|
Hugo...doing it again. (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
Smiley's putting on a good show here. Interesting information, folks! :D Though I still find it fishy as the direction where Chavez is heading to ... what if he doesn't stop and goes on further ... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Is that all you think the Welfare state means? The dole?!
|
Partialy, yes.
| quote: |
I seem to recall reading something that said unemployment benefits were only a small part of social security, and the vast majority goes on the pension fund.
|
Depends which country you're in I suppose.
| quote: |
But what about universal free health care? Is that not something you support?
|
True, and while you're trying to paint me into a corner you might want to realize that while I live under the umbrella of universal health care, it's not that I didn't appreciate it when I needed it for my broken leg.
Does that make me an automatic hypocrite?
No, because universal health care, as a policy, doesn't force changes or dictate what I can or can't do in my financial life; which by the way, is my whole point against Socialism if you haven't caught on by now.
| quote: |
And if you don't think libertarianism = rule by corporations then you're even more deluded than the Marxists and Anarchists who think their ideologies will actually work.
|
Convenient that all the small and medium size businesses that actually make up most of a capitalist society would be missing...
Are there large 'evil' corporations out there? Probably. (Enron any one?).
But that's what Watch Dogs and laws are for... ;)
| quote: |
Extremes tend not to work, and no matter how great libertarianism may seem, it will be nothing more than anarcho-capitalism and did you ever wonder why libertarianism is so popular amongst the rich and well to do? Because that's the ONLY group in society it would benefit... |
That's a lie.
Average people have the choice to start their own small business, live a comfortable lifestyle and not necessarily be 'well-to-do' or even 'rich' for that matter, all without government assistance!
These are the people that make up the backbone of what a capitalist society and libertarian yet you want to fall back on large, corporate entities, why? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Anyways, let's get back to Hugo shall we?
As entertaining as this is...
Hugo doesn't represent all that is Socialism anyways since he seems to be edging towards a more authoritarian, Communist society anyways... |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
But that's what Watch Dogs and laws are for... ;) |
in libertarian society there would be no watch dogs ;) |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Anyways, let's get back to Hugo shall we?
As entertaining as this is...
Hugo doesn't represent all that is Socialism anyways since he seems to be edging towards a more authoritarian, Communist society anyways... |
I agree Hugo is making rather bad decisions lately. I do not agree however with you coupling socialism as whole with the image of populism and authoritarianism. Hugo sadly has lost his north. I think we can all agree that has blown a good chance to make things right in his country. |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
That's a lie.
Average people have the choice to start their own small business, live a comfortable lifestyle and not necessarily be 'well-to-do' or even 'rich' for that matter, all without government assistance!
These are the people that make up the backbone of what a capitalist society and libertarian yet you want to fall back on large, corporate entities, why? |
I guess thats why theres so many poor people then. It fits perfectly with your theory. This is why libertarianism fails. It's an easy cop out. Premise 1, in a libertarian society you can always make it if you try hard enough. Premise 2, if you don't make it, you're not trying hard enough. Thats seems pretty circular to me, not to mention quite a simplistic view of the thousands of variables that can affect the outcome of a human life. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I agree Hugo is making rather bad decisions lately. I do not agree however with you coupling socialism as whole with the image of populism and authoritarianism. Hugo sadly has lost his north. I think we can all agree that has blown a good chance to make things right in his country. |
Well, that what he keeps telling everybody in his, 'It's for their own good' speeches...:p |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I guess thats why theres so many poor people then.
|
Poor people where though specifically?
Every country / style of government is different.
If the government doesn't allow personal property or wealth then it's quite obvious that there will be a lot of poor people!
| quote: |
It fits perfectly with your theory. This is why libertarianism fails. It's an easy cop out. Premise 1, in a libertarian society you can always make it if you try hard enough. Premise 2, if you don't make it, you're not trying hard enough. Thats seems pretty circular to me, not to mention quite a simplistic view of the thousands of variables that can affect the outcome of a human life. |
Close.
Success is built on repeat failure and learning from them.
And there is a difference between working just hard and working hard AND smart (usually through experience of a previous failure).
Circular sure, but that's how life is lived; one fails (maybe several times) before they succeed. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
The benefits of capitalism are not equally shared...true.
Everyone does not have the same skills and will not succeed equally in the free market...true.
But the failure of one person to succeed does NOT grant them a claim over the life of another person! This is what socialism basically says...When people fail, they have a claim on the time/energy/labor of those who have not failed. They have a moral justification to partially enslave those who succeed via confiscation of their earnings and property. Slavery is a strong word, but it is entirely accurate here. If you were forced to work an entire year without any compensation, by definition, you would be a slave. In the all-caring welfare states of Europe, the most productive successful people are "only" enslaved 5-7 months of the year once all taxes are factored in.
The main principle of libertarianism is non-aggression...the banishing of coercion and FORCE from all relationships in life. The fact that the "rich" are better off even after getting the taxed out of them is irrelevant. Libertarians do not oppose socialism because they are shilling for the rich are big corporations. They do it it because they oppose coercion...the FORCE that socialism requires by it's nature. The act of POINTING A GUN AT SOMEONE'S HEAD and demanding they work without pay is simply immoral according to libertarianism. It has nothing to do with greed...loving the rich, or hating the poor. It's about respecting individual freedom.
I realize this is getting into bigger philosophical issues...which is why I stopped trying to debate it. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The benefits of capitalism are not equally shared...true.
Everyone does not have the same skills and will not succeed equally in the free market...true.
But the failure of one person to succeed does NOT grant them a claim over the life of another person! This is what socialism basically says...When people fail, they have a claim on the time/energy/labor of those who have not failed. They have a moral justification to partially enslave those who succeed via confiscation of their earnings and property. Slavery is a strong word, but it is entirely accurate here. If you were forced to work an entire year without any compensation, by definition, you would be a slave. In the all-caring welfare states of Europe, the most productive successful people are "only" enslaved 5-7 months of the year once all taxes are factored in.
The main principle of libertarianism is non-aggression...the banishing of coercion and FORCE from all relationships in life. The fact that the "rich" are better off even after getting the taxed out of them is irrelevant. Libertarians do not oppose socialism because they are shilling for the rich are big corporations. They do it it because they oppose coercion...the FORCE that socialism requires by it's nature. The act of POINTING A GUN AT SOMEONE'S HEAD and demanding they work without pay is simply immoral according to libertarianism. It has nothing to do with greed...loving the rich, or hating the poor. It's about respecting individual freedom.
I realize this is getting into bigger philosophical issues...which is why I stopped trying to debate it. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here. |
like we've already stated, this kind of nonsense is no better than the romantic idealism espoused by socialists. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
like we've already stated, this kind of nonsense is no better than the romantic idealism espoused by socialists. |
Idealism is what all politics boils down to isn't it? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Hugo sadly has lost his north. I think we can all agree that has blown a good chance to make things right in his country. |
wait a second, you're basically accusing him of some sort of incompetence. no. not a chance.
everything he does is calculated to what end he probably only knows.
he's shrewd, arrogant and calculating. basically everything you claim Bush is but somehow you give Hugo an innocuous pass. says a lot about you but thats another topic.
no. Hugo hasn't "lost his North". it's that North no longer suits Hugo. |
|
|
|
|
