Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 190
Thanks Tree139Thanks

Thread: When will the Left accept that Socialism was an illusion?

  1. #41
    Member Rob Larrikin's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,497
    Thanks
    413

    From
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    when it comes to universal health insurance administered by a Medicare for all system, it looks like the US is 15 to 25 years behind Australia.
    Like all welfare, the poor think they are getting something for nothing, and, if you only look at the small picture, they are. They get “free” health care. The same applies to them receiving ‘the dole’, they think they’re getting ‘something for nothing’. That’s the small picture. The big picture is very different.

    Think of hunter gatherers, who didn’t know about farming. They thought they were doing very well, after a day of hard, dangerous work, to come back with a pig. That’s the small picture. Farmers know the big picture. They can have a whole lot of pigs without having to do nearly as much hard, dangerous work. People continued along with the small picture for hundreds of thousands of years, going out every day to risk their lives to find their next meal. That’s how determined humans are to stick with their small ideas. How obstinate! Any man who came up with the idea of farming was booed at and cajoled by naysayers, like the trolls who boo and cajole here. Many times he would have been burned at the stake for his trouble. Finally, after eons, someone was finally allowed to start farming, and all the small minded tribespeople scratched their heads and said, “Derp. That’s a lot better. Why didn’t we think of this a hundred thousand years ago?”

    Sure, you can go along the socialist highway, paying through the nose for a bloated bureaucratic health care system with its second rate doctors and nurses, its corruption and inefficiency, waiting years to be operated on, and often dying in the process. Or you can privatize the whole system, and enjoy a much better service. There’s a caveat however. You would need to remove all welfare, lower taxes a lot, and remove government from all other business. You will then find that welfare isn’t needed, since everyone will have a job. Wealth will replace welfare, and those who are truly unable to fend for themselves would be looked after by the great charity that always abounds when society is rich. Another caveat is that unions are banned from interfering in business, and have to be law abiding like everyone else. In that system unions would fade away like a cured cancer.

    .

  2. #42
    Veteran Member Panzareta's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29,817
    Thanks
    17779

    From
    On a happy trail
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Larrikin View Post
    Like all welfare, the poor think they are getting something for nothing, and, if you only look at the small picture, they are. They get “free” health care. The same applies to them receiving ‘the dole’, they think they’re getting ‘something for nothing’. That’s the small picture. The big picture is very different.

    Think of hunter gatherers, who didn’t know about farming. They thought they were doing very well, after a day of hard, dangerous work, to come back with a pig. That’s the small picture. Farmers know the big picture. They can have a whole lot of pigs without having to do nearly as much hard, dangerous work. People continued along with the small picture for hundreds of thousands of years, going out every day to risk their lives to find their next meal. That’s how determined humans are to stick with their small ideas. How obstinate! Any man who came up with the idea of farming was booed at and cajoled by naysayers, like the trolls who boo and cajole here. Many times he would have been burned at the stake for his trouble. Finally, after eons, someone was finally allowed to start farming, and all the small minded tribespeople scratched their heads and said, “Derp. That’s a lot better. Why didn’t we think of this a hundred thousand years ago?”

    Sure, you can go along the socialist highway, paying through the nose for a bloated bureaucratic health care system with its second rate doctors and nurses, its corruption and inefficiency, waiting years to be operated on, and often dying in the process. Or you can privatize the whole system, and enjoy a much better service. There’s a caveat however. You would need to remove all welfare, lower taxes a lot, and remove government from all other business. You will then find that welfare isn’t needed, since everyone will have a job. Wealth will replace welfare, and those who are truly unable to fend for themselves would be looked after by the great charity that always abounds when society is rich. Another caveat is that unions are banned from interfering in business, and have to be law abiding like everyone else. In that system unions would fade away like a cured cancer.

    .
    I like my fellow citizens to be as free from disease as possible but then maybe you like being exposed to diseases. Just goes to show that the world is made up of all kinds of maladaptive types.

    I hope the wall you dream of will be high enough to keep you out.

  3. #43
    Member Rob Larrikin's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,497
    Thanks
    413

    From
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    It can also have a universal healthcare system covering everyone and also be a capitalist country.
    True, just as you can have a melanoma in the middle of your forehead. These days many capitalist countries are plagued by socialist inspired melanoma, and if they grow too large they will kill off capitalism in those countries, which is what socialists want.

  4. #44
    The Covfefe are Coming! BitterPill's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    7,156
    Thanks
    4684

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Larrikin View Post
    True, just as you can have a melanoma in the middle of your forehead. These days many capitalist countries are plagued by socialist inspired melanoma, and if they grow too large they will kill off capitalism in those countries, which is what socialists want.
    It is apparent that you defend corporate welfare yet still attack welfare for the needy, but even more interesting is how you bristle when I mention your benefits at government largess.

    Why don't you tell us about them? I bet they put our measly American benefits to bed.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  5. #45
    Vexatious Correspondent Leo2's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,349
    Thanks
    2931

    From
    UK/Australia
    I am as constantly bemused by Mr Larrikan's national status as I am by his stated attitudes to the 'undeserving poor'. I find it passing strange that a Canadian born Australian should express his views in these words.

    We used to be much closer to a purely capitalist state in the past, and those days provided us with great things, like the American Constitution. When the government has its nose and claws in everything, you get far less creativity, far less innovation, and far less advances in science.
    No Canadian or Australian of my acquaintance would ever consider using the personal pronoun 'we' in respect of the United States. This would be anathema to most Canadians, and would not even occur to most Australians. It is indeed, as the King of Siam put it in the work of fiction, 'a puzzlement'.

    The definitions and applications of socialism are many and varied, and strictly defined by neither Marx nor the Oxford Dictionaries. No nation state can operate in a civilised manner, without some degree of concerted effort and funding (aka socialism). Helping the old lady who lives next door to my aunt, by occasionally weeding her garden and mowing her lawns is my idea of an element of socialism. I don't have to whistle The Internationale whilst doing that, and I do enjoy the tea and cake which invariably follow.

  6. #46
    Veteran Member Panzareta's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    29,817
    Thanks
    17779

    From
    On a happy trail
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    I am as constantly bemused by Mr Larrikan's national status as I am by his stated attitudes to the 'undeserving poor'. I find it passing strange that a Canadian born Australian should express his views in these words.



    No Canadian or Australian of my acquaintance would ever consider using the personal pronoun 'we' in respect of the United States. This would be anathema to most Canadians, and would not even occur to most Australians. It is indeed, as the King of Siam put it in the work of fiction, 'a puzzlement'.

    The definitions and applications of socialism are many and varied, and strictly defined by neither Marx nor the Oxford Dictionaries. No nation state can operate in a civilised manner, without some degree of concerted effort and funding (aka socialism). Helping the old lady who lives next door to my aunt, by occasionally weeding her garden and mowing her lawns is my idea of an element of socialism. I don't have to whistle The Internationale whilst doing that, and I do enjoy the tea and cake which invariably follow.
    I'm hoping he is turned back at the border every time he tries to come here.

  7. #47
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,754
    Thanks
    38766

    From
    Nashville, TN
    pos·er1
    ˈpōzər/
    noun
    noun: poser; plural noun: posers
    a person who acts in an affected manner in order to impress others.
    synonyms:
    exhibitionist, poseur, posturer, fake; informalshow-off
    "he's such a poser"
    Thanks from Panzareta

  8. #48
    Member Rob Larrikin's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,497
    Thanks
    413

    From
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo2 View Post
    I am as constantly bemused by Mr Larrikan's national status as I am by his stated attitudes to the 'undeserving poor'.
    Learn to use the quote function. I haven’t a clue what you’re nattering about. The last time I mentioned ‘poor’ was when I said, “The poor,” above. Where did you get ‘undeserving’ from?

    I find it passing strange that a Canadian born Australian should express his views in these words.
    You need to use a colon ( : ) and a quote as follows, so people can verify it’s mine, and in what context it was made:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Larrikin View Post
    We used to be much closer to a purely capitalist state in the past, and those days provided us with great things, like the American Constitution. When the government has its nose and claws in everything, you get far less creativity, far less innovation, and far less advances in science.
    No Canadian or Australian of my acquaintance would ever consider using the personal pronoun 'we' in respect of the United States.
    Isn’t that sweet? He’s worried about my ‘we’. Let me put it another way, to comfort you:

    “We (America, England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Europe and etcetera) used to be much closer to a purely capitalist state in the past, and those days provided us with great things, like the American Constitution.”

    Xenophobes find it hard to understand the World Wide Web. They’re like old geezers back in the days of horseless carriages, insisting cars were evil, or the old fogies who thought telephones were the work of the devil. They can’t adapt to a world where people across the planet discuss politics. At this point they’re more than two decades behind the times.

    This would be anathema to most Canadians, and would not even occur to most Australians. It is indeed, as the King of Siam put it in the work of fiction, 'a puzzlement'.
    Obviously you have a bad case of this syndrome. If you don’t know that humans use ‘we’ all the time online, meaning ‘all people’, then it’s time you began really getting out there and taking a look around. Here’s a starter:

    https://www.google.com/search?biw=13....0.O7dX98m6QXA

    Helping the old lady who lives next door to my aunt, by occasionally weeding her garden and mowing her lawns is my idea of an element of socialism.
    Well you’d be confusing neighborly favors with a political system then. Socialism is an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are owned by the State. Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the State. Your neighbor's lawn has nothing to do with it, but you do get a scout point, for being nice to her.

    I don't have to whistle The Internationale whilst doing that, and I do enjoy the tea and cake which invariably follow.
    Well if you do whistle the Internationale, people will think you’re a communist, so yes; best to stick with the tea and cake.
    Last edited by Rob Larrikin; 6th September 2017 at 10:34 PM.

  9. #49
    Telecastin' Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,630
    Thanks
    4397

    From
    Brisbane, Australia
    If socialism has failed. So why is Australia doing so well? It's more socialist than the US and I don't see any 'Chicken Little' type failure there.

    This wouldn't be more unsupported and infantile hyperbole designed merely to libel the left?

    Of course it would.
    Thanks from BitterPill

  10. #50
    Member Rob Larrikin's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,497
    Thanks
    413

    From
    Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Blues63 View Post
    If socialism has failed. So why is Australia doing so well?
    Australia isn’t a socialist state, yet. It’s still a capitalist democracy like America, and like America it is plagued by socialists. They have driven all the car companies out, along with thousands of other big companies. Tens of thousands of others have shut down. This all happened thanks to greedy socialist unions and greedy Labor governments with their huge taxes on everything you can think of. It used to cost $150 to register a car a few years back. Now it’s close to $1000. Water is expensive because Labor morons made sure we didn’t have enough dams (to save a few trees). Electricity is expensive because Labor morons are destroying all our power companies to replace them with ‘green’ windmills, etc., and as a result black outs have begun in some cities, like Adelaide. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What the left refuse to accept
    By Conservatarian in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 191
    Last Post: 14th November 2016, 02:07 PM
  2. Socialism and the Left..they never learn
    By mrmike in forum Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 5th February 2016, 10:24 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 6th January 2014, 03:49 AM
  4. Rush Limbaugh turns hard left, embraces NFL socialism
    By Blueneck in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 13th October 2009, 11:35 AM
  5. Left Vs. Right: The Illusion Of Opposites
    By Defensor in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 28th January 2008, 02:02 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed