The OP never specified Europe at all, the Euros are the ones who brought that up because they want to identify with socialism for some reason.Braddock wrote:
At the end of the day the Governments of neither Europe nor the USA have enough restrictive structures in place to hold back anyone who is willing to put in the work and go out there and make something of themselves. We are accusing each other of things that realistically only exist in places like Cuba or North Korea.
Care to elaborate?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The OP never specified Europe at all, the Euros are the ones who brought that up because they want to identify with socialism for some reason.Braddock wrote:
At the end of the day the Governments of neither Europe nor the USA have enough restrictive structures in place to hold back anyone who is willing to put in the work and go out there and make something of themselves. We are accusing each other of things that realistically only exist in places like Cuba or North Korea.
We want to identify with socialism? ... we are socialism FM, even the conservative (with a few exceptions of course) among Euros are socialistic compared to the Democrats in the US.
We do not often criticize the US populace but rather the system/systems or lack of such your government provide for its citizens ... health care, economy, greed, corruption, vacations, social security benefits like maternity leave etc etc ...
I know Michael Moore is not very well received as a source on this forum but he does have a few but good points in Sicko concerning social benefits as mentioned ... there are so much money missing between the government and the receiving part whereas it could have been spent directly at the receiving end, getting rid of health insurance and installing NHS is just one example ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I wish it was that simple, but it's not. You see, when people are left to their own devices, the powerful ones go out of their way to "separate the cream from the crop", but their criteria are often quite questionable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Here is the source of the disagreement.Turquoise wrote:
Our greatest resource is people, and we need to better educate the masses while providing them better access to healthcare.
I think that our greatest resource is some people. The rest are quite literally no more useful than glorified sheep. I also don't think that any one person should be in charge of separating the cream of the crop from the rest, but a general system and an individual's own devices.
Ultimately, we are mostly social beings, not intellectual ones. So it is somewhat inevitable that who you know will determine your success more than your own abilities or talent. The only counters to this are a sufficient level of social programs and an adequate education system.
The end goal of any society should be to bring us as close to a meritocracy as is feasible.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-12-18 14:36:54)
Varegg wrote:
Care to elaborate?
We want to identify with socialism?
This is my point.Varegg wrote:
we are socialism FM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism wrote:
socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]
I don't understand how you got it in your head that Europe is socialist. It's not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism wrote:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
The end goal of society should be to achieve something great, while at the same time answering the question what is great.Turquoise wrote:
I wish it was that simple, but it's not. You see, when people are left to their own devices, the powerful ones go out of their way to "separate the cream from the crop", but their criteria are often quite questionable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Here is the source of the disagreement.Turquoise wrote:
Our greatest resource is people, and we need to better educate the masses while providing them better access to healthcare.
I think that our greatest resource is some people. The rest are quite literally no more useful than glorified sheep. I also don't think that any one person should be in charge of separating the cream of the crop from the rest, but a general system and an individual's own devices.
Ultimately, we are mostly social beings, not intellectual ones. So it is somewhat inevitable that who you know will determine your success more than your own abilities or talent. The only counters to this are a sufficient level of social programs and an adequate education system.
The end goal of any society should be to bring us as close to a meritocracy as is feasible.
I think Varegg might be referring to the socialistic mindset of some European countries when it comes to the level of assistance they provide via social programs. By comparison to our system, a lot of Europe is socialist in that respect.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Care to elaborate?
We want to identify with socialism?This is my point.Varegg wrote:
we are socialism FMhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism wrote:
socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]I don't understand how you got it in your head that Europe is socialist. It's not.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism wrote:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
However, you are correct that these countries aren't officially socialist in economic terms.
What's particularly interesting about Norway is that they basically have freer markets than we do, but they have more comprehensive social programs. It's quite a profitable system of reinvestment that they have in place.
Of course, it would be hard to implement this level of government involvement in America without running into a lot of inefficiency and corruption.
What Flaming doesn't understand is that socialism has evolved and in many ways very different from the socialism described on wiki, i asked him to elaborate not copy paste old info from random websites, anyone can do that ...
Socialistic capitalism FM, you should study it a tad more before you judge it based on "stone age" information - it has nothing to do with communism or Marxist socialism that you seem to think ...
Turquoise and many other seems to understand the difference, and Turq ... you have corruption all ready, your congress and senate representatives seems to me to just be there for the lobbyist money ...
Socialistic capitalism FM, you should study it a tad more before you judge it based on "stone age" information - it has nothing to do with communism or Marxist socialism that you seem to think ...
Turquoise and many other seems to understand the difference, and Turq ... you have corruption all ready, your congress and senate representatives seems to me to just be there for the lobbyist money ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Europe is socialist in leaning the same way that America is Capitalist leaning.
You can't say one or the other is purely right or left wing. If you do you don't understand what either term implies.
You can't say one or the other is purely right or left wing. If you do you don't understand what either term implies.
No, the end goal of anysociety should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great, as we, as individuals define that "greatness" for ourselves. We should then be allowed to reap the rewards of our achievments or our failures without govt. trying to impose its "fairness"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The end goal of society should be to achieve something great, while at the same time answering the question what is great.Turquoise wrote:
I wish it was that simple, but it's not. You see, when people are left to their own devices, the powerful ones go out of their way to "separate the cream from the crop", but their criteria are often quite questionable.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Here is the source of the disagreement.
I think that our greatest resource is some people. The rest are quite literally no more useful than glorified sheep. I also don't think that any one person should be in charge of separating the cream of the crop from the rest, but a general system and an individual's own devices.
Ultimately, we are mostly social beings, not intellectual ones. So it is somewhat inevitable that who you know will determine your success more than your own abilities or talent. The only counters to this are a sufficient level of social programs and an adequate education system.
The end goal of any society should be to bring us as close to a meritocracy as is feasible.
Capitalism in general does that for you lowing, doesn't matter if it's die hard capitalism or scocialistic orientated ... the difference is socialistic capitalism takes care of the individuals in the process and not just the individualist starting the process but then again that has to do with the values in the specific society ...lowing wrote:
No, the end goal of anysociety should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great, as we, as individuals define that "greatness" for ourselves. We should then be allowed to reap the rewards of our achievments or our failures without govt. trying to impose its "fairness"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The end goal of society should be to achieve something great, while at the same time answering the question what is great.Turquoise wrote:
I wish it was that simple, but it's not. You see, when people are left to their own devices, the powerful ones go out of their way to "separate the cream from the crop", but their criteria are often quite questionable.
Ultimately, we are mostly social beings, not intellectual ones. So it is somewhat inevitable that who you know will determine your success more than your own abilities or talent. The only counters to this are a sufficient level of social programs and an adequate education system.
The end goal of any society should be to bring us as close to a meritocracy as is feasible.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
And this is accomplished through taxation and distribution of accumulated funds to E.g. public schooling, healthcare and benefits.lowing wrote:
the end goal of any society should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great
I need around tree fiddy.
I understand that and I endorse it. We part company on the issue of taking care of those who refuse to take care of themselves, as well as forced charity. My sig expalins the problem I have with it. Govt. should not force me to be generous or fair. It is not their job as a govt. to impose itself in such ways.Varegg wrote:
Capitalism in general does that for you lowing, doesn't matter if it's die hard capitalism or scocialistic orientated ... the difference is socialistic capitalism takes care of the individuals in the process and not just the individualist starting the process but then again that has to do with the values in the specific society ...lowing wrote:
No, the end goal of anysociety should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great, as we, as individuals define that "greatness" for ourselves. We should then be allowed to reap the rewards of our achievments or our failures without govt. trying to impose its "fairness"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The end goal of society should be to achieve something great, while at the same time answering the question what is great.
Our govt. is not what makes our country great folks. It is the citizens and their achievments and innovations as individuals that does this. Our govts. job is to keep us free to accomplish the goals that make us great.DonFck wrote:
And this is accomplished through taxation and distribution of accumulated funds to E.g. public schooling, healthcare and benefits.lowing wrote:
the end goal of any society should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great
So do you or don't you agree with what I just wrote?lowing wrote:
Our govt. is not what makes our country great folks. It is the citizens and their achievments and innovations as individuals that does this. Our govts. job is to keep us free to accomplish the goals that make us great.DonFck wrote:
And this is accomplished through taxation and distribution of accumulated funds to E.g. public schooling, healthcare and benefits.lowing wrote:
the end goal of any society should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great
I need around tree fiddy.
Actually we don't part at all concerning people that "refuse" to take care of themselves, we just don't have that category of people over here ... and it might seem forced to you lowing but we see the benefits of government "charity", we see the result ... we are the result and we dont feel the government steal our money for an unjust cause, in certain cases we do but in general it's a good system ...lowing wrote:
I understand that and I endorse it. We part company on the issue of taking care of those who refuse to take care of themselves, as well as forced charity. My sig expalins the problem I have with it. Govt. should not force me to be generous or fair. It is not their job as a govt. to impose itself in such ways.Varegg wrote:
Capitalism in general does that for you lowing, doesn't matter if it's die hard capitalism or scocialistic orientated ... the difference is socialistic capitalism takes care of the individuals in the process and not just the individualist starting the process but then again that has to do with the values in the specific society ...lowing wrote:
No, the end goal of anysociety should be to bring us the free will and opportunity to achieve something great, as we, as individuals define that "greatness" for ourselves. We should then be allowed to reap the rewards of our achievments or our failures without govt. trying to impose its "fairness"
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
you do not live in the US, I am not lying about the sense of entitlement that grows in our country. We are increasingly lazy, and feel because we are Americans, we are entitled to a quality of life. Forget earning one. Obama was elected because of the perception that he would promote this entitlement. This is also why we are able to blame everyone, except ourselves for our problems, we are Americans it is always someone else's fault, even other Americans. No way are my problems my fault.Varegg wrote:
Actually we don't part at all concerning people that "refuse" to take care of themselves, we just don't have that category of people over here ... and it might seem forced to you lowing but we see the benefits of government "charity", we see the result ... we are the result and we dont feel the government steal our money for an unjust cause, in certain cases we do but in general it's a good system ...lowing wrote:
I understand that and I endorse it. We part company on the issue of taking care of those who refuse to take care of themselves, as well as forced charity. My sig explains the problem I have with it. Govt. should not force me to be generous or fair. It is not their job as a govt. to impose itself in such ways.Varegg wrote:
Capitalism in general does that for you lowing, doesn't matter if it's die hard capitalism or socialistic orientated ... the difference is socialistic capitalism takes care of the individuals in the process and not just the individualist starting the process but then again that has to do with the values in the specific society ...
This is our mentality and I offer our legal system and its endless stream of frivolous law suits as proof. THings are much different here
Well you got me there i guess ... I was not aware the degrading was so far advancedlowing wrote:
you do not live in the US, I am not lying about the sense of entitlement that grows in our country. We are increasingly lazy, and feel because we are Americans, we are entitled to a quality of life. Forget earning one. Obama was elected because of the perception that he would promote this entitlement. This is also why we are able to blame everyone, except ourselves for our problems, we are Americans it is always someone else's fault, even other Americans. No way are my problems my fault.Varegg wrote:
Actually we don't part at all concerning people that "refuse" to take care of themselves, we just don't have that category of people over here ... and it might seem forced to you lowing but we see the benefits of government "charity", we see the result ... we are the result and we dont feel the government steal our money for an unjust cause, in certain cases we do but in general it's a good system ...lowing wrote:
I understand that and I endorse it. We part company on the issue of taking care of those who refuse to take care of themselves, as well as forced charity. My sig explains the problem I have with it. Govt. should not force me to be generous or fair. It is not their job as a govt. to impose itself in such ways.
This is our mentality and I offer our legal system and its endless stream of frivolous law suits as proof. THings are much different here
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
well to be fair, I will invite Turquoise, one of our more level headed members of this forum, to either GENERALLY agree with my post or disagree. But yeah, this is how I view America today.Varegg wrote:
Well you got me there i guess ... I was not aware the degrading was so far advancedlowing wrote:
you do not live in the US, I am not lying about the sense of entitlement that grows in our country. We are increasingly lazy, and feel because we are Americans, we are entitled to a quality of life. Forget earning one. Obama was elected because of the perception that he would promote this entitlement. This is also why we are able to blame everyone, except ourselves for our problems, we are Americans it is always someone else's fault, even other Americans. No way are my problems my fault.Varegg wrote:
Actually we don't part at all concerning people that "refuse" to take care of themselves, we just don't have that category of people over here ... and it might seem forced to you lowing but we see the benefits of government "charity", we see the result ... we are the result and we dont feel the government steal our money for an unjust cause, in certain cases we do but in general it's a good system ...
This is our mentality and I offer our legal system and its endless stream of frivolous law suits as proof. THings are much different here
So how do you explain why it has gotten to be this way?lowing wrote:
well to be fair, I will invite Turquoise, one of our more level headed members of this forum, to either GENERALLY agree with my post or disagree. But yeah, this is how I view America today.Varegg wrote:
Well you got me there i guess ... I was not aware the degrading was so far advancedlowing wrote:
you do not live in the US, I am not lying about the sense of entitlement that grows in our country. We are increasingly lazy, and feel because we are Americans, we are entitled to a quality of life. Forget earning one. Obama was elected because of the perception that he would promote this entitlement. This is also why we are able to blame everyone, except ourselves for our problems, we are Americans it is always someone else's fault, even other Americans. No way are my problems my fault.
This is our mentality and I offer our legal system and its endless stream of frivolous law suits as proof. THings are much different here
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Another OP fail from a misunderstanding of what socialism actually entails in theory and in practice (such as in Europe). Come to Europe and then kindly make posts referring simply to communism, whatever relevance that might have in this day and age.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-19 04:13:52)
Because we have grown so accustomed to the good life. No civil wars no terrorism, no genocide, no starvation, no epidemics, no violent dictatorships. We now expect that we should not face adversity. Those are everyone else's problems, Americans do not go through hard times, and if we do, obviously there is evil afoot and someone must be blamed and burned at the stake.( the rich, in most cases)Varegg wrote:
So how do you explain why it has gotten to be this way?lowing wrote:
well to be fair, I will invite Turquoise, one of our more level headed members of this forum, to either GENERALLY agree with my post or disagree. But yeah, this is how I view America today.Varegg wrote:
Well you got me there i guess ... I was not aware the degrading was so far advanced
A couple of points...
Flaming Maniac, please stop clinging to the ancient definition of socialism, please. European Governments today embrace modern-day socialism, it is a horse of an entirely different colour to the one described in the history books. Surely you can identify that we are neither Capitalist in the same way as the United States nor Communist in the way the former USSR was? We are moderate Socialists who employ a system of 'Capitalism with a conscience' and this system, my friend, does little or nothing to hold back the individual... au contraire in fact, I am on my way to becoming a Doctor thanks to Socialist support within the education system.
As Turquoise excellently pointed out, we are social beings and we like to have our little cliques. Whether you are in Capitalist America or Communist Russia you will encounter 'old boy' networks that value 'who you know' above 'what you know'. Society naturally segregates, the only difference between Europe and the US is that the US allow societal segregation to follow the law of the balance sheet and those in charge of the big private companies while Europeans try to regulate the process of societal segregation by imposing some sort of human philosophy on the process via elected Government officials and bodies. Each system has pros and cons and as I've said before we all seem happy with the particular system we each have so this thread is ultimately just a glorified pissing contest.
Flaming Maniac, please stop clinging to the ancient definition of socialism, please. European Governments today embrace modern-day socialism, it is a horse of an entirely different colour to the one described in the history books. Surely you can identify that we are neither Capitalist in the same way as the United States nor Communist in the way the former USSR was? We are moderate Socialists who employ a system of 'Capitalism with a conscience' and this system, my friend, does little or nothing to hold back the individual... au contraire in fact, I am on my way to becoming a Doctor thanks to Socialist support within the education system.
As Turquoise excellently pointed out, we are social beings and we like to have our little cliques. Whether you are in Capitalist America or Communist Russia you will encounter 'old boy' networks that value 'who you know' above 'what you know'. Society naturally segregates, the only difference between Europe and the US is that the US allow societal segregation to follow the law of the balance sheet and those in charge of the big private companies while Europeans try to regulate the process of societal segregation by imposing some sort of human philosophy on the process via elected Government officials and bodies. Each system has pros and cons and as I've said before we all seem happy with the particular system we each have so this thread is ultimately just a glorified pissing contest.
Nope ... that's not it lowing, atleast not entirely it ... the same scenario goes for most of Europe aswell and we are in much better shape ...lowing wrote:
Because we have grown so accustomed to the good life. No civil wars no terrorism, no genocide, no starvation, no epidemics, no violent dictatorships. We now expect that we should not face adversity. Those are everyone else's problems, Americans do not go through hard times, and if we do, obviously there is evil afoot and someone must be blamed and burned at the stake.( the rich, in most cases)Varegg wrote:
So how do you explain why it has gotten to be this way?lowing wrote:
well to be fair, I will invite Turquoise, one of our more level headed members of this forum, to either GENERALLY agree with my post or disagree. But yeah, this is how I view America today.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Europe has known terrorism, it has known dictatorships, it has known genocide, it has known civil wars, all in the current life span of your citizens.Varegg wrote:
Nope ... that's not it lowing, atleast not entirely it ... the same scenario goes for most of Europe aswell and we are in much better shape ...lowing wrote:
Because we have grown so accustomed to the good life. No civil wars no terrorism, no genocide, no starvation, no epidemics, no violent dictatorships. We now expect that we should not face adversity. Those are everyone else's problems, Americans do not go through hard times, and if we do, obviously there is evil afoot and someone must be blamed and burned at the stake.( the rich, in most cases)Varegg wrote:
So how do you explain why it has gotten to be this way?
America just descovered terrorism in 2001. Why do think terrorism is the topic of choice now, because it happened in America! Before that it was blip on the nightly news, yet another event in the world that does not affect me. Once it happened here, holy shit! Now we have a problem, and can you believe how it has affected MY life!!! What is this world coming to? American arrogance in our on little sanitized bubble at work. AMericans think we should be above all of the problems everyone else has to face.
Last edited by lowing (2008-12-19 04:19:14)
Eh ... i think you misunderstand something here lowing ...lowing wrote:
Europe has known terrorism, it has known dictatorships, it has known genocide, it has known civil wars, all in the current life span of your citizens.Varegg wrote:
Nope ... that's not it lowing, atleast not entirely it ... the same scenario goes for most of Europe aswell and we are in much better shape ...lowing wrote:
Because we have grown so accustomed to the good life. No civil wars no terrorism, no genocide, no starvation, no epidemics, no violent dictatorships. We now expect that we should not face adversity. Those are everyone else's problems, Americans do not go through hard times, and if we do, obviously there is evil afoot and someone must be blamed and burned at the stake.( the rich, in most cases)
America just descovered terrorism in 2001.
*Spain and England have had 1 incident of international terrorism each yes but that hasn't changed much, not the degree of degrading you are referring to in the US or lack of degrading because it happened, pretty much Status quo on that one.
*Dictatorships? ... what countries did you have in mind?
*Genocide happened in the Balkan war quite recently but don't mistake that for a being a civil war because it wasn't and the ripple effects of that genocide has little or nothing to do with the spirit of citizens elsewhere in Europe ...
I think you should look elsewhere for your answer, like maybe the political execution of power and the system of government you currently live under ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................