, and firms require public infrastructure to manufacture and market their goods, while publically funded basic research has resulted in a constant flow of products based on applied research, called technological overflow, that has been driving the economy since WWII.

Similarly, the police and military are essentially socialized, and supported onthe public dollar, adn they too protect commerce abroad inthe case of the military, and domestically, inthe case of the police, as well as protecting the common good and enforcing the rule of law - you can throw in firefighters, etc.

It's becoming patently clear that public healthcare is an area ripe for socialization of some sort, as costs have risen to the point that it's a barrier to entry for some businesses, and flatly bankrupting others, based on dependency ratios - the number of workers vs. the number of dependents, and countries with low dependency ratios, China, Ireland, are experiencing dramatic economic growth, while countries with higher dependency rations, the US, etc., are losing gound.

It's still a good idea to keep regulations in line with competitive principles, and ideally, regulations should not attempt to alter things by fiat when they can get market forces to do the work for them -market forces tend to have huge momentum that will defy attempts to alter things by force - the endless drug war is a good example, dependence on oil is another - it's basically being subsidized by current policy.

One hears conservative objecting that raising the minimum wage will distort the labor market, when all it actually does is correct a market already distorted by interest rat manipulation designed to control inflation, and lax border enforcement that provides a steady influx of cheap migrant labor - the latter is not neccessarily a bad thing, and economy is driven by it's workers, both quality and quantity - it's only bad when it's cynically employed in order to keep wages artificially depressed.

In any case, the competitive principle works beautifully, when it's applied justly, and reflects the actual state of nature more accurately than the social Darwinist "kill-or-be-killed" paradigm - most species, mammals in particular, operate on a principle that might be better described as co-operative competition - the desireable goal of our administrative, legal and economic systems is to preserve competition in order to keep things in flux, and to prevent devolving into feudalism, which is exactly what would happen without regulation.

[StolenName]

Jesus. This turned into a debate.

In Australia we have what is a "nice" democracy. Though not everyone has health care, without it it's still possible to see a doctor at the hospital if you're willing to wait 8/9 hours (or if you're bleeding after getting cracked in the face ..).

It cost me $90 a fortnight now to pay for my private insurance cause I don't come under my parents anymore but to hell if I'm going to stop paying. All I need to do is walk into surgery now if I'm going to need it. I hear the US at least needs a form of health care which is one of the reason moving to the states seems like a waste of time.

I don't like the idea of socialism either from my own point of view and that is (if I get it spelt right) entrepeneurship. I like being able to do what the fuck I want when I want within the realms of my own financial limitations and I work the job I like (which at present is the servo) to fund the other things I want to do. To remove my right to work or not work would piss me off. In the end I don't mind freeloaders cause they're not particularly "living life" anyways.

BTW, Koalas live in trees the entire time, and the kangaroos could probably kick the shit out of a Hyena, also, dingos are already ripe and could do the job. I'd like to see a Hyena take on a rabbid tom cat cause we got plenty of those haha they'd just jump it.

Our economy atm is heading into a privatised area (AUSTRALIA) as our government is selling off all our primary assets. Telstra (communications) is the biggest one to date, which has resulted in a quick buck for them but higher rates for us. Water and electricity are going the same way, and as we're now signing agreements with the US and China even, alot of produce producers are getting boned.

Luckily, healthcare hasn't been fully privatised yet.

The essential services, IMO should remain the property of the state and it's people.

I sound like a fool compared to these other arguments