Thread: DEMOCRACY WILL FAIL

Originally Posted by honedright

Now, of course I'm kidding, sort of....(hmmmm, stop working, no taxes, live off of the public tit? Hmmm....)

But what if everyone decided, well not EVERYONE would...right?

But what if a LOT of people just decided, hey, I like this idea of everyone else paying for my expenses, so I'll let them?

How do you distinguish between those that CAN'T provide for themselves, and those that either WON'T, or do NOT WANT to provide for themselves?

What is my incentive to work if I know that someone else will provide for my basic needs?

After all, who needs comfortable housing, cars, nice new clothing, iPods and all the other trappings of a selfish and greedy capitalist society?

Give me food stamps, my bottle of wine, my spot in the alley, and gubment health care!!!

I'm not trying to say that our European system would be better than yours, i'm just trying to tell how things are here.

Your question about the free riders i have no exact answers. If most of our people just decided to manage on the social welfare only, then the system would change or collapse. Why people aren't doing so, i do not know. Would be nice to say that it is a question of moral or dignity. While people have to trust on the society, then the society has to trust on people too. Propably it is that living as a free rider is not a life that anyone wanted to.

Now far off topic but i have something to say about the man that lived as a free rider. After returning from WW2 my late great uncle moved to United States. He worked as a car salesman there (at least he told so). Do not know about the first years, but from late sixties i remember him as he was visiting here once a year. To see his family but also to get his medical and dentist check here also. He said he couldn't afford to visit doctor there in the U.S. He flew here every summer until 2004 when he flew here to die. He said that his wife and kids there in U.S. had not enough money to bury him there.
Here we have an example of a free rider but nobody here ever thought him as such. Even an idea of a free rider is weird.

Originally Posted by honedright

Yes, when everyone finally realizes that there is no more reason to work, because the government provides for all basic needs, where will the government get it's funding? Forced labor?

I think the thing to remember is that it's not really the government providing anything. Sure, they are the gate keepers, the people who divvy it all up. When it all comes down to it, however, we provide it. The people. It's our money.

If the people do not pay, the systems will close.

The only mechanism, really, preventing every one downing tools is, effectively, pride and social responsibility.

Originally Posted by MomaD

It is true the US had run up too much debt, but what do we owe Europe or Britain for that matter. Were it not for US soldiers, there would be no France, Italy, Poland, Belgium or any other country there as we know it today. Sadly the US helped rebuild Germany, much of Europe and Japan which was completely insane. Japan should have been completely burned to the ground with Germany and left there to rot until Europeans rebuilt it completely on their own. The US has done more for the world that every country in Europe combined. Europe did nothing but suck off the colonies until the colonies decided enough was enough. The US is also larger than every european country except Russia and unlike some has never been successfully invaded and occupied since 1812, and that was very brief. Yes, Europe has done well and their people are very well taxed for it too, but they, like the US need to mind their own business because Germany never repaid for the things we built back after WWII., and lets not forget what they did to the Jews at that time also.

Man there is a lot of ignorance in that post.

To my Knowledge, the 'Germans' didn't do anything to the Jews, the Nazis? sure.

What measure, exactly, are you using to say American has done more for the world than Europe on the whole? A bit arrogant and totally infalsifiable don't you think?

Also, how on Earth do you know what the end of WW2 would have been if the US hadn't got involved? You can make assumptions, perhaps, but you certainly don't KNOW.

What does it matter about size? really. I think you will find some of the richest countries in the world, both in raw materials and money are some of the smallest.

Incidentally, it's almost a thousand years since Britain was successfully invaded. The US was founded about 250 years ago, so we haven't been successfully invaded for approximately 4 times as long as you've existed.

Oh man, this one is getting out of hand again. There are members of the forum that are from those countries being bashed... it is one thing to disagree with political systems, and another to be insulting. You can make your point without insulting people.

Is there actually any country that you can get a "free ride" In OZ getting the dole is a fulltime job. To recieve it you need to prove that you are applying for jobs weekly, are willing to do retraining courses and accept any offer of employment and I mean any, social services don,t care if your a brain surgeon if they find you a job as a security guard, you do it or no dole.
This basically weeds out the won,t work from the can,t work.
And if that does not work there is allways the great aussie stigma of being labelled a DOLE BLUDGER!

Originally Posted by gregs656

Also, how on Earth do you know what the end of WW2 would have been if the US hadn't got involved? You can make assumptions, perhaps, but you certainly don't KNOW.

Incidentally, it's almost a thousand years since Britain was successfully invaded. The US was founded about 250 years ago, so we haven't been successfully invaded for approximately 4 times as long as you've existed.

I'm not a WWII buff, but how was Europe doing, particularly Britain and France, before the U.S. got involved?

Maybe Britain hasn't been invaded in almost a thousand years, but weren't the Germans bombing the hell out of England during WWII?

Originally Posted by 0livia

Sometimes I really wonder how big those rocks are....

Apart for a certain percentage with no social self esteem, which is quite low (but is it growing?), it is nothing desirable to fall into the social hammock (this may become a more desirable option as time passes).
Its not only money that you get. You also get getting dissed, getting disqualified from job competitions (why compete for a higher paying job? you'll just get taxed more. Plus, aren't you hurting the other guy by possibly moving him out of his current sphere?), getting moved out of your current sphere cause you have to downscale to a budget (and pay fewer taxes) and your kids (they're not your kids..they're the governments kids. You just provided the biological materials) will notice that as well cause people will let them know. They fall back in school, have less chances and will not be able to move themselves out of misery or support you (What misery? Isn't it the purpose of those social programs to eliminate misery? You mean they're not working?? And why would the kids support you? Aren't all those tax dollars you gave to the government going to support you?).

I guess those are enough reasons not to fool around with that system and ask for help that you don't need (Why not? You paid for it didn't you?). At least thats how most people react. They rather eat the caulk from the windows.
In our social system we have quite a percentage of elderly people who get less (pension or whatever their insurance was) than the minimum and don't even dare to ask for support (Why? Didn't they pay for the help with their taxes?) cause they are ashamed to do so (What about future generations who become accustomed to government hand-outs? Will they be ashamed too?).
They just don't eat til the next money arrives.
Some try to help themselves by collecting bottles (is that a part of the social system?).

Sounds as though the social system is flawed.

Originally Posted by honedright

I'm not a WWII buff, but how was Europe doing, particularly Britain and France, before the U.S. got involved?

Maybe Britain hasn't been invaded in almost a thousand years, but weren't the Germans bombing the hell out of England during WWII?

From what I understand, it had a much greater impact in the west than the East. We were winning in the East, but as you say, bombing each other to bits in the West. There is every chance the Germans would have fallen first, they had a lower access to weapons and oil. Plus the problems of controlling and providing for the occupied countries. The truth is, no one knows, so any theories are just that, there is no if X happened then Y wouldn't have and therefore . . .

I think the trouble is a lot of Americans seem to believe that the US had no stake in the war and just went in to rescue every one. In truth, Hitler declared war on you, and you would have had to deal with him sooner or later anyway.

Not what this thread is about, but it does frustrate me when people make statements that are almost impossible to support.