sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina
First off, let's say that Communism promotes a classless society (only in theory), and the common ownership of the means of production.  This is neither Socialism nor Liberalism, at least the Social Capitalism that many high developed countries has.  In these societies, Socialism and Capitalism aren't mutually exclusive.  The perfect example would be France.

Reading a lot of posts here I noticed that many members don't know the difference mentioned above, and confuse Communism with the government having a social role.  I thought McCarthyism was over, but it's more than obvious than many of you are afraid of Communism, when Communism itself has almost disappeared.

Tings that are not Communism:
-Universal Health Care: it's a mix of government programs intended to ensure that all citizens, and sometimes permanent residents, of a governmental region have access to most types of health care.
-Social Security: it's the protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment and others.

I read a lot of times things like "people should take responsibility for themselves" or "social security only serves those who don't have responsibility and live from my taxes". 

Many people has responsibility but maybe had bad luck, or a disease or whatever.  That doesn't mean they have no responsibility and should be left on their own.  The government in most advanced societies has a social role that includes everyone, and by everyone I mean all the people living within their borders, citizens or not.  Again, France is the perfect example.

This doesn't mean you don't need to be responsible, but you can rely on the government's help if you are in troubles.

Another common misconception is that charities are better than the government to help people.  Wrong.  Charities are a good thing, but you can't left the full responsibility of helping the people in need to charities.  That's a role that belongs to the government.  Charities are just an aid.  The government should take care of its own people.

In other words Communism doesn't exist anymore.  And some of you seem to ignore this.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

I think you misconstrued things a bit, Serge.

There is a distinct difference between the government providing support for those who CANNOT provide it for themselves and the government providing support for those who WILL NOT provide it for themselves.

Personal responsibility is part and parcel with personal freedom.

Personal freedom also means the freedom to choose whether you want to rely on Social Security or not. If you choose not to rely on it, you shouldn't have to pay into it. Similarly, if you choose to provide for your own medical care (or not, as you see fit), then you shouldn't have to pay into that fund, either. Of course, choosing not to participate in the investment means you don't get to partake of the benefits...individual responsibility rears its ugly head yet again.

In both cases (UHCS and SS), the individual does not have the freedom to "opt out". That is, by definition, a degradation of that person's individual freedoms.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

I think you misconstrued things a bit, Serge.

There is a distinct difference between the government providing support for those who CANNOT provide it for themselves and the government providing support for those who WILL NOT provide it for themselves.

Personal responsibility is part and parcel with personal freedom.

Personal freedom also means the freedom to choose whether you want to rely on Social Security or not. If you choose not to rely on it, you shouldn't have to pay into it. Similarly, if you choose to provide for your own medical care (or not, as you see fit), then you shouldn't have to pay into that fund, either. Of course, choosing not to participate in the investment means you don't get to partake of the benefits...individual responsibility rears its ugly head yet again.

In both cases (UHCS and SS), the individual does not have the freedom to "opt out". That is, by definition, a degradation of that person's individual freedoms.
Do you really think there's one guy wanting to live from the leftovers that social security is?  People can be in troubles, they don't opt to be in troubles, that's the difference.  And if there's one guy wanting to take advantage of this, well that guy is a scumbag and deserves to be shot.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

Personal responsibility is part and parcel with personal freedom.

Personal freedom also means the freedom to choose whether you want to rely on Social Security or not. If you choose not to rely on it, you shouldn't have to pay into it. Similarly, if you choose to provide for your own medical care (or not, as you see fit), then you shouldn't have to pay into that fund, either. Of course, choosing not to participate in the investment means you don't get to partake of the benefits...individual responsibility rears its ugly head yet again.

In both cases (UHCS and SS), the individual does not have the freedom to "opt out". That is, by definition, a degradation of that person's individual freedoms.
Your rather optimistic and idealistic model is just not feasible if you wish to maintain a functioning society. You're talking about anarchy here. Do what you want, whenever you want.

PS If that's what you really want then I suggest you vote for Ron Paul.

I would ask you this question:

If, due to matters beyond anyones control (say due to external forces), a recession occurs that means that there is a massive imbalance between the number of unemployed people looking for work and the number of jobs available how long must the genuinely unfortunate job-seeking unemployed be expected to survive without receiving any kind of food? I see myself as a member of a club, my nation, and we are all in this together. When the hard times hit we have to share the pain. Some compassion makes the country in which I live a better place to live in.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-19 06:41:38)

PureFodder
Member
+225|6722

FEOS wrote:

I think you misconstrued things a bit, Serge.

There is a distinct difference between the government providing support for those who CANNOT provide it for themselves and the government providing support for those who WILL NOT provide it for themselves.

Personal responsibility is part and parcel with personal freedom.

Personal freedom also means the freedom to choose whether you want to rely on Social Security or not. If you choose not to rely on it, you shouldn't have to pay into it. Similarly, if you choose to provide for your own medical care (or not, as you see fit), then you shouldn't have to pay into that fund, either. Of course, choosing not to participate in the investment means you don't get to partake of the benefits...individual responsibility rears its ugly head yet again.

In both cases (UHCS and SS), the individual does not have the freedom to "opt out". That is, by definition, a degradation of that person's individual freedoms.
So the only people who should pay into social welfare programs that help the poor is the poor as they are the only ones who will use it? I don't think that works very well.

By the same logic can the majority decide to refuse to pay for business subsadies if you don't own a business? the millitary? Emergency relief for hurricane victims if you don't live in a hurricane hotspot? Anti-terrorism money if you don't live near a likely terrorist target? Massive govenment research funds to help high-tech bisiness if you don't own a high tech business? You can't opt out of them even if they provide you with no benefits at all.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

So the only people who should pay into social welfare programs that help the poor is the poor as they are the only ones who will use it? I don't think that works very well.

By the same logic can the majority decide to refuse to pay for business subsadies if you don't own a business? the millitary? Emergency relief for hurricane victims if you don't live in a hurricane hotspot? Anti-terrorism money if you don't live near a likely terrorist target? Massive govenment research funds to help high-tech bisiness if you don't own a high tech business? You can't opt out of them even if they provide you with no benefits at all.
The things you listed aren't individual benefits programs. UHS and SS are. The other things you mentioned (with the exception of business subsidies and R&D, to a degree) are roles the government should provide: national security. Emergency relief falls into the category of helping those who CANNOT help themselves.

Individual benefit programs should be optional, not mandatory. If someone doesn't want to use them, they shouldn't have to pay for them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

CameronPoe wrote:

Your rather optimistic and idealistic model is just not feasible if you wish to maintain a functioning society. You're talking about anarchy here. Do what you want, whenever you want.

PS If that's what you really want then I suggest you vote for Ron Paul.

I would ask you this question:

If, due to matters beyond anyones control (say due to external forces), a recession occurs that means that there is a massive imbalance between the number of unemployed people looking for work and the number of jobs available how long must the genuinely unfortunate job-seeking unemployed be expected to survive without receiving any kind of food? I see myself as a member of a club, my nation, and we are all in this together. When the hard times hit we have to share the pain. Some compassion makes the country in which I live a better place to live in.
I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about personal responsibility and individual benefits programs.

Your recession/unemployment scenario falls into the category of someone who CANNOT care for themselves or their family. That is different than those who WILL NOT provide for themselves or their family because they live off the public welfare system when they are perfectly capable of working.

To think that people do not exist who WILL NOT take personal responsibility is rather optimistic and idealistic, as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

FEOS wrote:

I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about personal responsibility and individual benefits programs.

Your recession/unemployment scenario falls into the category of someone who CANNOT care for themselves or their family. That is different than those who WILL NOT provide for themselves or their family because they live off the public welfare system when they are perfectly capable of working.

To think that people do not exist who WILL NOT take personal responsibility is rather optimistic and idealistic, as well.
This argument has been had many times before. There is no major disagreement here. I think that universal social welfare must exist under the proviso that those people are attempting to attain employment - it is the task of the government to rat out the leechers, as with all massive systems there is inevitable and largely unavoidable corruption.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7194|Argentina
You can't punish those in need for the few leechers, you deal with it.
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

FEOS wrote:

That is different than those who WILL NOT provide for themselves or their family because they live off the public welfare system when they are perfectly capable of working.

To think that people do not exist who WILL NOT take personal responsibility is rather optimistic and idealistic, as well.
It's not feasible to provide for oneself, let alone an entire family, on welfare in the long term. That's the entire point of it. It offers short term relief/a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times. It would be practically impossible to live off it in the long term, let alone support family. Also, countries are implementing schemes whereby transfer payments only continue if the receiver can provide evidence that they have been actively seeking a job (over here it's called 'Work for the Dole').

And the point raised about not paying for a service if you don't use it is untenable. I don't agree with the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and it's not really doing anything for me personally. Can I has taxbreak with the portion that would be used to pay for the troops cut out? I'm not old. can I have to part of my tax paying for pensions back? The answer is no. So the same logic applies for healthcare and social benefits programs.

Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2007-12-19 06:59:05)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

SharkyMcshark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That is different than those who WILL NOT provide for themselves or their family because they live off the public welfare system when they are perfectly capable of working.

To think that people do not exist who WILL NOT take personal responsibility is rather optimistic and idealistic, as well.
It's not feasible to provide for oneself, let alone an entire family, on welfare in the long term. That's the entire point of it. It offers short term relief/a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times. It would be practically impossible to live off it in the long term, let alone support family. Also, countries are implementing schemes whereby transfer payments only continue if the receiver can provide evidence that they have been actively seeking a job (over here it's called 'Work for the Dole').

And the point raised about not paying for a service if you don't use it is untenable. I don't agree with the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and it's not really doing anything for me personally. Can I has taxbreak with the portion that would be used to pay for the troops cut out? I'm not old. can I have to part of my tax paying for pensions back? The answer is no. So the same logic applies for healthcare and social benefits programs.
Unfortunately, here in the US (due to our ridiculously inept welfare programs), it is not just feasible and possible...it happens all the time. Entire generations of families exist on the welfare dime because the government makes it easier to stay on welfare than to find work.

As to the not paying for a service if you don't use it: The military isn't a "service". I was speaking (and posted a clarification) about individual benefits programs, of which the military is not one. I don't know about your pension program Down Under, but social security is not a pension program--people who do not pay into it receive benefits...and people who do pay into don't always qualify for benefits. So your attempt at an analogy, while interesting, is not accurate.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

FEOS wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the US (due to our ridiculously inept welfare programs), it is not just feasible and possible...it happens all the time.
There we go, you lambaste the notion of these programs due to their corruptibility but then admit that the actual social security/welfare system in your own country, the system on which you've based your experiences,  is "ridiculously inept".

FEOS wrote:

I don't know about your pension program Down Under, but social security is not a pension program--people who do not pay into it receive benefits...and people who do pay into don't always qualify for benefits. So your attempt at an analogy, while interesting, is not accurate.
Not really. The way that pensions are being set up here, with a large aging population, is that you don't qualify for a pension, or are not encouraged to apply for one, or are given a diminished one, or *other disincentive to take pension here* (the actual system is still being worked out), if you have a large enough superannuation. Everyone still pays taxes, which are used for pensions, but when it comes to retirement ages not everyone qualifies for one.

Same with public healthcare. It comes out of taxes, whether you have private healthcare or not, whether you're a terminal cancer patient, or someone whose never never had a cold. It comes out of everyone's taxes and then goes to helping those that can't afford private healthcare. The analogy holds strong (although with that said I didn't see your clarification post so the military point is obviously moot), in that you can't shaft the weak members of society/those unable to care for themselves/earn with the excuse that some people may leach off of it so its really not worth it to begin with.

Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2007-12-19 07:37:42)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

SharkyMcshark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the US (due to our ridiculously inept welfare programs), it is not just feasible and possible...it happens all the time.
There we go, you lambaste the notion of these programs due to their corruptibility but then admit that the actual social security/welfare system in your own country, the system on which you've based your experiences,  is "ridiculously inept".
It's not about any country's system in particular, but rather the dangers to personal liberties associated with becoming dependent upon the state for your basic needs.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

FEOS wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the US (due to our ridiculously inept welfare programs), it is not just feasible and possible...it happens all the time.
There we go, you lambaste the notion of these programs due to their corruptibility but then admit that the actual social security/welfare system in your own country, the system on which you've based your experiences,  is "ridiculously inept".
It's not about any country's system in particular, but rather the dangers to personal liberties associated with becoming dependent upon the state for your basic needs.
So would you prefer that:

a. There be no social welfare whatsoever, or

b. Reforms be brought in in the US/where ever to bring social welfare up to the same standard that it is in the rest of the world (ie not feasible to live on in the long term, need proof that receiver is trying to find work to payments to continue)

Because now I'm confused. And what's all this 'dangers to personal liberties' malarky? Or was that what you were trying to get at when you said that you didnt like the idea of your tax money being given to jobless people?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

sergeriver wrote:

Another common misconception is that charities are better than the government to help people.  Wrong.  Charities are a good thing, but you can't left the full responsibility of helping the people in need to charities.  That's a role that belongs to the government.  Charities are just an aid.  The government should take care of its own people.
I'll just make this comment:
For every $4 put into a government program, $1 goes to those in need.

For every $4 put into a charity, $3 to those in need. (if it's a good charity).

Hmmm.....
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Another common misconception is that charities are better than the government to help people.  Wrong.  Charities are a good thing, but you can't left the full responsibility of helping the people in need to charities.  That's a role that belongs to the government.  Charities are just an aid.  The government should take care of its own people.
I'll just make this comment:
For every $4 put into a government program, $1 goes to those in need.

For every $4 put into a charity, $3 to those in need. (if it's a good charity).

Hmmm.....
You don't have like... sources or anything?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France
I'm not researching a known fact.

Last edited by Pug (2007-12-19 07:58:20)

SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7222|Perth, Western Australia

Pug wrote:

I'm not researching a known fact.
So thats no you don't have any sources.

Thanks for being man enough to admit it at least.
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm not researching a known fact.
So thats no you don't have any sources.

Thanks for being man enough to admit it at least.
There are sources.  But like I said I'm not researching a known fact.

There are websites that rate charities, show the % per dollar which goes to the needy, and there are websites that report on government programs as well.

You're telling me the government is MORE efficient?  Be realistic.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6848|'Murka

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So would you prefer that:

a. There be no social welfare whatsoever, or

b. Reforms be brought in in the US/where ever to bring social welfare up to the same standard that it is in the rest of the world (ie not feasible to live on in the long term, need proof that receiver is trying to find work to payments to continue)

Because now I'm confused. And what's all this 'dangers to personal liberties' malarky? Or was that what you were trying to get at when you said that you didnt like the idea of your tax money being given to jobless people?
a. No, I'm not saying that at all. As I've said repeatedly, social welfare should be for those who CANNOT provide for themselves (ie, mentally/physically handicapped).

b. Certainly there needs to be welfare reform in many places. The US is one of them.

My concern WRT dangers to personal liberties is this: When the government makes one depend upon the government exclusively for critical services (healthcare, food, shelter, etc), then the person loses their freedom of choice in the matter. Granted, this is extreme, but it is a risk that is involved in having the government provide all these things to all people. It's not malarkey, it's a critical difference in thought between conservatives and liberals: conservatives believe in personal responsibility and self-sufficiency...that government's primary role is to ensure an environment where those traits thrive; liberals believe in less personal responsibility and more governmental ownership of those services...no options for personal responsibility equates to a loss of free will/freedom with regard to those services.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7037|132 and Bush

In theory yes, in reality no. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.... unfortunately.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
PZmohax01
Banned
+13|6414|St.Petersburg, Russia
ahhh...communism... I don't like it. The only communist thing I have is a big pioneer horn
But seriously, I see communism as an utopia, nothing more. And unfortunately I can't understand why do people here care so much about communism
PureFodder
Member
+225|6722

FEOS wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So would you prefer that:

a. There be no social welfare whatsoever, or

b. Reforms be brought in in the US/where ever to bring social welfare up to the same standard that it is in the rest of the world (ie not feasible to live on in the long term, need proof that receiver is trying to find work to payments to continue)

Because now I'm confused. And what's all this 'dangers to personal liberties' malarky? Or was that what you were trying to get at when you said that you didnt like the idea of your tax money being given to jobless people?
a. No, I'm not saying that at all. As I've said repeatedly, social welfare should be for those who CANNOT provide for themselves (ie, mentally/physically handicapped).

b. Certainly there needs to be welfare reform in many places. The US is one of them.

My concern WRT dangers to personal liberties is this: When the government makes one depend upon the government exclusively for critical services (healthcare, food, shelter, etc), then the person loses their freedom of choice in the matter. Granted, this is extreme, but it is a risk that is involved in having the government provide all these things to all people. It's not malarkey, it's a critical difference in thought between conservatives and liberals: conservatives believe in personal responsibility and self-sufficiency...that government's primary role is to ensure an environment where those traits thrive; liberals believe in less personal responsibility and more governmental ownership of those services...no options for personal responsibility equates to a loss of free will/freedom with regard to those services.
Big business in America is hopelessly dependent on the government. If today you took away subsadies, tax breaks, the massive amount of R&D that is done using public money through universities and the pentagon, tomorrow there would be no agriculture industry, pretty well all high tech industry would vanish from telecommunications to pharmacuticals. The US economy would crumble. Big business doesn't spend vast amounts of money lobbying the US government for the hell of it. Poor people have to pay corporate welfare to companies making half a billion dollars a year, so why are rich people complaining about giving money to allow poor people to survive?
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6979|Texas - Bigger than France
Actually, I fail to see why this has to be termed as "Communism".  Democrats argue the want to have the government involved in distributing the money to the programs - aka tax you & make the decision on what to support for the public.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6992

Pug wrote:

Actually, I fail to see why this has to be termed as "Communism".  Democrats argue the want to have the government involved in distributing the money to the programs - aka tax you & make the decision on what to support for the public.
You vote for Democrats based on what they intend/'promise'* to do when in office. It's not one party rule...

*Much like you vote Republican because you know that they will finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants across your southern border....

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-19 08:59:16)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard