Inuzuka Skysword

We don't have to have social equality to the fullest extent. All you need is a good work ethic and as bit of talent at what you do and you can hit the big time. I can be a professional basketball player if I practice for a couple of hours everyday and focus on it. That alone pays a lot of money.

Barnard17

You're just full of those helpful little tidbits aren't you.

Socialism gives equality. Until equality is achieved, neither is socialism. It's not that hard to understand.

I thought I'd established that without him working in his job you'd be running to the toilet to throw up for a week after every time you ate at a restaurant. Coming from a well-to-do middle-class background may have warped your view on jobs that are good or not, but the bottom end ones are usually the most necessary ones when you get down to it. Being a builder may not be as glamorous and well paid as being a lawyer but who does a greater service to society?

And why is greed, selfishness and hoarding right?

I really hope you're not Christian. That would be the cherry of irony.

Somebody should give you a shovel so you can carry on digging your grave of naivety.

TheBig3

First let me say that I've read up until, I don't know page 4 or 5 and I've come to the position that you should all get a library card.

We don't understand the "basic tenants of capitalism?" I'd be more inclined to believe you but I said that exact phrase in this thread a couple pages earlier. I don't think you understand the basic principles of capitalism. There are reasons governments exist and regardless of what your L. Ron Hubbard overlords have told you, its not a power grab.

Standardized pricing takes place everywhere. Try and buy an ipod. Its going to be the same price everywhere. And there will not be some renegade company selling it for less because Apple won't sell you it. Even if they did, you'd be crushed by the bigger stores with more locations and the ability to process more consumers. And in your free market unregulated world, there'd be no federal government or anti-monopoly laws in place to stop them.

Businesses do not run, nor care about societies and governments, which operate in many cases as a giant consumer advocate anyway, have to keep the will of the public in mind. Capitalism is a dynamic system that corresponds well to democracy, its voting with your wallet. But if you don't like the laws you can always change the law makers.

As for your comment on philanthropy, what are you ****ing 12? Or is your head just up your ass. That was the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever read. Most capitalists want unregulated everything so your philanthropic doctors wouldn't need licenses and if you're going to allow doctors to practice in your country without any sort of oversight, then I pray you get sick first and we'll see how strong your resolve is then you poverty stricken naive invalid.

The founding fathers would also not approve of large corporations telling you what you can and cannot get treated for. But I suppose HMO's doing exactly what government would in a socialist nation is completely different right? Does anyone around here think?

Seriously, whats more detrimental to a society? A government dictating or a business dictating. And before you bring up idiot underdog theories again, why hasn't any HMO in existence currently offered up affordable coverage for any type of problem you'd come across?

I suppose giving them more power would fix that though, right?

And you're not a bright bulb either. The constitution is outdated?? Go **** yourself. The constitution is amendable, and if changes need be made, they can. Who cares what the founding fathers practiced? Shouldn't you be holding a sign that says "rethink thanksgiving?"

Newsflash: Everyone that has ever lived was a ****ty person. This is why government works. We agree on things so that we move towards a collective balance even if we're racist ourselves. Its ugly, but if there were real problems the country would have folded by now. We're making progress and just because we were not born a utopia doesn't mean we're inherently bad.

And what exactly is wrong with Ron Paul, and where did that come from? Because he cites the constitution? Shouldn't he? Its the ****ing law.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

TheBig3

Sorry I missed one.

Well most times when things are "unconstitutional" its because they are the laws that no state would have changed.

I'm not sure what you'd know of our system here but you need (and its been awhile since i've checked) something to the effect of 3/4'sof the union agreeing upon a change before it can be ratified. Its generally solid.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

DearJenny

For my, my alignment depends on the topic. I'm very wishy-washy when it comes to politics.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I wish I lived in this middle class utopia that some people here seem to want.
Just think a whole society of people in middle management jobs where nobody has any financial problems during their entire lives at all ,ever.

I fear there are a few people in for a nasty shock once they get into the real world.

Whatever next ? Poor people wanting to be able to go to a doctors? ... damn communists.

__________________

N*S*G

I got a (-10, -10) on a political analysis diagnostic.

That is a hard left, hard libertarian... the antipode of a hard right, hard statist. I am opposite of Stalin (pretty much a (10, 10)), and more left than Ghandi (he was close to a (-4, -4)).

So am I a conservative? No.

Joshee

Dude,
Thats gold.
Ha ha ha.

N*S*G

As forced as that joke was, I will have to disagree.

Liberals want provided economy, free social.
Conservatives want provided social, free economy.

It depends on how you look at it. Do you want either your wallet or your balls in a vice grip?

DontRunMeOver

(I'm going to use the word 'medic' all the way through after it was pointed out in great length to me the other day that most people who went to medical school aren't actually 'doctors')

If that were the state of society then medics would just up their prices and half of the people still wouldn't be able to afford to go to the medics. Either that or everybody would have enough extra cash to pay but the waiting lists would be huge.

I think that most of the medic-related problems you see in the NHS result from not enough medical school places being created, so that there aren't enough medics in the first place. If everything went private there still wouldn't be enough qualified medics around to deal with everybody adequately and there certainly wouldn't be enough to create a competitive capitalist environment. In fact, the system would probably be a lot less competitive because the customer wouldn't have the alternative of free state-funded treatment to barter with.

We've seen with the railway system here that privatisation can be a complete balls up, resulting in something which amounts to legal monopolisation and as a result much worse services at a much higher cost. The idea of universal privatisation of medical treatment leading to improved services doesn't always work when:

1) Medics have, due to 'old school ties', access to a more organised network of other practising medics and are generally in a position to take part in a kind of informal price-fixing (quite simply, if no medics lower their prices then everybody can continue to charge high prices for the services).
2) In most places there are a lack of medics compared to the demand, so medics don't need to cut their prices to get customers.

And the problems are probably worse in small towns/villages where they might be only one or two medics available. In that situation privatisation could easily lead to medics charging through the roof, knowing that their customers have no other alternative.

In the US there might be a huge surplus of trained medics, but in the UK that is not the case and I think the big problem is not universal healthcare but the number of people who are being funded to do ****ty mickey-mouse degrees instead of pushing more people towards medical school. More medics = greater supply compared to demand and with or without universal privatisation that will bring the cost of the service down (within the NHS such an action should lead to individual medics being paid less thus you get more medics for your tax-pound).

__________________