Thread: Socialism Works!

Originally Posted by honedright

Well Rawaz, there is a lot to read and digest. And it will take some time for me to ingest it all. But, from what I have read so far, I want to make one point before it escapes me and it is this:

It is a sociological fact that there is a limited amount of resources in the world.

Either everyone will have an equally microscopic share, and therefore be equally impoverished, or some will have more and some will have less. And some will have none.

It seems from what I have read so far that one of the basic principals of democratic socialism is fairness.

One would say that it is unfair for some to have, while others do not. But is it more fair for all to equally have next to nothing?

I'm not done. As I said, there is more to read and comprehend.

I know it's a lot..sorry
Well I think your finding is to some extent correct but maybe put a little cynical (no offence intended). It is about striving after 'fairness' and everyone having the same opportunities in life. It is not, at least not in practice, about making everybody live on the exact same standards. There are still rich and poor but the aim is to reduce the differences that exist regarding the opportunities they have. A poor man should still have the same opportunities and be able to get a degree from the university for example as a rich man would have. This is why access to higher education is not restricted by your private economy which would create a great barrier for poor people.

X-man is my hero.

Originally Posted by Disburden

X-man is my hero.

Super!

Originally Posted by Rawaz

I know it's a lot..sorry
Well I think your finding is to some extent correct but maybe put a little cynical (no offence intended). It is about striving after 'fairness' and everyone having the same opportunities in life. It is not, at least not in practice, about making everybody live on the exact same standards. There are still rich and poor but the aim is to reduce the differences that exist regarding the opportunities they have. A poor man should still have the same opportunities and be able to get a degree from the university for example as a rich man would have. This is why access to higher education is not restricted by your private economy which would create a great barrier for poor people.

Not intended as cynical, just plain 'ole sociology.

In the U.S. we do have the same opportunities. Success depends on incentive, motivation, and work-ethic. There are no guarantees for outcome. Your outcome depends on your inherent ability, your hard work, and maybe some luck.

Each individual should strive to reduce and overcome their own obstacles, not rely on a government to do that for them. The only way for a government to give to one individual, or a group of individuals, is to first take away from other individuals or groups. A government must first hurt one group in order to help another. There is no denying this fact. Governments calls this welfare, but to anyone else it is called theft, plain and simple.

Well, don't know if you know about our school system,
but since they cut back on that "theft" and do not pay out any support anymore (around 700 USD per month) to pupils in 11th, 12th and 13th grade (as well on the first way as on the second way of education) until they get something comparable to a college degree, we have a historic low of thieves at our universities. The worker children cannot even get there anymore.
Unfortunately this caused some kind of an intellectual selection as well and now we have a historic low of brain capacity there.
This cutback happened during the government of chancelor Helmut Kohl (CDU).

Any of our governments has increased the debts. Whether it was SPD or CDU. It makes a difference though whether you shovel the money from the poor to the upperclass or spend it on skilled young people with little money. They usually pay it back with their taxes.

I wanted to add to my above post that generally what a government does is take from producers in order to give to non-producers (well if they were producers, why would they need to be given something?)

This has the effect of reducing the producer's resources and means of production. And what is never seen are the jobs never created, the innovations never invented, and the business transactions never transacted. All because the producers have less to do all of these things.

What is seen is that the government has created a few jobs, fixed up a neighborhood, built a bridge. Those are good things, yes?

But the producers would have created more jobs and more business transactions, invented better technologies leading to improved standards of living that would have helped more neighborhoods and expanding populations thereby justifying the building and repair of more bridges.

Even the poorest in the U.S. still have access to running water, flush toilets, electricity, televisions, and DVD players. All as a result of innovators and business people with the resources to enable them to realize their ideas. Everyone benefits.

By taking away from the producers of society and investing in those who generally produce little or nothing, or in projects that help only a few, a government creates an economic net loss for everyone.

Originally Posted by honedright

Not intended as cynical, just plain 'ole sociology.

In the U.S. we do have the same opportunities. Success depends on incentive, motivation, and work-ethic. There are no guarantees for outcome. Your outcome depends on your inherent ability, your hard work, and maybe some luck.

Each individual should strive to reduce and overcome their own obstacles, not rely on a government to do that for them. The only way for a government to give to one individual, or a group of individuals, is to first take away from other individuals or groups. A government must first hurt one group in order to help another. There is no denying this fact. Governments calls this welfare, but to anyone else it is called theft, plain and simple.

I do not think that a poor person has the same opportunity as a rich one if there are admission fees to have access to higher education etc. And I don't think you can say these people are less motivated, have a lower work ethic or are lazy, they just can't because they aren't "blessed" with being born into the right social status, or class if you will.

Lastly equalling tax with theft is just not really true. Ever since governments have been there have been taxes and/or tributes. These taxes pay for services that all can benefit from. You pay taxes for defence, law and order, the government to function so that it can grant and protect your rights but also the obligations that citizens have.
If we were to remove all taxes this government would not function and say if your house is being robbed, who are you going to call?

Originally Posted by Rawaz

I do not think that a poor person has the same opportunity as a rich one if there are admission fees to have access to higher education etc. And I don't think you can say these people are less motivated, have a lower work ethic or are lazy, they just can't because they aren't "blessed" with being born into the right social status, or class if you will.

Lastly equalling tax with theft is just not really true. Ever since governments have been there have been taxes and/or tributes. These taxes pay for services that all can benefit from. You pay taxes for defence, law and order, the government to function so that it can grant and protect your rights but also the obligations that citizens have.
If we were to remove all taxes this government would not function and say if your house is being robbed, who are you going to call?

1. even being poor, you can get into a good school. i did. it's called a scholarship, and if you work hard enough, you can get a great education even without a ton of money.
2. it's theft because people that pay more taxes don't get more services from the government. if anything, it's the opposite.
3. i wouldn't call anyone. the police take, on average, at least half an hour to get there. i'd deal with the problem myself, and when the police finally got there, they can deal with the aftermath, but they will NOT be able to stop a crime in progress. that is simply NOT how police forces work. they provide a post-facto deterrent by trying to catch criminals after they have committed crimes. that's it.

Oooooops.... never believe in those bigshots.
Opel, a General Motors Daughter in germany, has not paid any taxes because they transferred all the profit to the US. They thought it was clever to save.
Now they are short before bancrupcy and need a government plan to save their workers.
Mercedes Benz has not paid any taxes either. They send people home now because their profit growth expectation missed the 8 % by a tiny bit.

Those 8 % is the money people expect when they buy their stocks.
If they did for less they could put it in the bank. But no, they better invest in unemployment.

Originally Posted by Rawaz

I do not think that a poor person has the same opportunity as a rich one if there are admission fees to have access to higher education etc. And I don't think you can say these people are less motivated, have a lower work ethic or are lazy, they just can't because they aren't "blessed" with being born into the right social status, or class if you will.

Lastly equalling tax with theft is just not really true. Ever since governments have been there have been taxes and/or tributes. These taxes pay for services that all can benefit from. You pay taxes for defence, law and order, the government to function so that it can grant and protect your rights but also the obligations that citizens have.
If we were to remove all taxes this government would not function and say if your house is being robbed, who are you going to call?

I wasn't equating taxes with theft. I was equating welfare with theft.