Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Socialism Makes People Worse (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Socialism Makes People Worse
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah...nothing like finding a screed that bashes socialism and the French in one short column...

quote:
Socialism Makes People Worse
By Dennis Prager

Throughout much of last week, hundreds of thousands of students in France were angrily protesting.

They have been joined by the major French labor unions, which are threatening a general strike.

And what is this all about?

It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired.

Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job.

As it happens, the whole point of the law was to encourage companies to hire young people. The unemployment rate among young people in France is 23 percent. And in many suburbs, it is double that. Meanwhile, French companies are understandably loath to hire 22-year-olds when they cannot fire them except "for cause," which under union rules means something like committing mass murder in the workplace.

What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies.

Enough generations of socialist policies have now passed for us to judge their effects. They are bleak. Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse.

These young people in France really believe that they should be able to be hired at their tender ages and that a company must not be allowed to fire them from their first day at work (except "for cause," which, as we are learning in America, is increasingly difficult to establish). In America, most of us would call the French young people's attitudes "spoiled."

Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed.

And that is why the citizens of less socialist -- and more religious -- America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries. That is why Americans volunteer time for the needy so much more than citizens of socialist countries do. That is why citizens of conservative states in America give more charity than citizens of liberal states do. The more Left one identifies oneself on the political spectrum, the more that person is likely to believe that the state, not fellow citizens, should take care of the poor and the needy.

Under socialism, one is not only liberated from having to take care of oneself; one is also liberated from having to take care of others. The state will take care of me and of everybody else.

The same holds true for foreign affairs. Why did the conservative government of Spain support the American war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and send troops there, while the Spanish socialists withdrew Spanish troops as soon as they were voted into office? Because the idea of risking one's life to bring freedom to others -- or to risk one's life for another nation for just about any reason -- is alien to the socialist mindset.

Similarly, in the great litmus test of moral acuity -- the Middle East -- socialist countries and parties virtually all line up behind the Palestinians. They do so either out of moral confusion or out of cowardice -- it takes a lot more courage to support Israel than to support the Palestinians and the whole Muslim world.

The socialist idea sounded altruistic to those who began it, and it sounds altruistic to the naive who believe in it today. In practice, however, it creates self-centered individuals and a narcissistic society. So while it may have begun as a way to help others, it has come to mean a way of evading responsibility for oneself and for others.

That is why France is so frightened of the utterly rational idea that a young person should have a two-year trial period at work before being granted a lifetime job. Such an innovation in France would mean that young people would have to work hard and earn the right to lifetime employment. But if socialism means anything, it means that one shouldn't have to earn anything. One merely has to breathe.

As much as America has been adversely affected by socialist thought, it is still inconceivable that in America hundreds of thousands of students would shut down their schools in order to gain the right not to be fired by the first company that hires them. But every time America's socialists, the Democrats, prevail in an election, we move in that direction. No matter how pure their motives, the Left makes America and its citizens less noble people, just like the spoiled French students.

Mr. Prager's indictment doesn't really touch on the fact socialism always results in a bloated, bureaucratic government rife with nepotism, favoritism and corruption. It is quite dissapointing from a Libertarian-smallest-governmnet possible/emphasis on personal responsibility perspective to see just how far collectivist socialism ideals and programs have inculcated themselves into the American cultural and political mindset.

Too bad the GOP -- the "conservative" party -- has embraced so many aspects of socialism in their desire to "triangulate" and seek the "moderate" vote. Compassionate-borrow-and-spend-conservatism is just socialism by a newer, fancier name.

I'm sick of the tax and spend socialism of the DNC and the borrow and spend socialism of the GOP. I'm voting Libertarian this upcoming mid-terms...and if there is no Libertarian candidate on the ballot for any particular office, I'll write in my vote for Dave Chappelle's Black Bush. [Razz]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, so? Capitalism makes people worse, too.

Gee, I guess no system is perfect. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Care to make a case more compelling than a rolleyes emoticon wayward?

Just because no system is perfect, does not mean one cannot compare the pros and cons of different systems and decide which one they think is better than another.

Anyhow, I cannot bash all the French...apparently their are more than a few who are disillusioned with the crazy high rate of unemployment and realize that Socialism has robbed the youth of any real opportunity in French society.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do I really have to go into detail? *sigh*

quote:
What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies.
True, to a certain extent. That extent is how much is “inculcated by socialist societies.” Sure, socialism would inculcate such behavior, but how much is it really to blame?

For instance, take capitalism. Capitalism inculcates greed, dishonesty, narcissism and dog-eat-dog selfishness, because that is what it rewards. So if someone points out that America has a greater number of uninsured than socialists countries, and a much higher infant mortality rate than socialist countries, does that prove that “capitalism makes people worse?”

Similarly, although socialism rewards narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility more than capitalism does, that does not inevitably lead to “socialism makes people worse.” America mitigates the downside of capitalism with its societal rules and religious beliefs. France could do the same. There is nothing inevitable about socialism, either.

Another thing that bugs me about the essay is that his reaction is one based on the American concept of how things are done. Of course it is unimaginable that American students would do the same thing as the French students. But it is also unimaginable that the French would consider supporting the Palestinians as the “litmus test of moral acuity.” Do the people of the Middle East consider that the litmus test? People of China? Japan? South America? He uses a litmus test that practically no one else believes.

And how about his proud declaration that “America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries.” Do the needy in America get more help and assistance per capita per income than citizens of socialist countries? Perhaps the reason why we give more is because we have to. Otherwise the needy would be much, much worse off.

Prager has displayed a classic closed-minded, American-centric attitude. Anyone, even Democrats, who do not toe the line of his ideal are automatically “worse.” His arrogance betrays that he does not even consider the fact that some of those ideal virtues of America actually have bad side effects. It is simplistic black-or-white thinking, where his ideal of America is defined as “white.”

So of course the riots “prove” that socialism makes people worse. He’s starting with that premise that France is worse than America because of socialism. So it’s easy to blame socialism for anything that seems worse to him.

It would be just as easy to blame anything wrong with America on our capitalistic system. And just as justified. Which is to say, hardly at all.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

French companies can already engage in short term contracts and they also have temp agencies- so I guess I don't see how this change in law would help unemployment rates?

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
French companies can already engage in short term contracts and they also have temp agencies- so I guess I don't see how this change in law would help unemployment rates?
If this is so, than why are the young college students protesting and why is French unemplyment of young adults so chronically high?

Wayward -
quote:
For instance, take capitalism. Capitalism inculcates greed, dishonesty, narcissism and dog-eat-dog selfishness, because that is what it rewards.
This is what I call the ultimate socialist straw man argument when comparing socialism to capitalism. Greed, dishonesty, narcissim and dog-eat-dog selfishness are inherent human traits that manifest themselves to varying degrees in every human being regardless of social/economic/cultural system they live in.

This common criticism that capitalism promotes it doesn't take into count the very real difference between self-interest and greed. Self interest coupled with self-responsiblity leads to the greater good for all of society. Socialism seeks to eliminate as much self interest as possible, to the detriment of the greater good of society.

And the stats are definitely undeniable. Look at the donations that poured forth from American Citizens AND American Businesses after the Indonesian Boxing Day Tsunami.

No socialist country came CLOSE to matching the time money and resources that the capitalst countries provided.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is what I call the ultimate socialist straw man argument when comparing socialism to capitalism. Greed, dishonesty, narcissim and dog-eat-dog selfishness are inherent human traits that manifest themselves to varying degrees in every human being regardless of social/economic/cultural system they live in.
And narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility, especially among young people, are not? [Wink]

You see. If this is the "ultimate socialist straw man," then Prager's statement is the ultimate capitalist straw man.

Besides, I didn't say that that capitalism gives people these traits. I said that capitalism--especially pure capitalism--rewards those with these traits. They get more than those without these traits.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
waaait, the US only donated some 30,000,000$ the cost of a modern jet fighter, a SINGLE jet fighter, while they may have donated the most they donated the least per capita.

Also during Katrina countries like Cuba, China, Russia etc poured vast amounts of funds and resources to help Katrina victoms, China gave some 1 million tonnes of military blankets. Something along those lines.

Also France is unique, in Canada you can be easily fired "for just cause" I worked as a dish washer in a restaurant, not under the table, officially I worked for them for TWO days then got my ass fired for talking too much.

And Canada is as left and Socialist you can imagine.

His arguement just by cherry picking the right examples is invalid, just by utilizing the same means of determining an arguement the auther did.

Also, in Canada one eventually HAS to get a job and work hard to keep it, Welfare only works for those unable to work for various reasons, a perfectly healthy teenager can only go so far without working, family allowance ends at 18. I know not a single teenager besides my self that never worked until 18 everysingle ones had summer jobs at 14.

The bureaucracy is bad and all but a good shacking could make it more efficient every 20 years or so.

Also, if one looks at the States it is on the high end of the corruption scale so one really can't say America is all that much better, they grew up in a completely different set of circumstances, unlimited unfettered growth dominated the American way of life since the 1800's, and with little government intervention the growth kept going.

But that was the American way and it worked due to special circumstances, aka having nearly unlimited tracks of land to expand into, the lack of any major external threats, a liberal minimalist government that allowed the entrepreneurship of the average hardworking American to succeed, and a steady inflow of immigrants from Europe.

No other country could've had those same circumstances and thus none could hope to come close to immitating that way of life.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No Wayward, I'm saying that the ultimate straw man here is to conflate self-interested capitalist transactions with greed and selfishness.

There is quite a difference. Greed is committing a selfish act that enriches one at the expense of others. This is where Government enforcement should righteously get involved in the transaction.

Self-interested capitalism involves two or more parties entering into a transaction for their mutual benefit. The primary reason is self- benefit, but the side effect is benefitting the other person as well. In a capitalist system, there is a lot of incentives to behave ethically - good word of mouth and having a superior product or service will give you a lot more future business, and a lot of disincentives for unethical -- greedy -- behavior.

The difference is that in our system of free market capitalism, guys like Ken Lay eventually get caught and face the criminal justice system for punishment. In a socialist system, the economic power is centralized and resides in the Government. So when agents of the Government act in the interests of greed and selfishness at the expense of their people (like how Fidel lives in lavish mansions while the people of Cuba struggle in poverty), they face no consequences.

In socialism, Orwell's insightful indictment, "All Animals are equal..but some animals are more equal than others." has been proven time and time again in just about every attempt at socialism that has been implemented anywhere in the world.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You mean...like how Bush lives in lavish mansions while many Americans live in poverty?

Guys like Ken Lay sometimes get caught, Daruma, and that's just one more risk to them. More often than not, they don't.

The greatest short term rewards are not for those who behave ethically, but for those who don't, and when those "short-term" rewards are large enough to make someone rich beyond their wildest dreams for life, there is little disincentive in the possibility that someone might "lose their reputation".

I'm not a Communist,or a communist, but I am something of a socialist. I don't think Capitalism is the cure for all ills. We've gotten as far as we have as a species by using elements of both.

When Ug traded Grog a shiney stone for some meat, we had capitalism. When Grog forced the rest of his clan to help him carry home a wounded Ug after a mammoth hunt, we had socialism. These two things are not diametrically opposed.

You can't keep capitalism out of socialist countries, no matter how many people the government kills. Someone who likes to go barefoot will trade their issued shoes for the rice ration of someone who wants to lose weight.

You can't have a capitalist society without some degree of socialist policy. Even the naked dude with no property to be taxed for the common defense still gets protected by the nations armed forces, or else the nation falls.

Now, I happen to agree with you that Frances employment policies are just friggin silly. If unions could achieve these sorts of protections through contract negotiations, then more power to them, but there is no reason for government to prevent the firing of incompetent employees.

No matter what you do, much of the economic power will always lie in the hands of the Government. We can't exist as a society without seizing peoples property for the common good.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
France is largely Capitalist, but bureaucracy is not unique to either system.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse:
You mean...like how Bush lives in lavish mansions while many Americans live in poverty?

No, not at all, since Bush is term-limited, and does not control the production and distribution of wealth where he purposefully tells the poor in America that they must all be equal comrades under the collectivist society while he himself lives the lavish lifestyle.

quote:
Guys like Ken Lay sometimes get caught, Daruma, and that's just one more risk to them. More often than not, they don't.
As opposed to all the corrupt politicians/government officials in socialist countires that always get caught?

quote:
The greatest short term rewards are not for those who behave ethically, but for those who don't, and when those "short-term" rewards are large enough to make someone rich beyond their wildest dreams for life, there is little disincentive in the possibility that someone might "lose their reputation".
Yet the most successful, long term people that are the most wealthy in our system ARE those that worry about their reputations. The Short term ones? They're the Ken Lays and Michael Milkin's who end up jailed, broke and reviled society wide.

quote:
I'm not a Communist,or a communist, but I am something of a socialist. I don't think Capitalism is the cure for all ills. We've gotten as far as we have as a species by using elements of both.

When Ug traded Grog a shiney stone for some meat, we had capitalism. When Grog forced the rest of his clan to help him carry home a wounded Ug after a mammoth hunt, we had socialism. These two things are not diametrically opposed.

No offense Jesse, but I think your analogy here is a little off. With socialism, Ug would spend days hunting the mammoth, almost get killed in the process, laboriously butchers and hauls all of the meat for miles and miles back home, arriving exhausted, tired and hungry...but excited that he can finally smoke and preserve all the meat so that he and his family will have enough food to last him the entire winter in his cave. But comrade commisar Grog decrees that all of Ug's hard labor to track, kill, butcher and haul all of that mammoth meat were merely his contributions to the community, and he forcibly seizes all of the meat from Ug under the threat of collective force, and redistributes it to all the other cave people who did nothing. Ug looks at his fellow cave people who did nothing and is filled with resentment, while Grog declares himself the great humanitarian for providing mammoth meet to all of the poor, unfed cave people that refused to hunt on their own.

Under Capitalism, Ug would do all of that hard work, and than get to realize his full value for his full labor. He brings back his mammoth meat, and realizing he has more than enough meat to last he and his family throughout the winter, decides to trade some of the excess meat for the nuts and berry's Grog gathered for his own cave. In this way, Grog and Ug both realize the mutual benefits of a free market exchange - both then have meat and fruits in their diet, both are happy with their respective labor. Yet both started out in the same mindset - working in their own self interest. While Ug spent days hunting and hauling mammoth, Grog spent it gathering nuts and berries.

When all of the productive members of the community do some specialized task and than exchange the fruits of their labors willingly, everyone benefits. When the many live off of the labor of the few, it creates envy and anger and greed...not to mention laziness. Why should Ookla bother hunting if Grog will simply "redistribute" the mammoth meat that Ug spent all that time and energy hunting and bringing back?

quote:

You can't keep capitalism out of socialist countries, no matter how many people the government kills. Someone who likes to go barefoot will trade their issued shoes for the rice ration of someone who wants to lose weight.

You can't have a capitalist society without some degree of socialist policy. Even the naked dude with no property to be taxed for the common defense still gets protected by the nations armed forces, or else the nation falls.

Being a proponent of free market capitalism does not mean I am an anarchist who sees no use for Government or public projects that are necessary. But that's not socialism per se. It's one thing to use tax money to build a military for national defense that benefits all, it's quite another to take the tax money from the producers and just straight up give it to people who did nothing to produce it in the first place.

quote:

Now, I happen to agree with you that Frances employment policies are just friggin silly. If unions could achieve these sorts of protections through contract negotiations, then more power to them, but there is no reason for government to prevent the firing of incompetent employees.

No matter what you do, much of the economic power will always lie in the hands of the Government. We can't exist as a society without seizing peoples property for the common good.

I'll agree with you somewhat on this...however, I think it's best to limit the power of the government and to absolutley miminize the Government from seizing people's property to the bare minimum necessary.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sbkilb
Member
Member # 2726

 - posted      Profile for sbkilb   Email sbkilb   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks D-
You beat me to it with the Ug story.
There has to be a balance between the two systems but definitely weighted to the capitalist side. No other system inspires or rewards hard work than capitalism.
Man by nature is motivated by self interest. Self - family - tribe. A pure socialist society turns that upside down and history proves that it doesn’t work no mater how many times we try to reinvent it.
Yes we owe it to help those who cannot help themselves but for thousands of years the hand up has always been recognized to be better than the hand out.
Brian

Posts: 190 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grog trades like a SOB with his meat, getting a lot for his pound of flesh. The people of the tribe do better. Then Grog gets hurt. His tribe, out of rational self interest might care for him. But if there are three other mammoth hunters, he might be deemed unnecessary. Sorry Grog. Should have been a little less sharp a trader like Gorak.

A certain amount of "charity" has always served the society well, whether out of self interest or not. Are you your brother's keeper?

Man's morals should be inspired by "socialism", but his laws and institutions should be capitalistic.

[ March 21, 2006, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: flydye45 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse.

The United States is arguably more 'socialist' now than it's ever been, but few if any of the attitudes and failings that he attributes to socialism are evident in any more quantities than they've ever been.

Also, as one French citizen (whose name escapes me) noted, few French actually belong to Unions.

http://tinyurl.com/5sbhk

List of countries ranked by Heritage for economic freedom.

http://tinyurl.com/zjnqe

List of countries who supported or opposed the war.

I'm not sure I see a correlation.

To his point about charitable giving:

We give the most

http://tinyurl.com/gejpq

However, as a percentage of GNP, we almost give the least of any first world country

http://tinyurl.com/9uz8d

Prager's article seems to me to, thus, not be substantive on the facts that he bases his arguments on: indeed, the article suffers from the glaring omission of not defing the terms--when does a country become socialist?

In my opinion, self interest is ingrained in people. No 'socialist' government can take that away. Every planned economy has always had a thriving black market. Apocryphal stories of Russians laboring twice as long in their allowed vegetable patches versus the state farms are legendary.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma,

quote:
If this is so, than why are the young college students protesting and why is French unemplyment of young adults so chronically high?
In the US young adult unemployment is double the rate for other ages. Frances appears to follow the same trend.

I'm not sure why you would think that 6 month contracts and temp agencies would impact the college students protesting 'at will' employment.

quote:
Employment Contracts
In France there are three types of employment contracts:
- Temporary employment contract
- Fixed term contract (contrat à durée déterminée - CDD)
- Permanent contract (contrat à durée indéterminée - CDI)

Temporary employment contract
The employee is hired and paid by a temping agency. Temporary employment contracts may be renewed once, on the condition that the total days of employment doesn't exceed 18 months. The temping agency recruits to replace an employee on a temporary basis, to cover a temporary increase in work or for seasonal workers.

Fixed Term contract (CDD)
A fixed term contrat must state in writing the duration of the contract.

The probationary period for a contract of less than six months may not exceed 2 weeks and for contract of over 6 months the probationary period may not exceed 1 month. The CDD is fixed for a defined period of time up to a maximum of 2 years.

Permanent contract (CDI)
When you are employed you will be given a copy of the contract signed by both parties. The contrat will stipulate the date of employment, social security details, the company details and the place of work, the remuneration, notice period, lenght of probationary period (1 to 3 months) and of course the position occupied.

http://www.ambafrance-us.org/visitingfrance/labor.asp

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Automath
Member
Member # 2720

 - posted      Profile for Automath     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And how about his proud declaration that “America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries.” Do the needy in America get more help and assistance per capita per income than citizens of socialist countries? Perhaps the reason why we give more is because we have to. Otherwise the needy would be much, much worse off.
This absolutely kills your argument for me. Do you really think a nation is better off with the government taxing people and handling all the "general welfare" they can, than the people themselves taking the initiative to do so?
Posts: 231 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just can't help picture Phil Hartman as Frankenstein (SNL Skit):

"Grrr, GRRR! Socialism BAD!"

What's going on in France is an illustration of bad government regulation, but it is hard to extrapolate that to "socialism bad". Better to say "regulation bad".

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake, I find it funny that every single socialistic system (save maybe Canada and Sweden) have had poor government regulations. It suggests causation.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think its funny that every single capitalist society has had dramatic abuses of the working classes until government regulates.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A quick point,

Charties probably includes all 'non profits' - a lot of US non profits are actually closer to lobbying consultants.

So trying to compare 'charitable giving' internationally is fraught with difficulty.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Blayne Bradley said:
waaait, the US only donated some 30,000,000$ the cost of a modern jet fighter, a SINGLE jet fighter, while they may have donated the most they donated the least per capita.

Care to cite a source?

A very quick google search turned up an article from Jan 5 2005, only a few weeks after the tsunami hit, that US private donations had surged past $200,000,000. Also a quick look at wikipedia shows a table of government and private donations by country which shows total US private donations at approximately $1,875,000,000. According to the table this does not include corporate donations, which are listed elsewhere on the page. According to the table, The US government contribution was $950,000,000. The total between Government and private doanations from the US, not including Corporate donations according to the table is $2,825,000,000. This is considerably higher than the 30 million that you claim. If you can't even get in the right ballpark with your first statement I am not going to even read the rest of your post.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
? Then your opinion doesn't matter if you are unwilling to read an entire post just because one part of it might be partly or wholly wrong then your hardly one to have an intelligent conversation with, Storm has posted evidence supporting that I am correct that the states gives the least out of 1st world nations something I had also said.

Either read my post or don't but I see no point in discussing this with you if you will not give me the respect of reading my posts.

Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry if I knocked your nose out of joint. I have now read your first post in this thread in its entirety. How about giving your readers the respect of backing up your statements?

quote:
Storm has posted evidence supporting that I am correct that the states gives the least out of 1st world nations something I had also said.
You did indeed say "...while they may have donated the most they donated the least per capita." This was in your quote about how much we donated to tsunami relief. Storm Saxon's evidence shows that in a category called "Official Development Assistance", between the years 2001 and 2004 we gave the most in raw dollar value, but the second to last as a percentage of GNP.

The first problem that I have is that GNP and per capita are two very different things. The second problem that I have is that "Official Development Assistance" is not "Tsunami Relief Effort". They are both fruit, but one is an apple and the other is an orange. Gather enough different fruit and you may be able to compare their properties and come up with some generalizations that model the real world, but you were specifically refering to the Tsunami Relief Effort donations while Storm Saxons evidence concerns Official Development Assistance.

As to our per capita donations for the Tsunami Relief Effort, according to another table in the wikipedia link in my previous post we are listed 16th on a list of 31 nations, with a number of "first world nations" below us on that list. Iceland, Japan, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and France are all generally considered "first world nations" and all of them had lower per capita donation levels that than the United States with respect to the Tsunami Relief efforts. By the way Mainland China was 30th on that list, though Hong Kong was 14th and Taiwan was 19th.

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed."

Wow. This is so much crap. I see this as much in American young people today as this author does in France. In the US though, there are no obligations, only rights. Jury duty? Military? Voting? Hecks no! I wanna get my mommy to buy me a new dvd player/cell phone. Immaturity breads this sort of behavior, not economic theory.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
potemkyn said:
quote:

Wow. This is so much crap. I see this as much in American young people today as this author does in France. In the US though, there are no obligations, only rights. Jury duty? Military? Voting? Hecks no! I wanna get my mommy to buy me a new dvd player/cell phone. Immaturity breads this sort of behavior, not economic theory.

What youth are you speaking of? I cannot address most of the people at my school, but those who are aiming for a Computer Engineering degree tend to work very hard. Most consider it an honor to vote, and while most are not pleased with jury duty, that is hardly a new thing.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meh, just personal experience. I know way too many spoiled kids who feel entitled to the BMW which their parents got them.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I came to this thread expecting to bash Daruma's assertion. But I have to admit that I and my oldest son were watching the news together and our reaction was much the same; they are spoiled. Hell, in Texas you can be fired without cause at any age.

KE

[ March 23, 2006, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The flaw in Daruma's assertion is that this is indicative of Socialism, which is, of course, an economic theory, as oposed to something which actualy affects people on a daily basis.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny. Democracy is only a politcal theory. I suppose it doesn't affect people's lives either.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny.

Democracy is a political theory which includes, individual participation. The difference between Democracy and Tyranny can be felt on a daily basis. The difference between Social Market Economics (the liberal brand of Capitalism practiced in most of Europe) and Socialism is clear, but has little affect on the day to day lives of citizens. Whether they buy a car made from metal made by a government owned steel mill or a privately owned one is of little concern to them. The quality of the steel is. I believe that privately held have historically done a better job, and thus am a Capitalist.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Also during Katrina countries like Cuba, China, Russia etc poured vast amounts of funds and resources to help Katrina victoms, China gave some 1 million tonnes of military blankets. Something along those lines.

Blaine, could you source me on that? I'm NOT questioning your honesty; I just like to keep track of generous acts like what you describe, and it shames me that I had not heard of this generosity. The news should be louder about such things. After 9/11 I brought articles like that to this forum, e.g. a Masai tribe in Africa selling their cattle to give to New York City.

quote:
Also France is unique, in Canada you can be easily fired "for just cause" I worked as a dish washer in a restaurant, not under the table, officially I worked for them for TWO days then got my ass fired for talking too much.
...
His arguement just by cherry picking the right examples is invalid, just by utilizing the same means of determining an arguement the auther did.

Also, in Canada one eventually HAS to get a job and work hard to keep it, Welfare only works for those unable to work for various reasons, a perfectly healthy teenager can only go so far without working, family allowance ends at 18. I know not a single teenager besides my self that never worked until 18 everysingle ones had summer jobs at 14.

The bureaucracy is bad and all but a good shacking could make it more efficient every 20 years or so.

Hey! You CAN talk the language of human beings and individual experience. You said that didn't interest you, but at some level, you do recognize that it matters how policy affects individuals, their hopes and motivations.


quote:
Also, if one looks at the States it is on the high end of the corruption scale
[Big Grin] I don't think so, Blayne The top end of the corruption scale is NIGERIA. "high" is Mexico, where I grew up as a kid. There's a vast corruption difference from Nigeria to Mexico, and again from Mexico to the USA. Canada is much closer to the US in corruption than either country is towards Mexico. The scandal that last brought down your government was more crass than anything that we've seen in Congress since our S&L scam. [Frown]

quote:
so one really can't say America is all that much better, they grew up in a completely different set of circumstances, unlimited unfettered growth dominated the American way of life since the 1800's, and with little government intervention the growth kept going.
How was Canada completely different before it began drifting to socialism?

quote:
And Canada is as left and Socialist you can imagine.
I can imagine a lot. Given what the PRC constitution says about any laws of persons or influences against socialism, I'd say that the PRC is about as socialist as I can imagine, although Pol Pot was farther left. You think Canada is that far gone?


quote:
But that was the American way and it worked due to special circumstances, aka having nearly unlimited tracks of land to expand into, the lack of any major external threats, a liberal minimalist government that allowed the entrepreneurship of the average hardworking American to succeed, and a steady inflow of immigrants from Europe.
If you're saying that different styles of government may be more or less effective during different circumstances, then I agree with you, but consider that a communal "beehive" culture who were almost the opposite of this "rugged individualist" style that you were speaking of, settled large swaths of the Western Frontier. Several of the towns were practicing communism, before the 2nd and 3rd volume of Das Capital were published. Orderville was particularly successful. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orderville
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
donations by country, cash and personel/services/goods

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3241&fpsrc=ealert050926

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think you're quite being fair to these kids. France has withdrawn one of their legal protections, but left that protection in place for everyone else. In the US, we call that "shafted."

You can argue that no one should have that protection, and the French government is absolutely correct to say that this law will help more kids than it hurts, since it means that employers will be more willing to hire them. But the kids have a legitimate complaint that the law singles them out as a class, and gives them fewer rights than other citizens.

I think the French government did the right thing, but I understand the kids' point of view.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you LR!
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I'm a communist within the walls of my own home. Sadly the needs of my kids outweigh my present capacity, but I have a three-year plan: finish school, pass the bar, get a good job, pay down our debts, and get better medical care for my second son.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When I pay 20% extra on everything I buy because of VAT, I would say that affects me on a daily basis.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Canada is also Capitalist. For God's Sake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Social Market Economics do not = Socialist economics, a fact made very clear the link.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, you asseted that socialistic philosophy do not influence daily life. The higher taxes necessary to support that philosophy very much impinge on the European daily life.

IIRC, France had an average income similar to Alabama or some other southern state as an average. Their growth rate stagnates at a third or less of American growth. Socialist steel isn't the problem. Socialist taxes? Socialist employment policy? What do you think the last two riots were about if not Social policy?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye, socialism requires state ownership of industry, which is not inherently connected to high taxes (although usualy accompined by them.) High taxes and high spending of on social programs are possible in both Capitalism and Socialism. You appear, as I have been forced to state ad nauseum, to be using Socialism as shorthand for Social Market Economics, which is admitidly a cluncky bit of translated German, but finds its heritage in the anti-Marxist social policies of Bismark, not in Marx.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1