Org Mobile Site
Unable to discredit my post on how the government discriminates against the bastards who choose to pay for treatment, you thought you'd try and take the piss out of me. Well done sir.
It was meant in the friendliest way possible, i thought it matched up nicely to your rant about left wing authritarianism
On the actual issue health care should be free to everyone regardless what they bought out of thier own money (i wouldn't want them to be advanced in the system above other people simply because they purchased thier drugs though) so labour was wrong if they were the cause of that situation, and that isn't what healthcare should be about
Ideally if we were a left wing country we would put a bit more money into our healthcare system and there wouldn't be the need to buy these drugs, though obviously i don't now the situation fully so i can't judge, though as i understand labour has increased investment in the NHS.
I don't really consider attacks on labour attacks on left wing policys or ideas, they made a deliberate move to the centre and have a mish mash of policys trying to appeal to all sections, i think most left wingers vote for them out of the idea that the torys are worse and the lib dems can't win.
TBH i would proscribe to both policys, they seem a little better under cameron in a way, but in a way very similar to labour now, very populist, i suppose in the end i think at least the backbenchers are usually inclined towards the partys natural state, so i would prefer labour, though im not sure theres much difference.
That said i haven't voted labour once and i don't think i will anytime soon, i have voted lib dems twice, and i don't think they're great but they seem a lot better than two main parties, possibly they just aren't tainted by power... (probably)
but It's New Years and I'm off a beer.
You should have been off hours ago!
happy new years
It was meant in the friendliest way possible, i thought it matched up nicely to your rant about left wing authritarianism
On the actual issue health care should be free to everyone regardless what they bought out of thier own money (i wouldn't want them to be advanced in the system above other people simply because they purchased thier drugs though) so labour was wrong if they were the cause of that situation, and that isn't what healthcare should be about
Ideally if we were a left wing country we would put a bit more money into our healthcare system and there wouldn't be the need to buy these drugs, though obviously i don't now the situation fully so i can't judge, though as i understand labour has increased investment in the NHS.
I don't really consider attacks on labour attacks on left wing policys or ideas, they made a deliberate move to the centre and have a mish mash of policys trying to appeal to all sections, i think most left wingers vote for them out of the idea that the torys are worse and the lib dems can't win.
TBH i would proscribe to both policys, they seem a little better under cameron in a way, but in a way very similar to labour now, very populist, i suppose in the end i think at least the backbenchers are usually inclined towards the partys natural state, so i would prefer labour, though im not sure theres much difference.
That said i haven't voted labour once and i don't think i will anytime soon, i have voted lib dems twice, and i don't think they're great but they seem a lot better than two main parties, possibly they just aren't tainted by power... (probably)
but It's New Years and I'm off a beer.
You should have been off hours ago!
happy new years
Originally Posted by Watchman:
...uh-huh...
How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars View Post
The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian.
...uh-huh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
Quote:
Originally Posted by same
Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2: a heavy demand
How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.
Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.
Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.
"a charge imposed by authority", "submission to authority". I don't see the difference, please explain....uh-huh...
How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars View Post
The government taking more money in taxes = the government having more power over your money = more authoritarian.
...uh-huh...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: au·thor·i·tar·i·an
Function: adjective
Date: 1879
1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>
2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>
— authoritarian noun
— au·thor·i·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun
Quote:
Originally Posted by same
Main Entry: tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1 a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2: a heavy demand
How about you call back when you can tell the difference between the two ? kthx.
Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.
Also, you just flunked PolSci 101.
..."blind submission to authority", thankyouverymuch. No grossly tendentious omissions when quoting please.
'Sides, you're going to get lorded over by somebody anyway. And while everyone has their tastes, I'd rather it were a basically benign elected regime than Tupac Army warlords à la Somalia...
'Sides, you're going to get lorded over by somebody anyway. And while everyone has their tastes, I'd rather it were a basically benign elected regime than Tupac Army warlords à la Somalia...
May your masters be as kind as possible.
I'd rather be free.
I'd rather be free.
Have I made it clear yet that the authoritarianism is on a scale? 
Originally Posted by Mangudai:
7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.
You really haven't read many of my posts have you? I think that the Soviet Union had many things that were good about it and many things that we can learn from. However, I believe that the complete absence of Democracy was inexcusable. That is not a reason to completely ignore everything they ever did though.7. Your praise of the Soviet Union reveals your true colors.
Originally Posted by Mangudai:
In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.
...because we choose to give the government this authority... nor does it degrade humanity... I truly don't understand what you are trying to say...In case you haven't realized this yet. Taxation can only be established and maintained by force.
Gentlemen,
The temperature of this thread has reached a level suitable for boiling enough water for my morning tea.
Please calm down, cut out the bad language, and respect each other's views whilst tearing them a new one.
Thank you kindly
The temperature of this thread has reached a level suitable for boiling enough water for my morning tea.
Please calm down, cut out the bad language, and respect each other's views whilst tearing them a new one.
Thank you kindly
That would be diplomacy: the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to making the trip.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
You really haven't read many of my posts have you? I think that the Soviet Union had many things that were good about it and many things that we can learn from. However, I believe that the complete absence of Democracy was inexcusable. That is not a reason to completely ignore everything they ever did though.
Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?You really haven't read many of my posts have you? I think that the Soviet Union had many things that were good about it and many things that we can learn from. However, I believe that the complete absence of Democracy was inexcusable. That is not a reason to completely ignore everything they ever did though.
By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.
Of course, the Soviet union may not be technically marxist because the point was to make the economy subversive to democratic planning. The Soviet Union however shows quite well that command economies don't work; wich becomes even more obvious if you realize that it had a massive black market economy wich more and more people turned to.
So the main disagreement is whether authority is justified simply because it's democratic. I say it is not. Since 1870 African Americans have been full citizens with the right to vote. Nevertheless they were subject to unjust authority because the majority of voters were unjust. They did not submit to this authority "blindly", they submitted because they were forced to.
I'm not suggesting that anything in our current political debates is anywhere near that level of injustice. All I'm suggesting is that democracy can impose unjust authority.
I'm not suggesting that anything in our current political debates is anywhere near that level of injustice. All I'm suggesting is that democracy can impose unjust authority.
Originally Posted by :
There is no question about whether force is involved, it's simply a matter of whether force is legitimate.Originally Posted by :
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
...because we choose to give the government this authority... nor does it degrade humanity... I truly don't understand what you are trying to say...Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
A small number of people think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is part of their personality and dignity. A large number of people think riding a motorcycle without a helmet is a bad idea. "We" choose to give the government authority to force everyone to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.
Regarding taxes for social programs. If I'm required to pay for programs to support the truly unfortunate, that's OK, I won't complain. If I'm required to be a full participant in these programs, so that I must depend on the government for my retirement and my health care, I have a major problem. The former is all about helping people, the later is about control. In the US we have a program called social security which falls clearly in the latter catagory. Every year about 30 days worth of my wages are siphoned off into this ponzi scheme.
Originally Posted by Fenring:
Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?
Such as its social welfare system and the affirmative action programs it had in place for women.Such as what? That it was a somewhat egalitarian society, spreading misery equally across the vast majority of its population while rewarding the aparatchiks who labour to make it so?
Originally Posted by Fenring:
By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.
And I don't like a command-control economy.By the mid '80ties the only part of the Soviet economy that wasn't mismanaged horroribly was the military industry. The USA and Soviets usually spent comparable amounts of recources on the military, but in the case of the USA this amounted to about 6 % of the GDP, for the Soviets almost 50%.
Originally Posted by :
I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.
I completely occur, but again - what is your point?I say let me do things my way, so long as it doesn't affect somebody else.
It occurs to me Mangu's sounding a whole lot like he wants to have all those nice services a modern state brings - law and order, infrastructure, communal defense, all kinds of little things that improve everybody's quality of life etc. - without having to pay his part of the bill for it...
You freeloader, you.
You freeloader, you.
Originally Posted by Mangudai:
In the US we have a program called social security which falls clearly in the latter catagory. Every year about 30 days worth of my wages are siphoned off into this ponzi scheme.
And I hope you realize that what passes for social security in the US is regarded as a really bad joke over here, where that thing actually works and does its job...?In the US we have a program called social security which falls clearly in the latter catagory. Every year about 30 days worth of my wages are siphoned off into this ponzi scheme.
Originally Posted by Watchman:
It occurs to me Mangu's sounding a whole lot like he wants to have all those nice services a modern state brings - law and order, infrastructure, communal defense, all kinds of little things that improve everybody's quality of life etc. - without having to pay his part of the bill for it...
What it occurs to you I sound like bears no relation to what I actually said.It occurs to me Mangu's sounding a whole lot like he wants to have all those nice services a modern state brings - law and order, infrastructure, communal defense, all kinds of little things that improve everybody's quality of life etc. - without having to pay his part of the bill for it...
My first point was that socialism is not targeted at relieving the worst human suffering, it is aimed at social control.
Two points that emerged in conversation were: 1. Taxation is authoritarian, and every program based on taxation is authoritarian. 2. Democracy does not necessarily confer legitimacy.
Watchman has not argued those points, he has created a straw man. I never pretended a society could function with zero authoritarianism. I did say that I was willing to pay taxes to relieve the worst human suffering. Socialism goes beyond the legitimate functions of the state.
So if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident where you get head injuries, who is going to pay for your treatment? Well, you I guess and what if you cannot afford it? Well, maybe others, but they cannot afford to donate because they have to save money in case they have an accident or an illness themselves, so the medics don't even come until after they checked your credit status because otherwise they'd be wasting precious money because the government won't give them any and people do not give to charity because everybody is on her/his own.
Wow, that must be a splendid capitalist system and hey, nobody is affecting anybody else.
Wow, that must be a splendid capitalist system and hey, nobody is affecting anybody else.
Originally Posted by Husar:
So if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident where you get head injuries, who is going to pay for your treatment? Well, you I guess and what if you cannot afford it? Well, maybe others, but they cannot afford to donate because they have to save money in case they have an accident or an illness themselves, so the medics don't even come until after they checked your credit status because otherwise they'd be wasting precious money because the government won't give them any and people do not give to charity because everybody is on her/his own.
Wow, that must be a splendid capitalist system and hey, nobody is affecting anybody else.
another strawmanSo if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident where you get head injuries, who is going to pay for your treatment? Well, you I guess and what if you cannot afford it? Well, maybe others, but they cannot afford to donate because they have to save money in case they have an accident or an illness themselves, so the medics don't even come until after they checked your credit status because otherwise they'd be wasting precious money because the government won't give them any and people do not give to charity because everybody is on her/his own.
Wow, that must be a splendid capitalist system and hey, nobody is affecting anybody else.
Please define "socialism" for me. 'Cause I know for a fact - and from lenghty experience - the US Right is wont to use the term quite loosely and with rather poor grasp of its meanings and dimensions.
Originally Posted by Watchman:
Please define "socialism" for me. 'Cause I know for a fact - and from lenghty experience - the US Right is wont to use the term quite loosely and with rather poor grasp of its meanings and dimensions.
ZOMFG OBAMA = SOCIALIST!!!!1!1!1Please define "socialism" for me. 'Cause I know for a fact - and from lenghty experience - the US Right is wont to use the term quite loosely and with rather poor grasp of its meanings and dimensions.
Originally Posted by Mangudai:
another strawman
You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?another strawman
Originally Posted by Husar:
You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?
And? Everybody dies. Why waste masses of cash on futile causes?You mean it's not true that people die in some countries because they cannot pay for the treatment necessary to keep them alive?
Originally Posted by Mangudai:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
That wasn't much of an answer, seeing as how you patently failed to identify which particular brand of Socialism you're referring to.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
Although, seeing as how here...
Originally Posted by :
1. Taxation is authoritarian, and every program based on taxation is authoritarian.
...you pretty much just defined every state ever as 'authoritarian', and "authoritarian" out of any meaning and relevancy as a descriptor, I figure the point is really rather moot. "Socialism goes beyond the legitimate functions of the state" seems to get kind of meaningless on the side, given that you don't seem to regard taxation as a very legitimate activity in the first place.1. Taxation is authoritarian, and every program based on taxation is authoritarian.
...what are the "legitimate functions of the state" according to you, anyway...?
Originally Posted by Watchman:
...you pretty much just defined every state ever as 'authoritarian'
Nice trap but a state is naturally born from cultural identity and that's the only social contract there is....you pretty much just defined every state ever as 'authoritarian'
A state is born out of someone having a big stick and using it to beat everyone else around into submission. Thankfully, most realize right fast maintaining the achieved power status is much more effectively done by befriending your subjects than bullying them...
Seriously Frags, did you sleep through all your history lessons in school or something ?
Seriously Frags, did you sleep through all your history lessons in school or something ?
@Frag So your your saying a state is just a group of people who gather to talk about how great there culture is?
I htink he's getting it confused with the rather ambiguous concept of "nation" there...
Originally Posted by Watchman:
A state is born out of someone having a big stick and using it to beat everyone else around into submission.
There would have to be a kind of choas before that for that to be, but there really never was any people always have organised, and out of what, not because they wanted a state but because of convenience. When it works it works and it worked for most western countries, and people tend to live near their family's, not so hard to understand where the nation state comes from.A state is born out of someone having a big stick and using it to beat everyone else around into submission.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Nice trap but a state is naturally born from cultural identity and that's the only social contract there is.
Sorry Frag, but that's a nation-state.Nice trap but a state is naturally born from cultural identity and that's the only social contract there is.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
...not so hard to understand where the nation state comes from.
Given how young form of a state it is, nonsense. For most of history your "nationality" has been utterly irrelevant to what "state" you live under, that being ultimately a question of who could stake a claim on the place you live in and enforce it. "Ultima Ratio Regnum", "Final Arbiter of Kings", was apparently once the rather succint motto of the French royal artillery, which rather well sums up the gist of it......not so hard to understand where the nation state comes from.
A state is formed out of someone bringing all the kinds of little communities people otherwise live in under the aegis of one leading entity. Both the exact details of that snowballing, those component communities, and the actor assuming the leadership/authority are rather cosmetic; as is the scale of the affair. The point is, the pattern is quite universal.
Merely as one example, much of the history of Europe since the fall of Rome is about diverse ambitious actors absorbing other communities, groups and whatever under their rule; and of such budding central states trying to impose their authority internally over any mind-boggling hodgepodge of uncooperative feudal barons, free cities, Church estates, ambitious pretenders, bandit kings etc. refusing to care much about their claimed sovereignty.
The modern "Westphalian" state is more or less the end product of that lenghty and convoluted developement - of the nominal sovereign state making the claim factual inside its dominions.
For most of history your "nationality" has been utterly irrelevant to what "state" you live under
Oh? WW1? Serbia?
Oh? WW1? Serbia?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO