Why Socialism is the key

[mOgliE]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

[1714099745]

1714099745

[1714099745]

1714099745

[1714099745]

1714099745

[Anddos]

You think that if you nationalize things all those money will go to the people? It will still be taken. Just that those money will be stolen by different people. It's about business, and making money, nothing more.

[ingenuity]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

[yugo23]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Why? France is socialist since 1789 and is leading in many technological development!

[arbitrage]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

This is filthy lies from capitalist countries!
Do you remember national socialism?
This was wrong, but you must admit it everything but stagnation!

Russia could be economically strongest country in the world, but never had a chance,
constant military growth and war preparation during peace, made this today.
Free market is filthy lie that came from those multinational corporations.

Socialism is all about care for those who can't do its, on their own,
free education, free health service..social programs for workers without jobs!

[elizabethqueen]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

love this

"Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

and socialist is one of many problem people for some countries,they like people who confuse to spent their money,and if they become good people,they will be very very good.

[Yakamoto]

Socialism is not the key, here is why:

1. There is no incentive for there to be any entrepreneurship or incentive to want to get better and higher-paying jobs if you are only going to receive a marginally better salary and get the majority of the rest of it taxed.

2. Technological and economic progress is stagnated, France is currently 6-8th largest GDP in the world (Over the past century), clocking in at roughly $2 Trillion in 2015, yet the IMF projects it falling off further to the #10 spot by 2020. The french have also made only a few technological innovations that are useful for the world, many "innovations" during the last 60 years have been beauty/fashion related or merely an improvement on an existing idea.

3. Back to point #1, socialism rewards mediocrity. Everyone gets a pat-on-the-back and gets money (In some form) for not being exceptional or striving ahead of everyone else. It is like kindergarten, socialism is giving everyone a participation award, and those who place first get the same trophy.

4. Capitalism doesn't tell you what to do. The richest people in the world don't force you to buy anything, do anything, or make anything. Everyone is free to their own interests, and can achieve whatever they want to with work and actually trying to strive ahead.

5. Free market, or, at least, a more open market. Resources are far more efficiently used in a free market, as the people can adapt to the changing needs and wants of the population. Centrally planned economies (A product of extreme socialism) are very inefficient, as the Soviet Union shows.

6. The goal of socialism is to create a utopia, but every personal has a different perception and thus it can never really be achieved. The person who must determine what this utopia is would be the state, with a theoretical consensus. This infringes on other people's capacity to fulfil their own interests, and if the state decides that video games are an illegal source of entertainment because they hurt productivity, that wrecks someone else's view of utopia.



Now for all the hate I'm giving socialism, it does have a place in the right situation.



For example, if/when AI takes over most jobs, basic incomes distributed by the state will be a necessity because we cannot have >4 billion people all working white-collar jobs, or, at the very least, there is very little infrastructure to support that for right now.

As the current world economy goes, however, socialism is not the best system. More things have to change for it to be the best system.

[MedaR]

Socialism is not the key, here is why:
-*.*-

First of all every constitution is about protecting its people. How you can protect people from corporations when they have influence on all major institutions in the world.

Competition in the wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules; rules create markets, and governments generate the rules.”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reichs-dire-warning-americas-free-market-obsession-poisoning-our-world

Big Pharma:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-vaccine-myth-big-pharma-profits/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojZn1P1CxJE

GMO is good and will save people from hunger!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoKnYdyJlRg

Chemtrails ? I don't even know what they are lying us about this?

Constant war for democracy(For resources)! Did you know democracy always come with the bombs nowadays..?
Financial bubble created for purpose to enslave all in debt chains!
Is this progress?
You must understand in capitalism with free open market only will win big corporations! No one else! This system creates all those conditions for more polution and devastation of environment.

If I must choose i rather be living in utopia than in this wild capitalism.

[Yakamoto]

Socialism is not the key, here is why:
-*.*-

First of all every constitution is about protecting its people. How you can protect people from corporations when they have influence on all major institutions in the world.

Competition in the wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules; rules create markets, and governments generate the rules.”
http://www.alternet.org/economy/robert-reichs-dire-warning-americas-free-market-obsession-poisoning-our-world

Big Pharma:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-vaccine-myth-big-pharma-profits/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojZn1P1CxJE

GMO is good and will save people from hunger!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoKnYdyJlRg

Chemtrails ? I don't even know what they are lying us about this?

Constant war for democracy(For resources)! Did you know democracy always come with the bombs nowadays..?
Financial bubble created for purpose to enslave all in debt chains!
Is this progress?
You must understand in capitalism with free open market only will win big corporations! No one else! This system creates all those conditions for more polution and devastation of environment.

If I must choose i rather be living in utopia than in this wild capitalism.

I guess it is fair to argue that wild capitalism that affects people via control of various institutions is a bad thing, and yes it is a product of capitalism growing unchecked until major corporations have the money to have major influence in the government and other places.

I have to chuckle with the quote "Competition in the wild is a contest for survival in which the largest and strongest typically win. Civilization, by contrast, is defined by rules; rules create markets, and governments generate the rules." The largest and strongest got to the place they are by making products which people wanted to buy, and as the government made rules around the good, the companies adapted to fit. This is also why it is so hard for "normal" people to start their own business these days. There is so much red tape that only the major corporations actually have the means to fill it all out.

I agree, big pharma is an issue, and I do support national healthcare. The American model isn't really something I can get behind. If the industry is keeping someone alive who is in peril, it should be nationalized. There is no benefit having a dead person because he can't pay for the bill.

GMOs are technically beneficial, however they are not currently distributed enough to make much of an impact. At the same time, though, they are relatively new. More time has to pass before we can have more accurate information.

Chemtrails are an extremely fringe subject, there is very little evidence to support this, and two simple ways to argue this point are both Occam's razor and the fact that things such as chemtrails affect rich and powerful people, not just ordinary folks (Unless all rich and powerful people are also shape-shifting lizards which have resistances to such chemicals). I would be willing to have someone to fly behind planes and gather air samples to test this theory, but so far I have found no conspiracy theorists willing to fund such a venture.

I'm getting kind of tired of typing so I'll summarize it like this; unchecked capitalism growing extremely quickly or extremely large is bad, and having excessive restrictions on what can be done is bad for a truly capitalist society. People would be able to vote with their dollars.

[arbitrage]

Capitalism could be a great system if you inject more socialism in it.
I mean more control for those corporation and more help for ordinary people.
Especially after crisis when many people stayed without homes.

This situation is not possible in communism.
Everyone must work, must have to eat and where to sleep.

Socialism is somewhere between..That is why is good.

[zodiac3011]

well I have to agree with your opinion about socialism, especially the part of greed and corruption which will end socialism. Living in a socialist country, I have to say corruption is at its worst. Everything needs some money to get it done fast and billions are stolen by corrupted officials

[arbitrage]

But this can be fixed with more control, but this is centralized control.
(Fixing of socialism)

Capitalism can't be fixed because everyone have some price.
Corruption and monopoly is very dangerous, small people are not important at all only interests.

You must choose which of two is less bad.

[Laosai]

But this can be fixed with more control, but this is centralized control.
(Fixing of socialism)

Capitalism can't be fixed because everyone have some price.
Corruption and monopoly is very dangerous, small people are not important at all only interests.

You must choose which of two is less bad.

Perfectly agreed!

Socialism isn't perfect but it's better than capitalism!

[zodiac3011]

But this can be fixed with more control, but this is centralized control.
(Fixing of socialism)

Capitalism can't be fixed because everyone have some price.
Corruption and monopoly is very dangerous, small people are not important at all only interests.

You must choose which of two is less bad.

Perfectly agreed!

Socialism isn't perfect but it's better than capitalism!

if you live in a socialist country you will find it's kinda lame although it's better than capitalism. Most socialist country got a not developed economy so the living condition is not at its best

[Laosai]

But this can be fixed with more control, but this is centralized control.
(Fixing of socialism)

Capitalism can't be fixed because everyone have some price.
Corruption and monopoly is very dangerous, small people are not important at all only interests.

You must choose which of two is less bad.

Perfectly agreed!

Socialism isn't perfect but it's better than capitalism!

if you live in a socialist country you will find it's kinda lame although it's better than capitalism. Most socialist country got a not developed economy so the living condition is not at its best

Well France is rather cool to live in.
And socialism is still far better than capitalism. Not perfect of course but good.

[plost24]

maybe socialism is a little beter than capitalism but the both have advantage and disadvantage but you need to choose what type will be good for you

[gregyoung14]

maybe socialism is a little beter than capitalism but the both have advantage and disadvantage but you need to choose what type will be good for you

Haha. Yea thats about right. You have to know what it is really that you want first before anything else, what you really feel would be the best for you in this case.

[MedaR]

Problem is when you don't have a chance to choose.
Many Arab countries choose to live on their own way of life and US had a self proclaimed task to bringing them a democracy.Why?
This is not called democracy expansion this is aggression, and every time we have disastrous aftermath.Why capitalism have tendency to outbreak, and every other system acknowledge only as opponents?
Now many European countries have problems caused by US-NAto bombs.

[sweerty1]

Actually real key is: socialist touches (generally for social problems, income distribution etc.) under capitalist rule.
Just like scandinavia did.
Other than that, getting absolute power from riches and giving bureaucrats doesn't change a thing.
Because it corrupts absolutely.

[maku]

well I have to agree with your opinion about socialism, especially the part of greed and corruption which will end socialism. Living in a socialist country, I have to say corruption is at its worst. Everything needs some money to get it done fast and billions are stolen by corrupted officials

It is not the problem of socialism alone. Corruption is bane of any political system. Saying that in socialism corruption it is worse is usually untrue.
But seeing how socialists regimes of some countries are riddled with corruption is somewhat interesting. I have been reading about Venezuela recently.
Amount of problems caused by socialist government for this country created the biggest crisis in the history of this nation, coincidence?

[nickenburg]

I agree, we need to care more for people all over the world.
Everyone deserves a good home and health, But I also think borrowing money to do that is a bad thing!

But what is more wrong they spend so much money on war and weapons, we can use that money for way better things.

[kanazawa]

Socialism is good in the others country.

First of all, the expression "socialism" means that, people who work hard everyday and those who got money from their own effort will have to "finance" those who don't work and who take money or "social benefits" without making the same effort.

Theoretically it's a solidarity, because I have money and I'll "help" someone who don't have... but, what he gives in this situation? What I will win or take? Pratically it's "a poor sustaining another poor".

I worked for some money, and "he" don't. I work because I need money, it's not a matter of luxury. The vast majority (99.99%) work because they need. And they need each cent they are winning. So, I can't help other people, because I have debts to pay. But in the socialism, even if you got all of your sweaty money compromised by your debts, "fuc* you".

If somebody don't work because he or she don't want to work, because it's hard and wake up early it's not fun, I must pay for their medical treatment if he or she became sick. But they don't pay for my treatment if I became sick. This is not selfishness, this is fairness and unfairness.

First, if I gave money in your hand it would be less worse, but the money will end in the government hands. So why should I trust in the government?
Will "he" deliver exactly what is needed for those who need? What is the guarantee?

Why Latin America (the amusement park of socialism) has the higher migration rates in the world? And why countries like US or i.e Hong Kong, Cingapure, The Netherlands are very different in this point?

There are any socialist country where the "experience" was good? I can't remember...

Remember a phase of komrade Lenin: "The goal of socialism is communism".

If you think "modern socialism" from Frankfurt School is right, why Germany don't use this kind of "teaching" in their own country? Why the most developed countries aren't socialist and the must fu**ed up are? Want an example? take a look in the argentinian economy or the brasilian... Brasil has SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde), and it's one of the worse in the planet... want to see a picture of it:



Just write "sus brasil" on google images and you will see the classic socialist healthcare system.

It's easy to say "I live in a socilist country blablabla" and the true scenario and real life been "capitalist". I mean, analising it deeply, when you got socialism you're making a scheme like a Ponzi Scheme... taking money from one who don't have and give to another one who don't have either, but the administration is not in your hands, just in the "bank/state" hands...  it's the monopoly of power, the monopoly of means of production, the monopoly of education, etc. Do you wanna live a real "socialist" experience? Come to Latin America and you'll see.

[coldbound]

In the end, tried and didn't work. It makes no sense to keep thinking that it's the key. All there is left is listening to Imagine and keep dreaming.

[arbitrage]

Only good system is that system who care for its people not only for profit!
Capitalism is worst of all, especially free trade, and free market!
He is good only for big capital and you can't succeed in this environment if you are small player.

Communism is real power but many times was misused by those in power.

Socialism is not solution because this is old fashion system and needs some workout,
 I believe we must find better solution.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Why? France is socialist since 1789 and is leading in many technological development!

Like what exactly?

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is my all-time favorite book, and he was a die hard socialist and tried his damnedest to implement it in the US, but it was not to be.  I'm not saying capitalism is the best, but I don't think socialism is compatible with human nature, which contains elements of greed and altruism but in nowhere near equal proportions.

[yugo23]

...
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors!
...

"Nationalization" is just another word for "theft-by-government". If the only way socialism can succeed is by stealing, then it can't succeed because eventually the government will own everything and there will be nothing left to steal.

Sigh... But in the hypothesis of a direct democracy, government IS the people as there is nothing between them! Peope directly vote laws and constitution and take decisions. So it's not "theft-by-government".

[yugo23]

Only good system is that system who care for its people not only for profit!
Capitalism is worst of all, especially free trade, and free market!
He is good only for big capital and you can't succeed in this environment if you are small player.

Communism is real power but many times was misused by those in power.

Socialism is not solution because this is old fashion system and needs some workout,
 I believe we must find better solution.

Of course the system is not perfect.
But imagine communism/socialism (I prefer socialism but both may be disputed) or another Marxism solution with DIRECT DEMOCRACY!!!

That would be the solution! That would mean they couldn't steal us anymore, they'd have to obey the 99% finally!

[yugo23]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Why? France is socialist since 1789 and is leading in many technological development!

Like what exactly?

The Jungle by Upton Sinclair is my all-time favorite book, and he was a die hard socialist and tried his damnedest to implement it in the US, but it was not to be.  I'm not saying capitalism is the best, but I don't think socialism is compatible with human nature, which contains elements of greed and altruism but in nowhere near equal proportions.

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.
Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).
Of course it needs for every individual of the group to be able to decide freely. Not by the indirect pseudo shitty democracy we have that are nothing but big fat oligarchies.

We have yet to experiment true democracy that's for sure.
And if you're asking what technological development France is responsible for, seems like you don't know enough about our country ^^
Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

[BARR_Official]

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/emergencyeconomics.html

Central planning is supposed to prevent the free market's higher prices, shortages, and waiting in line.

But central planning cannot do anything without using higher prices, shortages, and/or waiting in line. 




The problem with the "government" running things is that no one is accountable.
There is no government.  There are only people with the power to decide what happens.
In a free market, the amount of money we have gives us power to decide what happens.
Government employees want to take our power and give it to themselves.

When people are allowed to provide goods and services without government interference,
they have to do a good job.  Otherwise they will lose money, lose their jobs, go out of business.
When a government employee controls goods and services,
and he doesn't do a good job, people suffer but that guy keeps his job.

In a free market, all of us are free to decide what happens with our money.
If something is too expensive, or if we don't need it, then we don't buy it.
But when we allow a government employee to tell us what we are allowed to buy,
that guy doesn't know or care what our needs are.  He just makes something up, and we have to do it.

A free market allows supply and demand to determine prices and the quality of goods and services.
Central planning means that no quality is too low,
and Florida gets shipped just as many snow shovels as Minnesota.  That's equality.

[BARR_Official]

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.

Groups don't work overtime.
Groups don't invent anything.
Groups don't take personal risks in order to make important progress.
Groups don't care about my children as much as I do.

Groups can't exist without individuals,
so why should individuals submit to your idea of "group" control to tell them what they're allowed to do?

Socialism requires the majority of individuals to submit to the control of a few individuals.

Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

That's a list of things invented by individuals.
Most of them were wealthy individuals who had the freedom to acquire as much money as they wanted,
and then they had the freedom to spend that money however they wanted on whatever they thought was important.
And that's how they invented those things, which wouldn't have been invented if you were in charge.

Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).

If groups aren't greedy, why do they vote for people who promise them free money?

And who is "the group"?  Everyone but me?

How can "the group" benefit by making every individual member of the group suffer?

Oh, that's right - what you mean is that it will always be best for the leaders of the group.

The things you're saying have been used to take away people's rights for over a hundred years.

Not only is everything you say wrong, it's also inherently evil.

[OROBTC]

...

Brazil: Has been trying Socialism for several years now, in their Socialist experiment (and their vanity to land the Olympics), their country is in a hard recession now.

Russia: While "nominally" not Socialist anymore, they indeed have State Capitalism and Crony Capitalism ruining their economy.

India: Been Socialist for decades (hence still very poor), they may be reforming their economy.

China: While until very recently showing fantastic growth, much of that has been powered by over-investment as well as Crony Capitalism.

South Africa: Trying Socialism with disasterous results...

^^^--- That takes care of the "BRICS"

VENEZUELA and Cuba are both being ground into the dirt economically.  Communism/Socialism too...

*   *   *

Poland has been growing nicely since the early 1990s (on the whole), they are getting close to W. European standards.  How?  Freedom (Capitalism).

Greece?  Socialist government for many years.

QED

[arbitrage]

I wonder how much of you ever had some experience
with socialism except in school books? I was born and raised in one such system
and i know what can happen after socialism.
Democracy has delivered by NATO with bombs  in "Merciful angel"  action!

[partysaurus]

I live in sweden and i say here we have a good system the Wellfare  checks wont make you rich but it will make you get the minimum. So you still want to get a job. And free health care and free schools for me is a must have. If a country don't have it or any kind of safety net for their citizen they don't really care for them at all. And yes we have high taxes here but it's ok I guess, your not rant to get rich from your job anyway you do that with your spare time.sweden is a hybrid I guess with socialist views and capitalist views at the same time

[arbitrage]

I live in sweden and i say here we have a good system the Wellfare  checks wont make you rich but it will make you get the minimum. So you still want to get a job. And free health care and free schools for me is a must have. If a country don't have it or any kind of safety net for their citizen they don't really care for them at all. And yes we have high taxes here but it's ok I guess, your not rant to get rich from your job anyway you do that with your spare time.sweden is a hybrid I guess with socialist views and capitalist views at the same time

Yes if country does not support their citizens then there is no need for existence of such. I think we must learn from those who have achieved some kind of equilibrium as Sweden did. US system where people starving on the streets is worst of it kind, and cannot be authoritative for further comparisons.

[yugo23]

Socialism is excellent if you think about group behaviour.

Groups don't work overtime.
Groups don't invent anything.
Groups don't take personal risks in order to make important progress.
Groups don't care about my children as much as I do.

Groups can't exist without individuals,
so why should individuals submit to your idea of "group" control to tell them what they're allowed to do?

Socialism requires the majority of individuals to submit to the control of a few individuals.

Again, you have the old fashion illusion of socialism. Socialism doesn't mean a majority has to bow in front of a few. With current technology the group can choses for itself. Each individual can have a direct voice, we don't need to go through elite individuals like now.

Cinema, vaccination, modern medicine, perfume, sonar, credit cards...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_inventions_and_discoveries

That's a list of things invented by individuals.
Most of them were wealthy individuals who had the freedom to acquire as much money as they wanted,
and then they had the freedom to spend that money however they wanted on whatever they thought was important.
And that's how they invented those things, which wouldn't have been invented if you were in charge.

Where the fuck did you see that personal behaviour was not compatible with socialism?
Seems like you're strongly confused. I'm talking about socialism not pure and absolute equalism. The goal is not to give everyone exactly the same thing but to reduce inequalities through group control that's all. It doesn't mean personal behaviour shouldn't be encouraged and rewarded! It's not all black or white you know?

Greed is a personal behaviour, but if the group speaks it's always for the best of the group (or what he thinks is the best).

If groups aren't greedy, why do they vote for people who promise them free money?

And who is "the group"?  Everyone but me?

How can "the group" benefit by making every individual member of the group suffer?

Oh, that's right - what you mean is that it will always be best for the leaders of the group.

The things you're saying have been used to take away people's rights for over a hundred years.

Not only is everything you say wrong, it's also inherently evil.

No again no no and no. You don't understand there is NO NEED for a "supreme leader" or whatever.
This is not democracy and this would lead only to the "elite" to rape the people! This is not what I want neither what I'm talking about!!!
I'm talking about the possibility to directly chose your laws and your rules by proposing and voting them.

[yugo23]

http://szabo.best.vwh.net/emergencyeconomics.html

Central planning is supposed to prevent the free market's higher prices, shortages, and waiting in line.

But central planning cannot do anything without using higher prices, shortages, and/or waiting in line. 




The problem with the "government" running things is that no one is accountable.
There is no government.  There are only people with the power to decide what happens.
In a free market, the amount of money we have gives us power to decide what happens.
Government employees want to take our power and give it to themselves.

When people are allowed to provide goods and services without government interference,
they have to do a good job.  Otherwise they will lose money, lose their jobs, go out of business.
When a government employee controls goods and services,
and he doesn't do a good job, people suffer but that guy keeps his job.

In a free market, all of us are free to decide what happens with our money.
If something is too expensive, or if we don't need it, then we don't buy it.
But when we allow a government employee to tell us what we are allowed to buy,
that guy doesn't know or care what our needs are.  He just makes something up, and we have to do it.

A free market allows supply and demand to determine prices and the quality of goods and services.
Central planning means that no quality is too low,
and Florida gets shipped just as many snow shovels as Minnesota.  That's equality.

Do you even read the OP? First thing it says is that socialism is now possible because WE NO LONGER NEED THE ELITE LEADERS!!!!

[BARR_Official]

Who will enforce the laws?

Who will come to your house with guns if you don't pay your taxes, and shoot you if you resist?

People won't pay your taxes if you don't threaten to shoot them.

Government can only exist when elites have the authority to kill people and take their money.

The main question is whether you allow individuals to have their own power,
or whether you want to take power away from individuals
and give it to other individuals who call themselves "the group" or "the government".

You want to take power away from some people and give it to other people,
so your system will result in elites killing more people and taking more money.

[yugo23]

Who will enforce the laws?

Who will come to your house with guns if you don't pay your taxes, and shoot you if you resist?

People won't pay your taxes if you don't threaten to shoot them.

Government can only exist when elites have the authority to kill people and take their money.

The main question is whether you allow individuals to have their own power,
or whether you want to take power away from individuals
and give it to other individuals who call themselves "the group" or "the government".

You want to take power away from some people and give it to other people,
so your system will result in elites killing more people and taking more money.

Absolutely not.

The police will still be here to enforce the law and so will the government.
But the law will be decided by the population. By direct vote.
There is no power given to an "elite". If the "elite" tries to fool you, you have the power to change the constitution and the law.
Individuals have to bow in front of the group, not the contrary.
You don't want to pay a tax? Well create a law deleting the tax and convince a majority of the population that this tax is useless or unfair. Then you won't have to pay it.

This is the closest thing to individual power we can have. Current capitalism give infinitely less power than that to the people!

[BARR_Official]

The police will still be here to enforce the law and so will the government.

So the "police" and "government" are individuals
with more power and extra privileges that the rest of us don't have.

How are they not an elite?

Individuals have to bow in front of the group

Yes, we all know that your ideas require us to bow down in front of the rulers.

You don't want to pay a tax? Well create a law deleting the tax and convince a majority of the population that this tax is useless or unfair. Then you won't have to pay it.

So when your system creates tyranny and oppression for a minority of people,
"all they have to do is convince the majority to stop raping them". 
Great plan.

This is the closest thing to individual power we can have. Current capitalism give infinitely less power than that to the people!

Right now we can work and use our own money to protect our own children.
We are allowed to use as much power as we can get.

You want to take that power away from us and tell us to
"trust millions of strangers to do what's best for our children".

Since you want to increase required trust and points of failure, you must think Ripple is better than Bitcoin.

[mOgliE]

I've read all your answers and (some of them) are interesting.

First thing, it seems you didn't all bother to read so I'll write it down again: the important part for a working socialism is a true democracy, which means that people should vote themselves the laws and the consitution. Which means the people are able to decide what should be taken and what should not, what are the priorities and where the money should be spent.

Second important thing, seems like there are a lot of Americans that don't get a clue about what is socialism. Socialism isn't communism. It doesn't mean you'll be taken everything you earn! It doesn't mean you'll no longer have the right to express yourself or to create a company! It doesn't mean you'll get oppressed or anything like that! Socialism is the idea that the government shall be careful about wealth inequalities, and do what is needed in order to not see 1% of the population own more than the 99%. That's all.

Finally it seems like you believe polices should be some kind of overpowered being in a dictatorial state...
What the heck? Police of a socialist country have no more power than police in the USA you know? Even a bit less!

The important part of socialism is that you would be abe to control companies and see that THEY ARE THE TRUE THREAT! They are the ones that ruin our world! They are the ones that get 99% of the wealth in the world and have NO OBLIGATION to give it back.

The main goal of a socialist country is to go see those companies and make them pay for what they do. The goal is not to take the money from the people but from where the money is. Hence, big companies and rich people.

[Anddos]

So rich people are guilty for being rich? I'm not saying that they are all clean, but just because some people work hard they should get their money taken away? Not cool.

[mOgliE]

So rich people are guilty for being rich? I'm not saying that they are all clean, but just because some people work hard they should get their money taken away? Not cool.

Where did I say that? Where did I talk about "being guilty"?
It's not the idea of being guilty! It's about inequalities! Of course the rich aren't guilty for being rich! Maybe they did bad things for that and in this case the law should punish them but that's not the question! The idea is not to take everything from the rich and give every one the same thing of course not! The idea is to take a bit more from the riches to help the poorest. Not to take EVERYTHING or not to take 90%, just to take a bit more.

Because let's face it, it's much easier to earn more money when you're rich than when you're poor. Which means the richest people will continue to amass wealth until the end. And that's what is currently happening, if someone doesn't balance things a bit, riches only get richer and poors only get poorer.

Of course again, the idea is NOT to take everything from the rich or to punish them for being rich. The idea is to make sure society doesn't become more and more unequal.

[mOgliE]

This is something important. i'll try to give an example of why it's important. I live in a socialist country: France (even if more and more American influence make it become liberal and not socialist...). I'm from a rather poor family. We were not starving but we were clearly not rich. My parents worked a lot and earned little, they did whatever they could but life is what it is.

Well as France is a socialist country, the state paid for my studies, it even gave me money to study in another city where the school I wanted was! It allowed me to make great scientific studies and to become an engineer! Now I earn at myself pretty much the same salary as the sum of my parents salaries, which make me sure I'll be able to take care of them.

And so I pay much more taxes than what they did. But it's normal! It's fair!! I have my job because I made great studies, and I made them because I worked hard of course, but it was possible only because the state helped me. Because a socialist country is here to be sure you can do what you want if you work hard enough, that your parents' money is not the important thing.

Now I pay for the next engineers schools, and I'll pay it all my life. And I'll pay it with a big smile on my face, knowing if my country was not a socialist one, I wouldn't have been able to do this.

[Adrian-x]

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

I think your have incorrectly identified the problem, the only thing killing socialism today is monetary inflation, the reason it's tolerated is greed.

[mOgliE]

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

I think your have incorrectly identified the problem, the only thing killing socialism today is monetary inflation, the reason it's tolerated is greed.

touché.

But monetary inflation isn't exactly the problem. The root of all evils are banks

Banks cause monetary inflation upon which they make a hell lot of money. But even if we suppressed monetary inflation I bet the would find something else.

[BARR_Official]

The important part of socialism is that you would be abe to control companies and see that THEY ARE THE TRUE THREAT! They are the ones that ruin our world! They are the ones that get 99% of the wealth in the world and have NO OBLIGATION to give it back.

There have been countries that got rid of all the rich people and all the successful companies.

Citizens of those countries die trying to escape and go somewhere that still has rich people and successful companies.


McDonald's feeds millions of poor people every day.
If you get rid of McDonald's, how are you going to feed those millions of poor people?

[mOgliE]

The important part of socialism is that you would be abe to control companies and see that THEY ARE THE TRUE THREAT! They are the ones that ruin our world! They are the ones that get 99% of the wealth in the world and have NO OBLIGATION to give it back.

There have been countries that got rid of all the rich people and all the successful companies.

Citizens of those countries die trying to escape and go somewhere that still has rich people and successful companies.


McDonald's feeds millions of poor people every day.
If you get rid of McDonald's, how are you going to feed those millions of poor people?

Did I say "to get rid"? Why are you always trying to transform my words in extremism speech?

Currently McDonald's pay exactly 0€ of taxes in France. Same goes for Apple and Google. Apple makes billions of € every years in France and pay NOTHING on it.
Don't you think there is a difference between making them pay something and getting rid of them?

Oh and btw, Mc'Donald's doesn't employ "millions of people" only a few thousands. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they all closed you know? Especially as even is they closed, people would just eat somewhere else so other small restaurants would open and employ people. It might even create jobs in then end!

[BARR_Official]

Don't you think there is a difference between making them pay something and getting rid of them?

How are you going to "make" them pay?

What if they say no?

That's where your elite leaders use their extra power and guns to control people and force them.

If they can't control them, can't arrest them, and can't take their money, then they'll get rid of them.

[mOgliE]

Don't you think there is a difference between making them pay something and getting rid of them?

How are you going to "make" them pay?

What if they say no?

That's where your elite leaders use their extra power and guns to control people and force them.

If they can't control them, can't arrest them, and can't take their money, then they'll get rid of them.

Dude, you're not only extreme, you're also stupid ^^

How are the current governments making companies pay taxes?

[BARR_Official]

Don't you think there is a difference between making them pay something and getting rid of them?

How are you going to "make" them pay?

What if they say no?

That's where your elite leaders use their extra power and guns to control people and force them.

If they can't control them, can't arrest them, and can't take their money, then they'll get rid of them.

Dude, you're not only extreme, you're also stupid ^^

How are the current governments making companies pay taxes?

With guns.

I'm sorry to scare you, I didn't know you were a child.

[mOgliE]

Don't you think there is a difference between making them pay something and getting rid of them?

How are you going to "make" them pay?

What if they say no?

That's where your elite leaders use their extra power and guns to control people and force them.

If they can't control them, can't arrest them, and can't take their money, then they'll get rid of them.

Dude, you're not only extreme, you're also stupid ^^

How are the current governments making companies pay taxes?

With guns.

I'm sorry to scare you, I didn't know you were a child.

So in your opinion the current USA government is already a dictatorship? What kind of government would not be oppressing the people then?

And no, not with guns, simply by saying "if you don't respect the laws of the country, hence don't pay the taxes you deserve, you won't be able to continue your activity anymore".
Then of course if the company says fuck to the state, the company gets sued, seems rather logical no? It means being sued for breaking the law.

[jaysabi]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

The one criticism I have of socialism is that majority rule and moral rule are not the same thing. Just because something is undertaken with the will of the majority does not make the action just. In your post, you seem to advocate that the crucial missing piece to a successful socialist government is simply a strong democratic element. My answer to this notion is that a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and socialism is more prone to justifying tyranny because it is popular. This doesn't make things better necessarily, it just makes people more certain that they can't possibly be doing harm when in fact they are, or worse, that the harm they are doing is creating a greater good. Historically, a group acting with the certainty that they are morally superior generally doesn't lead to a decrease in the level of violence they commit or are willing to commit. In America, we don't believe the ends justify the means. That's why we instituted the Constitution, to limit the potentially destructive means the majority could otherwise inflict simply because they have the popularity to do so.

[mOgliE]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

The one criticism I have of socialism is that majority rule and moral rule are not the same thing. Just because something is undertaken with the will of the majority does not make the action just. In your post, you seem to advocate that the crucial missing piece to a successful socialist government is simply a strong democratic element. My answer to this notion is that a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and socialism is more prone to justifying tyranny because it is popular. This doesn't make things better necessarily, it just makes people more certain that they can't possibly be doing harm when in fact they are, or worse, that the harm they are doing is creating a greater good. Historically, a group acting with the certainty that they are morally superior generally doesn't lead to a decrease in the level of violence they commit or are willing to commit. In America, we don't believe the ends justify the means. That's why we instituted the Constitution, to limit the potentially destructive means the majority could otherwise inflict simply because they have the popularity to do so.

Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.

[mOgliE]

And an important point: it can't really be worse than the shit we have now which is nothing but a big fat oligarchy as the Harvard study proved :-/

[mrhelpful]

The only reason why people react socialism in a negative sense is because the prime examples it took place in back in 2008 with the financial crisis.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

Banks get bailed out which was a socialism and while an actual business that does bad will stay bad and file bankruptcy.

We can debate about this all we want, but I`m just going over whats already been done in history over and over again lol.

[jaysabi]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

The one criticism I have of socialism is that majority rule and moral rule are not the same thing. Just because something is undertaken with the will of the majority does not make the action just. In your post, you seem to advocate that the crucial missing piece to a successful socialist government is simply a strong democratic element. My answer to this notion is that a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and socialism is more prone to justifying tyranny because it is popular. This doesn't make things better necessarily, it just makes people more certain that they can't possibly be doing harm when in fact they are, or worse, that the harm they are doing is creating a greater good. Historically, a group acting with the certainty that they are morally superior generally doesn't lead to a decrease in the level of violence they commit or are willing to commit. In America, we don't believe the ends justify the means. That's why we instituted the Constitution, to limit the potentially destructive means the majority could otherwise inflict simply because they have the popularity to do so.

Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.

Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government.

[mOgliE]

Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.

Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government.

You're missing an important point:
You don't have a choice.

You're telling me "it's not because 70% of population agrees on it that it's good".
Fair enough. But then?
If it's not the people who decides, who will? An elite? Lol, we all know what "elite" do...

[yugo23]

Yeah, the idea is not that socialism and the voice of people is perfection. But it's the best that we have right now, or well the best that we could have.

[aardvark15]

I think maybe we need a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  Right now in America we sort of have that but it's a little out of skew right now.  For example, we say private business in America is capitalism, but then when one of these businesses that is making huge amounts of money and then it fails (like the big bank fail), then the government bails them out.  That is socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.  We also give subsidies to big oil companies that don't need it.

[yugo23]

I think maybe we need a mixture of capitalism and socialism.  Right now in America we sort of have that but it's a little out of skew right now.  For example, we say private business in America is capitalism, but then when one of these businesses that is making huge amounts of money and then it fails (like the big bank fail), then the government bails them out.  That is socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.  We also give subsidies to big oil companies that don't need it.

Yeah but that's not socialism at all... That's taking from the people to pay for banks and industries, socialism is the other way around!

[chanchel]

The truth is we wouldn't have the technological advancements that we have without capitalism and free enterprise.  Computers, cell phones, etc etc are here because of capitalism and free enterprise.  So you could say that this forum wouldn't even exist without those things.  The socialist countries are not making huge advancements and contributions to medicine, technology or any other field.  They may make minor contributions but nothing that truly changes the way things are done.  Apple, GE, Samsung (south korea is not socialist) and many, many other companies that produce game changing products do not come from a socialist country because you cannot thrive in such an environment.  I grew up in a small town in Iowa, my parents barely made $40k between the 2 of them, so we weren't poor but we sure as heck weren't rich.  I obtained an education on my own, I put myself through school by working my butt off.  Now, I own an IT company that services hundreds of clients in the Las Vegas area.  I couldn't do that under a socialist government.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking that big government is the way to fix things.

[romero121]

well I have to agree with your opinion about socialism, especially the part of greed and corruption which will end socialism. Living in a socialist country, I have to say corruption is at its worst. Everything needs some money to get it done fast and billions are stolen by corrupted officials

It is not the problem of socialism alone. Corruption is bane of any political system. Saying that in socialism corruption it is worse is usually untrue.
But seeing how socialists regimes of some countries are riddled with corruption is somewhat interesting. I have been reading about Venezuela recently.
Amount of problems caused by socialist government for this country created the biggest crisis in the history of this nation, coincidence?

If socialism principles are followed in the right way there won't be any problem. As many quoted the major drawback in the socialistic government is the corruption which is initiated because of greediness which collapses the entire beauty of the system by harming common people.

[jaysabi]

Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.

Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government.

You're missing an important point:
You don't have a choice.

You're telling me "it's not because 70% of population agrees on it that it's good".
Fair enough. But then?
If it's not the people who decides, who will? An elite? Lol, we all know what "elite" do...

I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.

[jaysabi]

I would really like to know WTF the US is thinking with the new thing in congress about trade TPP i think it's called it lets china and few others in the west tell us what to do if it passes one of the laws in it ,we won't have the right to know were the meat we eat is coming from or what it is or whats in it , and other things.

What we need to do here is stop helping others and help our self then think about helping others again or do what our first Pres said and that was don't get in involved in the A fairs of others trade with them help them if they ask for it maintain peace but above all things don't get involved beyond watching and helping as needed when asked to don't fight there wars unless it involve us like ww2 . the leaders fight to much over riches and don't care much for the people anymore in the US but this  trade agreement is the worse thing yet they want to do or try  i had no idea was going on . it is as bad as when bash tried to sell off the Baltimore docks to the Arabs and homeland security said there was no issues it was safe to do.






CYa

The TPP is hundred of pages long. To simplify it down to 'we don't know where our meat is coming from' is a gross oversimplification, and ignores all the benefits it brings American industry. As with all things, some industries lose and some industries win when the government gets involved. But the TPP isn't really relevant to this thread, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[btcbug]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

Holy Fuck! Have you seriously not read a book in your life?

Do you even understand the difference between a free market exchange and a government service? One is a voluntary exchange of services for mutual benefit and the other provided under threat that if you don't pay "your fair share", you'll be thrown in jail. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

NO, greed is not the problem. Greed is a fact of life, however when greed is combined state power it becomes a problem. In a competitive market, greed is just inviting competition because others can see there is an opportunity to provide the service for less.

If you want a Democracy where EVERYONE gets their voice, then you should be in favor of free markets where everybody votes with their dollar. You don't like something, than you don't buy it. Voting is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

I suggest you shut your communist mouth and get an education.



http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Socialism-Capitalism-LvMI-ebook/dp/B004UBG388/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376839&sr=8-12&keywords=lvmi

http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376759&sr=8-3&keywords=ludwig+von+mises

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy---God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456377017&sr=8-1&keywords=democracy+the+god+that+failed

http://www.amazon.com/New-Liberty-Libertarian-Manifesto/dp/1478280719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376593&sr=8-1&keywords=murray+rothbard+for+a+new+liberty

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Freedom-Struggle-Against-Authority/dp/1503117553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376656&sr=8-1&keywords=discovery+of+freedom+rose+wilder+lane

http://www.amazon.com/Everyday-Anarchy-Freedom-Stefan-Molyneux-ebook/dp/B004Z821GE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376687&sr=8-1&keywords=everyday+anarchy

http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376731&sr=8-1&keywords=murray+rothbard+ethics

[EdenHazard]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

yes,socialism is he key,its will depend how the country build the future of human interaction,not only that,socialism also have decision for all goodness,we help each other and everybody deserve to helped,the only thing that will make socialism not work properly,there was so many rich people who dont care about other people,that's bad for socialism.

[n0ne]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

yes,socialism is he key,its will depend how the country build the future of human interaction,not only that,socialism also have decision for all goodness,we help each other and everybody deserve to helped,the only thing that will make socialism not work properly,there was so many rich people who dont care about other people,that's bad for socialism.

Right Socialism is the only system through which a mutual understanding of the people next to us can be known. In socialism everyone gets everything and for one mans right the whole people get united. This will make a lot changes in growth of the country as quoted by mate.

[WhatTheGox]

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

This is what i've been saying for a couple years now. If you have a public sector to be proud of and one that is corruption free then society will engage in a more meaningful way.  Lets keep the private business out of public affairs.

[yugo23]

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

This is what i've been saying for a couple years now. If you have a public sector to be proud of and one that is corruption free then society will engage in a more meaningful way.  Lets keep the private business out of public affairs.

Exactly
The main problem is that governments are giving out to private sectors everything that is profitable! They keep only the expenses in public sector! THE OF COURSE IT COSTS MONEY!! ><

[Farma]

because the socializing you can make people believe, and closer to the people, even you can get the information you want if you're very good at socializing

[Laosai]

The truth is we wouldn't have the technological advancements that we have without capitalism and free enterprise.  Computers, cell phones, etc etc are here because of capitalism and free enterprise.  So you could say that this forum wouldn't even exist without those things.  The socialist countries are not making huge advancements and contributions to medicine, technology or any other field.  They may make minor contributions but nothing that truly changes the way things are done.  Apple, GE, Samsung (south korea is not socialist) and many, many other companies that produce game changing products do not come from a socialist country because you cannot thrive in such an environment.  I grew up in a small town in Iowa, my parents barely made $40k between the 2 of them, so we weren't poor but we sure as heck weren't rich.  I obtained an education on my own, I put myself through school by working my butt off.  Now, I own an IT company that services hundreds of clients in the Las Vegas area.  I couldn't do that under a socialist government.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking that big government is the way to fix things.

Of course you could have done that!
Socialism isn't communism for God sakes! Please Americans educate yourself...
What do you think? That in socialists countries like France you can't do that? Well the only difference is that if your government were socialist you wouldn't have to pay for your school that's all!

[BARR_Official]

What do you think? That in socialists countries like France you can't do that?

In France he wouldn't have been allowed to work more than 35 hours per week, because the government decided to limit his income.

Well the only difference is that if your government were socialist you wouldn't have to pay for your school that's all!

You would have to pay for your school, even if you didn't go to school, and you would also have to pay for everyone else's school, for the rest of your life.

[craked5]

What do you think? That in socialists countries like France you can't do that?

In France he wouldn't have been allowed to work more than 35 hours per week, because the government decided to limit his income.

Of course you can, don't say dumb things like that... Difference is that in France YOU have to ASK for it. The company can't impose more hours on you. You think it's a bad thing to give people the choice?

Well the only difference is that if your government were socialist you wouldn't have to pay for your school that's all!

You would have to pay for your school, even if you didn't go to school, and you would also have to pay for everyone else's school, for the rest of your life.

Yeah that's called solidarity, it's in our official moto. You'll have to pay for high educational institutions all your life and you know why? Because having a highly educated population means you'll have more innovative techs, more companies, more quality products, in a word: a better average quality of life.

You pay for the school of others cause that's an investment we decided to do in our future generations. You don't want to do that? Well just leave and go to the USA, here nobody pays for the school so if your child wants to go, he'll have to take a 200k$ study loan.

What's better? Taking money from those who earn it or asking a 18 years old student to start his life with a debt big enough to buy 3 small houses?

Me I've chosen. And so did the whole Europe.

[mOgliE]

The truth is we wouldn't have the technological advancements that we have without capitalism and free enterprise.  Computers, cell phones, etc etc are here because of capitalism and free enterprise.  So you could say that this forum wouldn't even exist without those things.  The socialist countries are not making huge advancements and contributions to medicine, technology or any other field.  They may make minor contributions but nothing that truly changes the way things are done.  Apple, GE, Samsung (south korea is not socialist) and many, many other companies that produce game changing products do not come from a socialist country because you cannot thrive in such an environment.  I grew up in a small town in Iowa, my parents barely made $40k between the 2 of them, so we weren't poor but we sure as heck weren't rich.  I obtained an education on my own, I put myself through school by working my butt off.  Now, I own an IT company that services hundreds of clients in the Las Vegas area.  I couldn't do that under a socialist government.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking that big government is the way to fix things.

Again, please educate yourself a bit Americans

Please understand that decades of Cold War biased all of you.
Socialism is NOT capitalism.
Socialism isn't incompatible with free entreprise. On the contrary, socialism is here to help anyone going in life with more or less equal chances and thus allowing anyone to become a successful entrepreneur.

You could do EXACTLY what you've done in a socialist country.
the difference is that your school would be paid, your healthcare would be paid, the institutions would be paid... Everything would be paid fore, and in exchange, when you become successful, the state will take a part of what you earn. Exactly in the same way that if you invest in a company you'll earn part of the profits. It's an investment in future generations.

[mOgliE]

I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.

In which way is socialism not compatible with what you're saying? The fact that no one should tell you what to do or take parts of what you have/earn?
Well it's already the case no?

And you're saying this as if all men were not equal in a socialist country! Why shouldn't they be all equal in the eyes of the law?

[mOgliE]

Holy Fuck! Have you seriously not read a book in your life?

Do you even understand the difference between a free market exchange and a government service? One is a voluntary exchange of services for mutual benefit and the other provided under threat that if you don't pay "your fair share", you'll be thrown in jail. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

NO, greed is not the problem. Greed is a fact of life, however when greed is combined state power it becomes a problem. In a competitive market, greed is just inviting competition because others can see there is an opportunity to provide the service for less.

If you want a Democracy where EVERYONE gets their voice, then you should be in favor of free markets where everybody votes with their dollar. You don't like something, than you don't buy it. Voting is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

I suggest you shut your communist mouth and get an education.



http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Socialism-Capitalism-LvMI-ebook/dp/B004UBG388/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376839&sr=8-12&keywords=lvmi

http://www.amazon.com/Socialism-Sociological-Ludwig-von-Mises/dp/0913966630/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376759&sr=8-3&keywords=ludwig+von+mises

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy---God-That-Failed-Perspectives/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456377017&sr=8-1&keywords=democracy+the+god+that+failed

http://www.amazon.com/New-Liberty-Libertarian-Manifesto/dp/1478280719/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376593&sr=8-1&keywords=murray+rothbard+for+a+new+liberty

http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Freedom-Struggle-Against-Authority/dp/1503117553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376656&sr=8-1&keywords=discovery+of+freedom+rose+wilder+lane

http://www.amazon.com/Everyday-Anarchy-Freedom-Stefan-Molyneux-ebook/dp/B004Z821GE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376687&sr=8-1&keywords=everyday+anarchy

http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1456376731&sr=8-1&keywords=murray+rothbard+ethics

I suggest you shut your mouth and try to think more than 2 minutes.

You're in favor of free markets? So you're in favor of one company ruling the world then?
If you see no problem with an incredible small elite owning 99% of both power and wealth, then you're right, continue with free market and capitalism.
And it seems I've got to keep repeating the same thing over and over but... No i'll make a separate post.

[mOgliE]

Ok I say it for all Americans reading this thread, you all seem to have a problem with that so here it is:

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM

If you wanna know the differences just google them. Those two things are incredibly different!

[yugo23]

Ok I say it for all Americans reading this thread, you all seem to have a problem with that so here it is:

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM

If you wanna know the differences just google them. Those two things are incredibly different!

That should be taught in each and every American school :-/

[toptek]

I deleted what i Said i made a mistake i got Socialism confused with capitalism, i won't comment on Socialism !!!! . I did google it http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp

I was off topic after i saw my mistake so shot me.

Shouldn't this be posted in Politics & Society !!!

cya

[pitham1]

Ok I say it for all Americans reading this thread, you all seem to have a problem with that so here it is:

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM

If you wanna know the differences just google them. Those two things are incredibly different!

Why are the 2 incredibly different? 
Communism is just an extreme form of socialism.
This site gives a good comparison of the two.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

[chanchel]

The truth is we wouldn't have the technological advancements that we have without capitalism and free enterprise.  Computers, cell phones, etc etc are here because of capitalism and free enterprise.  So you could say that this forum wouldn't even exist without those things.  The socialist countries are not making huge advancements and contributions to medicine, technology or any other field.  They may make minor contributions but nothing that truly changes the way things are done.  Apple, GE, Samsung (south korea is not socialist) and many, many other companies that produce game changing products do not come from a socialist country because you cannot thrive in such an environment.  I grew up in a small town in Iowa, my parents barely made $40k between the 2 of them, so we weren't poor but we sure as heck weren't rich.  I obtained an education on my own, I put myself through school by working my butt off.  Now, I own an IT company that services hundreds of clients in the Las Vegas area.  I couldn't do that under a socialist government.  Don't fool yourselves into thinking that big government is the way to fix things.

Again, please educate yourself a bit Americans

Please understand that decades of Cold War biased all of you.
Socialism is NOT capitalism.
Socialism isn't incompatible with free entreprise. On the contrary, socialism is here to help anyone going in life with more or less equal chances and thus allowing anyone to become a successful entrepreneur.

You could do EXACTLY what you've done in a socialist country.
the difference is that your school would be paid, your healthcare would be paid, the institutions would be paid... Everything would be paid fore, and in exchange, when you become successful, the state will take a part of what you earn. Exactly in the same way that if you invest in a company you'll earn part of the profits. It's an investment in future generations.

You are the one who apparently doesn't know what socialism is.  I never said it was communism, but communism is an extreme version of socialism.  You don't understand what a free market is or what capitalism has done for you.  Where was the automobile invented?  Where was the computer invented?  Where was the telephone invented?  On and on it goes, these are the result of free enterprise not government controlled entities.  I do not want to be forced to "pay my fair share", because that is what socialism is about.  It takes away all incentive to become successful.  I have to pay for everyone's education, healthcare, etc?  I should be obligated to take care of me and my children.  If I feel the desire to help others then I can, but should not be forced to do it.  There is a reason that America has been the most inventive and most powerful nation on earth for a years and years, because we aren't a socialist country.  Socialism removes true free enterprise, it will never ever thrive under it.  How many multi billion dollar companies are headquartered in socialist countries?  A few, but most are not.  Because what happens when the government sees a company thriving and they then deem it necessary to control because that would be for the greater good?  I have lived in socialist countries (mexico and spain) and live in the US.  Socialism is not the answer, nor will it ever be.  How many self employed people are there in socialist countries?  According to your statement above, socialist countries are just full of self employed people, which just isn't true.  When you take away the people's free will to take care of others then that is the devil's tool.  America has become more and more socialist and I hate it, it will ruin this great country.

[KiwiParty]

What a harsh discussion?
The difference between socialism and communism is most likely that the latter is not a mere ideology, but puts a lot of emphasis on political and economical issues as well,
while socialism has a strong emphasis on being an mere ideology. Reality is different though, as parts of socialism can be found in every democracy of today.
With communism this wouldnt work out this well.  

I think the biggest difference is their origins or intention.
While communism evolving around Marx tries to totally abolish any form of a privileged class, the elimination of any form of cultural hierarchy,
socialism based on famous persons like Jean-Jacques Rousseau tries to have influence on the system of values itself which are embodied in the constitution.
So, socialist are aware of modern forms of government and constitutional rights, and accept them, Marxists mostly didnt, being aware of the negative effects of aristocracy, or oligarchy.
While many people think they are literally the same, the idea behind both differs somewhat. But both dislike elitist groups.

Another fact, socialism is not contrary to individualism or capitalism, nor monarchy or aristocracy, but to any cultural form of despotism.
Lots of people get confused by this, and think socialism is mainly contrary to capitalism.
In fact, capitalism in its most extreme form does arguably share some similarities with despotism.
However, this is not the main idea behind capitalism, its a negative effect.
There are so many ideas and concepts behind capitalism, they are too many to list them all here.
It is not an ad hoc solution, but only one that strictly follows the rules of a free market, trading & currency, investments and companies, profit and property.
You can make your money work! This wouldnt have been possible in our past kingdoms, where citizens used to be serfs. They just were NOT allowed to do that!
For this reason, capitalists dont see themselves as slave traders, but the opposite. This bears some truth, as history proves.
In theory socialism wouldnt have the same problem with such issues, as long as the rulers would fulfill the demands of their citizens. the welfare state.

[btcbug]

You're in favor of free markets? So you're in favor of one company ruling the world then?

Yes I'm in favor of FREE markets. FREE meaning that there is not a government body that can be hijacked and used to grant and maintain monopolies. All of the things which lead to monopolies in a capitalist system are entirely due to government.

If you'll read any of the material I linked to, you would start to understand what ALL government is. I don't care if you want to call it Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. Those are bullshit ideals that all stem from the same fundamental belief. The belief that the use of coercion is morally acceptable. Socialism is a forced redistribution of wealth through various methods such as taxation, tariffs, and subsidies. It violates private property (your right to the products of your labor) in the same way that all government does.

Now please go ahead and explain how one company (without using government) would rule the world.

If you see no problem with an incredible small elite owning 99% of both power and wealth, then you're right, continue with free market and capitalism.

Again, you are not understanding what a free market is. Please don't confuse it with what's called Capitalism these days.

[btcbug]

What a harsh discussion?

The discussion is harsh in the same way that if somebody came on these forums and exclaimed "Why Nazism is the Key!", I would denounce it and laugh them out of the room.

It's disgusting. And trying to claim that we're really just confusing Socialism with Communism shows the OP and many others on this thread have no idea regarding the moral philosophy behind their theories.

[btcbug]

Milton Friedman - Socialism is Force

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYeYPcougmA

[mOgliE]

I deleted what i Said i made a mistake i got Socialism confused with capitalism, i won't comment on Socialism !!!! . I did google it http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp

I was off topic after i saw my mistake so shot me.

Shouldn't this be posted in Politics & Society !!!

cya

No problem. We all do mistakes from times to times but it's especially common concerning extremely complex notions such as economic and social theories!

[mOgliE]

Ok I say it for all Americans reading this thread, you all seem to have a problem with that so here it is:

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM

If you wanna know the differences just google them. Those two things are incredibly different!

Why are the 2 incredibly different? 
Communism is just an extreme form of socialism.
This site gives a good comparison of the two.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

It's the same thing as saying fascism is an extreme form of patriotism 

Communism: Everyone gets exactly the same thing. No personnal entrepreneurship is allowed. State owns everything.
Socialism: Parts of profits are distributed to the population in order to prevent capital and companies to own everything in the end. Basic needs of every one such as food and education are taken in charge by the state in order to make everyone starts in life with similar chances.

They're NOT the same. In socialism personnal entrepreneurship is completely encouraged!

[mOgliE]

You are the one who apparently doesn't know what socialism is.  I never said it was communism, but communism is an extreme version of socialism.  You don't understand what a free market is or what capitalism has done for you.  Where was the automobile invented?  Where was the computer invented?  Where was the telephone invented?  On and on it goes, these are the result of free enterprise not government controlled entities.  I do not want to be forced to "pay my fair share", because that is what socialism is about.  It takes away all incentive to become successful.  I have to pay for everyone's education, healthcare, etc?  I should be obligated to take care of me and my children.  If I feel the desire to help others then I can, but should not be forced to do it.  There is a reason that America has been the most inventive and most powerful nation on earth for a years and years, because we aren't a socialist country.  Socialism removes true free enterprise, it will never ever thrive under it.  How many multi billion dollar companies are headquartered in socialist countries?  A few, but most are not.  Because what happens when the government sees a company thriving and they then deem it necessary to control because that would be for the greater good?  I have lived in socialist countries (mexico and spain) and live in the US.  Socialism is not the answer, nor will it ever be.  How many self employed people are there in socialist countries?  According to your statement above, socialist countries are just full of self employed people, which just isn't true.  When you take away the people's free will to take care of others then that is the devil's tool.  America has become more and more socialist and I hate it, it will ruin this great country.

Again you're wrong and don't understand what it's all about.

First you say there are no self employed people or small companies in socialist countries.
Well France is one of the most socialist countries and 99,8% of our companies are small ones (under 20 persons).

Socialism isn't about removing all and any incentive of being successful. It's about being sure that you being successful profits the whole society.

Without socialism what happens? Companies and people being successful gets money. A lot of. Hence they get power, a lot of. Hence they get more money and more power even more easily!
A totally free market can only leads to monopoles! As the best company will grow and grow and absorbs everything!

You wan't to live without "pay my fair share". As you wish. But it's what makes USA one of the most unequal countries in the world. It's why in the USA student get to take 250k$ loan to get educated.

I prefer live in a country where education and healthcare is free for everyone. Which means every children starts with more or less the same chances of success. I don't see what's wrong with that.

[mOgliE]

You're in favor of free markets? So you're in favor of one company ruling the world then?

Yes I'm in favor of FREE markets. FREE meaning that there is not a government body that can be hijacked and used to grant and maintain monopolies. All of the things which lead to monopolies in a capitalist system are entirely due to government.

If you'll read any of the material I linked to, you would start to understand what ALL government is. I don't care if you want to call it Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. Those are bullshit ideals that all stem from the same fundamental belief. The belief that the use of coercion is morally acceptable. Socialism is a forced redistribution of wealth through various methods such as taxation, tariffs, and subsidies. It violates private property (your right to the products of your labor) in the same way that all government does.

Now please go ahead and explain how one company (without using government) would rule the world.

It's incredibly easy and it's already happening!

Look at Google! Look at the food industry!!
If government does nothing, then one company (the best) will get bigger and bigger. Then it will slowly absorb any concurrent company or destroy it! In a FREE market as you say, the best company will continue to grow until nobody can get it down. And then it will have a complete and absolute monopoly.

The food industry is currently only 6 companies when it was still hundreds if not thousands only a few decades ago. American banks were dozens, now only 5 of them control everything.

Free market has only one consequence: concentration of power and wealth in a few companies. The richest get richer, the poorest get poorer.

If you don't mind living in something like this, go on and live your American dream.

[mOgliE]

What a harsh discussion?

The discussion is harsh in the same way that if somebody came on these forums and exclaimed "Why Nazism is the Key!", I would denounce it and laugh them out of the room.

It's disgusting. And trying to claim that we're really just confusing Socialism with Communism shows the OP and many others on this thread have no idea regarding the moral philosophy behind their theories.

Oh yeah! How horrible is the moral of socialism!!!

Here is the moral and the base of socialism:
-All citizens should have access to the basic needs which are food, education and healthcare.
-All citizens should have equal chance of success (which means for example that the schools of high education have to make anonymous selections)
-The successful citizens and companies should pay a bit more in order to redistribute the wealth and be sure that inequalites in society do not grow bigger and bigger

Please explain me how it's similar to nazism.

[BARR_Official]

Here is the moral and the base of socialism:
-All citizens should have access to the basic needs which are food, education and healthcare.

 
So you require slavery, giving yourself "the right" to force other people to work and give you their goods and services for free.

-All citizens should have equal chance of success

So you will use the violence of the government to punish people for the crimes of being smarter, healthier, or harder-working.

-The successful citizens and companies should pay a bit more

So really you lied when you said all citizens should have equal chance of success? 

Or do you really mean that no one will be allowed a chance to succeed, because they will be punished for trying?

[mOgliE]

Here is the moral and the base of socialism:
-All citizens should have access to the basic needs which are food, education and healthcare.

 
So you require slavery, giving yourself "the right" to force other people to work and give you their goods and services for free.

What??? What are you talking about? Who's giving their goods and services for free???

-All citizens should have equal chance of success

So you will use the violence of the government to punish people for the crimes of being smarter, healthier, or harder-working.

What again? Who's being punished by the government for such thing? What you're saying has absolutely no sense!!!

-The successful citizens and companies should pay a bit more

So really you lied when you said all citizens should have equal chance of success? 

But what the fuck are you saying? All citizens have equal chances of success, which means once they are successful they got to pay a bit more in order to give the same chances they had to the next generation!

Or do you really mean that no one will be allowed a chance to succeed, because they will be punished for trying?

But what the heck?? You seem to have a really terrible and barbaric vision of socialism dude Oo
Nobody will punish you for trying to be successful! On the contrary in socialist countries you'll be helped by the government to launch your activity! France invests millions every year to help young entrepreneurs to create their start-up!

[BARR_Official]

So you're saying you don't understand the ideas you're promoting.

If people get goods and services for free, someone else has to work for free.  Slavery.

If the government enforces "equal chances", then it must punish people who have "better chances" in order to make them equal.

If the government takes more money from "successful" people, then the government punishes success.

Aren't you aware that the government can impose fines and charge people money for breaking the law?
Under your system, here are some examples of crimes that could result in a $1,000,000 fine:
 - Fraud
 - Trafficking illegal drugs
 - Being successful
 - Helping the economy
 - Working harder than other people
 - Inventing a new medicine that saves people's lives
 - Inventing a new technology that improves the quality of life for millions of people
 - Providing something more valuable to other people than what anyone else is providing



Since these are the activities you want to punish,
these are the activities you are discouraging.


Here are the activities you will encourage by paying people to do them:

 - Staying home all day
 - Getting drunk or high every day
 - Never getting a job
 - Not producing anything for society
 - Never doing anything useful for another human being
 - Not providing for your own children
 - Getting pregnant at the age of 15
 - Keeping children away from their own father




Why do you want to reward bad decisions while punishing responsibility?

It made sense during the Cold War when these policies were promoted by our enemies as subversive weapons to destroy Western Civilization, but why are you still promoting them? 

[mOgliE]

AHAHAHAH xD

Ok I just laughed far too much! Well it's a bit sad to see that an actual human can think so little but it was funny in its own way xD

I'll still try to explain you why your reasoning is false. But please take back your brain from TV, seems you let it there.

So you're saying you don't understand the ideas you're promoting.

If people get goods and services for free, someone else has to work for free.  Slavery.

Nah, just that somebody else is paying for it, that's called tax.

If the government enforces "equal chances", then it must punish people who have "better chances" in order to make them equal.

Nah, you don't have to lower the chances of some, you can also increase the chances of the others.

If the government takes more money from "successful" people, then the government punishes success.

Whaou, ok in this way you're right if you consider that taking more money from those who have more is the same as "punishing peopl" then yes it is.

Aren't you aware that the government can impose fines and charge people money for breaking the law?
Under your system, here are some examples of crimes that could result in a $1,000,000 fine:
 - Fraud

Cause it's not punishable? You feel like Fraud shouldn't be punished?

- Trafficking illegal drugs

That's the mere principle of "illegal" you know, what would you like to be done on illegal things? Rewarding?

- Being successful

Nope, being successful leads to an increase of taxation, not a fine.

- Helping the economy

Nope, if you invest the money in the economy then your not taxed, it would be stupid to do so.

- Working harder than other people

Nope again I don't even see how you could fine someone for that

- Inventing a new medicine that saves people's lives

No, in no way, I mean what the heck?

- Inventing a new technology that improves the quality of life for millions of people

But what the fuck are you saying exactly please? Who would be punished for that? Give me one example in the entire socialist countries history!

- Providing something more valuable to other people than what anyone else is providing

Ok I'm a bit tired of repeating myself so same answer as above.

Since these are the activities you want to punish,
these are the activities you are discouraging.


Here are the activities you will encourage by paying people to do them:

 - Staying home all day

Well if you do this you'll earn barely enough to survive. But yes it's possible if you do nothing more than eating and sleeping all day. Experience shows that less than 0.1% of the population is even using this universal base income and most of them actively look for a job and find one after some time.

- Getting drunk or high every day

What? What's the link?

- Never getting a job

Hmm... You get paid only if you spent some time working and the time you get paid is proportional to the time you worked. The goal is to let you some time to find another job but if you do nothing you won't get paid for years doing nothing.

- Not producing anything for society

Same as above

- Never doing anything useful for another human being

Dude it's tiring seriously, same as above.

- Not providing for your own children

Didn't understand this one

- Getting pregnant at the age of 15

Actually it's the contrary, free education leads to less teenage pregnancy sorry.

- Keeping children away from their own father

I don't see why, seems you have a strange vision of what socialism even mean.

Why do you want to reward bad decisions while punishing responsibility?

Not the point, the idea is that in a socialist state you're never alone, the state is always here to back you up if you're in need. In fact it's much easier to create things and take risks and responsability knowing that even if you fail the state will take care of your children!

It made sense during the Cold War when these policies were promoted by our enemies as subversive weapons to destroy Western Civilization, but why are you still promoting them?  

[BARR_Official]

So you're saying you don't understand the ideas you're promoting.

If people get goods and services for free, someone else has to work for free.  Slavery.

Nah, just that somebody else is paying for it, that's called tax.

Somebody else has to work for it,
but they don't get to keep what they work for.

That's called slavery.

Nah, you don't have to lower the chances of some, you can also increase the chances of the others.

So you're saying that billionaires can exist without lowering anyone else's chances of economic equality?

Or in fact does your plan enforce equality by bringing everyone down to a lower level?

Whaou, ok in this way you're right if you consider that taking more money from those who have more is the same as "punishing peopl" then yes it is.

Yes, taking money from people is the same as taking money from people.  

Can you explain any effective difference between taking someone's money to discourage them from selling drugs,
and your plan of taking someone's money to discourage them from curing cancer?

Hmm... You get paid only if you spent some time working and the time you get paid is proportional to the time you worked.

So you want to let disabled people starve?  

Or are you just lying about people only getting paid if they worked?

Not the point, the idea is that in a socialist state you're never alone, the state is always here to back you up if you're in need.

It is sick and disgusting for you to try to replace family and religion with government.

But at least you've admitted why you want to destroy society -
If people have families, if children have fathers,
then they won't turn to you and other government elites to control their lives.

In fact it's much easier to create things and take risks and responsability knowing that even if you fail the state will take care of your children!

So now you're admitting that you want to reward failure.

You wasted everyone's time denying it,
because you know people hate your ideas and will never agree unless you lie about what you want to do.

[mOgliE]

So you're saying you don't understand the ideas you're promoting.

If people get goods and services for free, someone else has to work for free.  Slavery.

Nah, just that somebody else is paying for it, that's called tax.

Somebody else has to work for it,
but they don't get to keep what they work for.

That's called slavery.

Nah, you don't have to lower the chances of some, you can also increase the chances of the others.

So you're saying that billionaires can exist without lowering anyone else's chances of economic equality?

Or in fact does your plan enforce equality by bringing everyone down to a lower level?

Whaou, ok in this way you're right if you consider that taking more money from those who have more is the same as "punishing peopl" then yes it is.

Yes, taking money from people is the same as taking money from people.  

Can you explain any effective difference between taking someone's money to discourage them from selling drugs,
and your plan of taking someone's money to discourage them from curing cancer?

Hmm... You get paid only if you spent some time working and the time you get paid is proportional to the time you worked.

So you want to let disabled people starve?  

Or are you just lying about people only getting paid if they worked?

Not the point, the idea is that in a socialist state you're never alone, the state is always here to back you up if you're in need.

It is sick and disgusting for you to try to replace family and religion with government.

But at least you've admitted why you want to destroy society -
If people have familes, if children have fathers,
then they won't turn to you and other government elites to control their lives.

In fact it's much easier to create things and take risks and responsability knowing that even if you fail the state will take care of your children!

So now you're admitting that you want to reward failure.

You wasted everyone's time denying it,
because you know people hate your ideas and will never agree unless you lie about what you want to do.

Hey funny how you ignore 80% of my answers and only took the ones you wanted no? ^^

Anyway I won't lose much more time about this.

Yes the idea is socialism is to have a redistribution of wealth. Yes the idea of socialism is that the state is here to provide education and health care to EVERYONE and yes the idea of a socialist state is that the rich have to pay a bit more in order for the children of the poor to have a chance to access to a better education. I don't see what's wrong with that.

Let's take it from the other way around:
I'm from a rather poor family. I couldn't pay for my studies. thanks to socialism I had the same chances to access good schools and as I'm hard worker I was able to have a great engineering school.
What is wrong with that? Now I'll create technologies that will help people and society.

What you forget in your flawed reasoning is that numerous people could work and make a better world but they can't as they will never be able to afford the studies.

Socialism is here to give them this opportunity.

Now tell me how bas it is.

[mOgliE]

It is sick and disgusting for you to try to replace family and religion with government.

But at least you've admitted why you want to destroy society -
If people have familes, if children have fathers,
then they won't turn to you and other government elites to control their lives.

So what about those who have no family or those who have a poor family or those who have a family that doesn't want to help them?

[Snail2]

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

...and itself, by ignoring human nature. Greed is the main driving force behind development. Should I quote Gordon Gekko?

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

So, then Switzerland is a socialist dreamland? Just because of they doing what you said, but they still looks pretty much capitalists .

[BARR_Official]

It is sick and disgusting for you to try to replace family and religion with government.

But at least you've admitted why you want to destroy society -
If people have families, if children have fathers,
then they won't turn to you and other government elites to control their lives.

So what about those who have no family or those who have a poor family or those who have a family that doesn't want to help them?

We need to encourage people to raise their own children.
Your ideas encourage people to abandon their own children.

The government can't get a woman pregnant,
the government can't give birth to a child,
and the government can't love a child or raise it.

Because of socialist policies that value government control over human rights,
fathers and children have had their rights taken away.

Just like everything you've talked about,
paying people to do something encourages them to do it more.

When the government started paying women to leave their husbands
and take children away from their own fathers,
people started doing it more. 

After more people started taking that bribe, it became commonplace.
After it was commonplace, it became accepted.

And now millions of children never meet a male authority figure until the first time they're arrested.\

Because of socialist policies that were designed to replace families with government.
And people went along with it because there were offered profit for it.

Money.  Greed.  That's the only appeal your system offers to people.
You use a classic con artist technique by luring people with promises that are too good to be true.
Their own selfishness blinds them to the obvious fact that they're being robbed.  By you.

[poptok1]

Socialism is the key.
Yes a key to your grave.
Any one that says difrent has no real idea what it is.
To what it leads to and what huge cost on poor people it has.
Socialism is an enemy to society and single person as well.

[mrhelpful]

Socialism is the key.
Yes a key to your grave.
Any one that says difrent has no real idea what it is.
To what it leads to and what huge cost on poor people it has.
Socialism is an enemy to society and single person as well.

I think you need to understand some history lesson with socialism.

If youre supporting socialism youre saying like the bail out of the banks in 2008 crisis is okay. Basically a hand me out whenever someone fails at something which then burdens the state, etc.

[yugo23]

It is sick and disgusting for you to try to replace family and religion with government.

But at least you've admitted why you want to destroy society -
If people have families, if children have fathers,
then they won't turn to you and other government elites to control their lives.

So what about those who have no family or those who have a poor family or those who have a family that doesn't want to help them?

We need to encourage people to raise their own children.
Your ideas encourage people to abandon their own children.

The government can't get a woman pregnant,
the government can't give birth to a child,
and the government can't love a child or raise it.

Because of socialist policies that value government control over human rights,
fathers and children have had their rights taken away.

Just like everything you've talked about,
paying people to do something encourages them to do it more.

When the government started paying women to leave their husbands
and take children away from their own fathers,
people started doing it more. 

After more people started taking that bribe, it became commonplace.
After it was commonplace, it became accepted.

And now millions of children never meet a male authority figure until the first time they're arrested.\

Because of socialist policies that were designed to replace families with government.
And people went along with it because there were offered profit for it.

Money.  Greed.  That's the only appeal your system offers to people.
You use a classic con artist technique by luring people with promises that are too good to be true.
Their own selfishness blinds them to the obvious fact that they're being robbed.  By you.

Wtf? That's the first time sometimes tries to explain me socialism is bad because it leads to abandon your children xD

http://www.sos-usa.org/our-impact/childrens-statistics

Funny how this association takes care of children of the whole world including USA, but not European socialist countries. Maybe because there are much less abandonned children in Europe?

[yugo23]

Socialism is the key.
Yes a key to your grave.
Any one that says difrent has no real idea what it is.
To what it leads to and what huge cost on poor people it has.
Socialism is an enemy to society and single person as well.

I think you need to understand some history lesson with socialism.

If youre supporting socialism youre saying like the bail out of the banks in 2008 crisis is okay. Basically a hand me out whenever someone fails at something which then burdens the state, etc.

Oh but the banks 2008 crisis is okay because it's a free market you see, so it's all ok xD

[BARR_Official]

Wtf? That's the first time sometimes tries to explain me socialism is bad because it leads to abandon your children xD

That's because you've been trained and brainwashed until you can't see what's in front of you.

Instead of saying "child abandoned by the father", they say "strong independent single mother".

But you can't have a "single mother" without a missing father.

And all these millions of women wouldn't let men get them pregnant unless the government was paying them for it.

How many children in socialist countries are "born to single mothers"?

66% percent of children in Iceland
55% percent of children in Sweden
54% percent of children in Norway
46% of children in Denmark

That's how many children are abandoned by their own fathers, because of socialism.

And you admit that you've never even heard of that fact.

So how can you know anything?  You don't even know where babies come from.

 

[MedaR]

Socialism is the key.
Yes a key to your grave.
Any one that says difrent has no real idea what it is.
To what it leads to and what huge cost on poor people it has.
Socialism is an enemy to society and single person as well.

Socialism as a social system has nothing to do with the ideological leaders who abuse their position. people are not aware of how the system can be good for the little man.
Social protection, free education, security in socialism in some form is the key!

  I do not know why they comment on something that they are not familiar with at all.

[yugo23]

Socialism is the key.
Yes a key to your grave.
Any one that says difrent has no real idea what it is.
To what it leads to and what huge cost on poor people it has.
Socialism is an enemy to society and single person as well.

Socialism as a social system has nothing to do with the ideological leaders who abuse their position. people are not aware of how the system can be good for the little man.
Social protection, free education, security in socialism in some form is the key!

  I do not know why they comment on something that they are not familiar with at all.

I understand why they comment on something that they are not familiar with at all. But I don't understand why they comment in such a hateful and ignorant way.

[yugo23]

Wtf? That's the first time sometimes tries to explain me socialism is bad because it leads to abandon your children xD

That's because you've been trained and brainwashed until you can't see what's in front of you.

Instead of saying "child abandoned by the father", they say "strong independent single mother".

But you can't have a "single mother" without a missing father.

And all these millions of women wouldn't let men get them pregnant unless the government was paying them for it.

How many children in socialist countries are "born to single mothers"?

66% percent of children in Iceland
55% percent of children in Sweden
54% percent of children in Norway
46% of children in Denmark

That's how many children are abandoned by their own fathers, because of socialism.

And you admit that you've never even heard of that fact.

So how can you know anything?  You don't even know where babies come from.

 

Oh my god that stupidity of yours start to become a bit too much.

They're not "born to single mother" they're born to UNMARRIED WOMEN!

Which is extremely different you old school man...

[BARR_Official]

Oh my god that stupidity of yours start to become a bit too much.

They're not "born to single mother" they're born to UNMARRIED WOMEN!

Which is extremely different you old school man...

Actually it required 1 man and 1 woman to make the baby.

But you can pretend the child only has 1 parent, if the other parent abandons the child due to socialism.

[MedaR]

I understand why they comment on something that they are not familiar with at all. But I don't understand why they comment in such a hateful and ignorant way.

Probably too much History Channel.
Brainwashed.

I believe Democracy is not sustainable system, is based on guaranteed equal rights for all.
But , do you have rights when you don't have money and when you are on the street hungry?
One day you can be rich and other day you can be poor and struggling for life.

Yes this is free trade system.
And everything have its price.
Even Kardashian ass can be more valuable (important) than your child?

[cjmoles]

I have no real opinion on what type of economic system is best but I do know that free markets seem to bring about innovation, creativity, and a will to work harder.  What I don't like about free market economies is the widening gap between the classes....the more one has the more one gets....avalanche!

I have always thought that socialist systems had more of a centralized economy....Where does a decentralized currency fit into that scheme?  It seems to me that some of the more successful economies are of the mixed variety....those types of economies are ripe for the introduction of bitcoin in my evaluation.

[Yakamoto]

I have no real opinion on what type of economic system is best but I do know that free markets seem to bring about innovation, creativity, and a will to work harder.  What I don't like about free market economies is the widening gap between the classes....the more one has the more one gets....avalanche!

I have always thought that socialist systems had more of a centralized economy....Where does a decentralized currency fit into that scheme?  It seems to me that some of the more successful economies are of the mixed variety....those types of economies are ripe for the introduction of bitcoin in my evaluation.

I personally prefer mixed economies, as those are often the most "fair" economies, however, corruption can still run rampant regardless of the economic system, and will always be an issue.

Allowing for people to have access to a mix of economic systems is more beneficial for people in the long run, in my opinion, however.

[btcbug]

You're in favor of free markets? So you're in favor of one company ruling the world then?

Yes I'm in favor of FREE markets. FREE meaning that there is not a government body that can be hijacked and used to grant and maintain monopolies. All of the things which lead to monopolies in a capitalist system are entirely due to government.

If you'll read any of the material I linked to, you would start to understand what ALL government is. I don't care if you want to call it Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc. Those are bullshit ideals that all stem from the same fundamental belief. The belief that the use of coercion is morally acceptable. Socialism is a forced redistribution of wealth through various methods such as taxation, tariffs, and subsidies. It violates private property (your right to the products of your labor) in the same way that all government does.

Now please go ahead and explain how one company (without using government) would rule the world.

It's incredibly easy and it's already happening!

Look at Google! Look at the food industry!!
If government does nothing, then one company (the best) will get bigger and bigger. Then it will slowly absorb any concurrent company or destroy it! In a FREE market as you say, the best company will continue to grow until nobody can get it down. And then it will have a complete and absolute monopoly.

The food industry is currently only 6 companies when it was still hundreds if not thousands only a few decades ago. American banks were dozens, now only 5 of them control everything.

Free market has only one consequence: concentration of power and wealth in a few companies. The richest get richer, the poorest get poorer.

If you don't mind living in something like this, go on and live your American dream.

First, you might want to consider the fact that corporations as they currently exist are actually a product created by Government regulations.

But let's examine what a business is. A business typically produces goods or service. Those products must necessarily be in line with market demand or they would not make money and go bankrupt. People voluntarily exchange the products of their own labor (money) for the products that the business is selling. In a free market this a voluntary exchange of value for mutual benefit.

Here's the funny thing. In free markets the price is determined by supply and demand. In Communism this "price" must be arbitrarily determined by the central authority. Socialism must attempt to set prices by mimicking the pricing of private business. In any socialist country, without some private business, they wouldn't have a clue how to determine prices for government services. Socialism and Communism lack the pricing mechanism of free markets and that is why it eventually results in huge shortages or excesses. Read about what is happening in Venezuela right now. Venezuela is a heavily socialist country.

In a free market a business will grow only if they are providing good value to their customers. Yes, they can cheat their way to profits for a while perhaps, but if people feel they are getting screwed then anybody can use that as an opportunity to enter the market as a competing business. Competition is the natural limit to excessive greed and corruption. Think about your logic here. Without government interference please tell us again how a business would "rule the world".

If a business is doing such an exceptional job that nobody can compete with them, then honestly why is that so bad?  

Let me point out something else completely ridiculous in your thinking. You seem to be terrified of free market monopolies, yet have you considered what the government actually is? A government is by definition a monopoly! They are using legal authority to tax you and provide you services of which you have absolutely no choice.

Try not paying your school taxes because you chose to send your child to private school. Try hiring a private security company to protect your property because the city police are completely useless and would rather hand out speeding tickets. In both cases you'll probably get thrown in jail.

Let's say I came to your house when you weren't home and cut your grass without your permission. Then later I sent you bill demanding payment. You didn't pay, so I came to your house and threatened you with a gun. Would that be moral thing for me to do? Of course not, yet that is exactly what government services are.

You need to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary interactions. Socialism is a system that must implemented and enforced through law (aka force). Free markets are not a system. They are simply what happens when people interact voluntarily for mutual benefit.

[cjmoles]

First, you might want to consider the fact that corporations as they currently exist are actually a product created by Government regulations.

But let's examine what a business is. A business typically produces goods or service. Those products must necessarily be in line with market demand or they would not make money and go bankrupt. People voluntarily exchange the products of their own labor (money) for the products that the business is selling. In a free market this a voluntary exchange of value for mutual benefit.

Here's the funny thing. In free markets the price is determined by supply and demand. In Communism this "price" must be arbitrarily determined by the central authority. Socialism must attempt to set prices by mimicking the pricing of private business. In any socialist country, without some private business, they wouldn't have a clue how to determine prices for government services. Socialism and Communism lack the pricing mechanism of free markets and that is why it eventually results in huge shortages or excesses. Read about what is happening in Venezuela right now. Venezuela is a heavily socialist country.

In a free market a business will grow only if they are providing good value to their customers. Yes, they can cheat their way to profits for a while perhaps, but if people feel they are getting screwed then anybody can use that as an opportunity to enter the market as a competing business. Competition is the natural limit to excessive greed and corruption. Think about your logic here. Without government interference please tell us again how a business would "rule the world".

If a business is doing such an exceptional job that nobody can compete with them, then honestly why is that so bad?  

Let me point out something else completely ridiculous in your thinking. You seem to be terrified of free market monopolies, yet have you considered what the government actually is? A government is by definition a monopoly! They are using legal authority to tax you and provide you services of which you have absolutely no choice.

Try not paying your school taxes because you chose to send your child to private school. Try hiring a private security company to protect your property because the city police are completely useless and would rather hand out speeding tickets. In both cases you'll probably get thrown in jail.

Let's say I came to your house when you weren't home and cut your grass without your permission. Then later I sent you bill demanding payment. You didn't pay, so I came to your house and threatened you with a gun. Would that be moral thing for me to do? Of course not, yet that is exactly what government services are.

You need to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary interactions. Socialism is a system that must implemented and enforced through law (aka force). Free markets are not a system. They are simply what happens when people interact voluntarily for mutual benefit.

Okay, I'm neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your reasoning here.  However, I am curious about how you would explain the observation that wealth in capitalist countries is being concentrated into the portfolios of a small percentage of people. If there is an increasing income disparity between the very rich and the very poor, why is that so?

[Pattart]

someone who has a good socialization with others. will be happier, because they will be accepted in society

[btcbug]

Okay, I'm neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your reasoning here.  However, I am curious about how you would explain the observation that wealth in capitalist countries is being concentrated into the portfolios of a small percentage of people. If there is an increasing income disparity between the very rich and the very poor, why is that so?

Well if you think my logic is reasonable than how would you answer that question?

I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect it's precisely for the reason that they are becoming increasingly Socialist.

You could probably say that an increasing wealth disparity is the same thing as a decreasing or shrinking middle class, correct? Just like you could say that a lessening of wealth disparity would indicate a growing middle class. It's always been seen as a great success of the USA and similar western societies that they've had a large middle class where anyone could earn a decent living at a job.

To me it seems to make sense that in an environment with the most economic freedom you'd have a lesser wealth disparity. 100 or 200 years ago there was next to nothing for regulation, income tax did not exist, people understood that nobody had the right to steal their productive output. Liberty was just common sense! Fast forward and we've seen increasing regulations, increasing taxes, welfare state, war on drugs, and an overall decrease in individual freedom. It costs a TON of money to police the world, incarcerate people, wage perpetual wars, and promise everybody free shit under the illusion of "rights". The problem is it's extremely wasteful and so resources that should be in the hands of the poor and middle class are being taken to administer this monstrosity called the US government. Huge wealth disparity is the price we pay for bureaucracy!

There is a difference between productive work and unproductive work. Production and wealth come from growing food, building things, and saving! Whereas what government (socialism) does is pays people to dig ditches all day and then somebody else to fill them back in every night.
 

[btcbug]

someone who has a good socialization with others. will be happier, because they will be accepted in society

I agree, but socializing about Socialism will make you miserable. 

[cjmoles]

Okay, I'm neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your reasoning here.  However, I am curious about how you would explain the observation that wealth in capitalist countries is being concentrated into the portfolios of a small percentage of people. If there is an increasing income disparity between the very rich and the very poor, why is that so?

Well if you think my logic is reasonable than how would you answer that question?

I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect it's precisely for the reason that they are becoming increasingly Socialist.

You could probably say that an increasing wealth disparity is the same thing as a decreasing or shrinking middle class, correct? Just like you could say that a lessening of wealth disparity would indicate a growing middle class. It's always been seen as a great success of the USA and similar western societies that they've had a large middle class where anyone could earn a decent living at a job.

To me it seems to make sense that in an environment with the most economic freedom you'd have a lesser wealth disparity. 100 or 200 years ago there was next to nothing for regulation, income tax did not exist, people understood that nobody had the right to steal their productive output. Liberty was just common sense! Fast forward and we've seen increasing regulations, increasing taxes, welfare state, war on drugs, and an overall decrease in individual freedom. It costs a TON of money to police the world, incarcerate people, wage perpetual wars, and promise everybody free shit under the illusion of "rights". The problem is it's extremely wasteful and so resources that should be in the hands of the poor and middle class are being taken to administer this monstrosity called the US government. Huge wealth disparity is the price we pay for bureaucracy!

There is a difference between productive work and unproductive work. Production and wealth come from growing food, building things, and saving! Whereas what government (socialism) does is pays people to dig ditches all day and then somebody else to fill them back in every night.
 

Okay, bear with me here because this is a bit of an abstraction.  If we equate dollars with labor/hours, goods and services with product, and we distinguish the laborer from the capitalist, then we might illustrate the disparity in income as such:

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.  The laborer cannot afford the product so he has to work for the capitalist for four more hours.  The laborer then gives those 12 labor/hours he earned back to the capitalist to purchase the product he produced in eight hours.  This cycle repeats itself across industries for a few hundred years until the income gap between the laborer and the capitalist is exasperated.  

The income inequality is inevitable in such a system.  As long as the laborer is getting less than the value of the product he produces, wealth will always move in an upward direction toward the top. And, the wider the gap becomes, the more social unrest there will be.  The more social unrest, the more need for police, prisons, and regulation...etc. So, social programs are not the cause of the income disparity but more of a result of it.

I'm gonna stop there because I feel we are over simplifying a complex problem but much more could be added. I have no opinion as to what form of economy is best but I do know that there is a disparity in the way wealth is distributed, not only in the US, but all around the world.  It's not just an American problem, it's world wide!

[mOgliE]

Okay, I'm neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your reasoning here.  However, I am curious about how you would explain the observation that wealth in capitalist countries is being concentrated into the portfolios of a small percentage of people. If there is an increasing income disparity between the very rich and the very poor, why is that so?

Well if you think my logic is reasonable than how would you answer that question?

I don't know for sure, but I'd suspect it's precisely for the reason that they are becoming increasingly Socialist.

You could probably say that an increasing wealth disparity is the same thing as a decreasing or shrinking middle class, correct? Just like you could say that a lessening of wealth disparity would indicate a growing middle class. It's always been seen as a great success of the USA and similar western societies that they've had a large middle class where anyone could earn a decent living at a job.

To me it seems to make sense that in an environment with the most economic freedom you'd have a lesser wealth disparity. 100 or 200 years ago there was next to nothing for regulation, income tax did not exist, people understood that nobody had the right to steal their productive output. Liberty was just common sense! Fast forward and we've seen increasing regulations, increasing taxes, welfare state, war on drugs, and an overall decrease in individual freedom. It costs a TON of money to police the world, incarcerate people, wage perpetual wars, and promise everybody free shit under the illusion of "rights". The problem is it's extremely wasteful and so resources that should be in the hands of the poor and middle class are being taken to administer this monstrosity called the US government. Huge wealth disparity is the price we pay for bureaucracy!

There is a difference between productive work and unproductive work. Production and wealth come from growing food, building things, and saving! Whereas what government (socialism) does is pays people to dig ditches all day and then somebody else to fill them back in every night.
 

This is wrong you seem to have 0 notions of proportions. I advice you to look at any state budget then compare it to, for example, the income of companies like Apple and then realize that one is without any doubt much higher than the other.

[mOgliE]

First, you might want to consider the fact that corporations as they currently exist are actually a product created by Government regulations.

But let's examine what a business is. A business typically produces goods or service. Those products must necessarily be in line with market demand or they would not make money and go bankrupt. People voluntarily exchange the products of their own labor (money) for the products that the business is selling. In a free market this a voluntary exchange of value for mutual benefit.

Here's the funny thing. In free markets the price is determined by supply and demand. In Communism this "price" must be arbitrarily determined by the central authority. Socialism must attempt to set prices by mimicking the pricing of private business. In any socialist country, without some private business, they wouldn't have a clue how to determine prices for government services. Socialism and Communism lack the pricing mechanism of free markets and that is why it eventually results in huge shortages or excesses. Read about what is happening in Venezuela right now. Venezuela is a heavily socialist country.

In a free market a business will grow only if they are providing good value to their customers. Yes, they can cheat their way to profits for a while perhaps, but if people feel they are getting screwed then anybody can use that as an opportunity to enter the market as a competing business. Competition is the natural limit to excessive greed and corruption. Think about your logic here. Without government interference please tell us again how a business would "rule the world".

If a business is doing such an exceptional job that nobody can compete with them, then honestly why is that so bad?  

Let me point out something else completely ridiculous in your thinking. You seem to be terrified of free market monopolies, yet have you considered what the government actually is? A government is by definition a monopoly! They are using legal authority to tax you and provide you services of which you have absolutely no choice.

Try not paying your school taxes because you chose to send your child to private school. Try hiring a private security company to protect your property because the city police are completely useless and would rather hand out speeding tickets. In both cases you'll probably get thrown in jail.

Let's say I came to your house when you weren't home and cut your grass without your permission. Then later I sent you bill demanding payment. You didn't pay, so I came to your house and threatened you with a gun. Would that be moral thing for me to do? Of course not, yet that is exactly what government services are.

You need to understand the difference between voluntary and involuntary interactions. Socialism is a system that must implemented and enforced through law (aka force). Free markets are not a system. They are simply what happens when people interact voluntarily for mutual benefit.

Seems to me that you're already lost and brainwashed by capitalism and that's a sad thing.

You look like you actually believe that you have an equal will than companies. That you can actually chose what to do in a free market.
That would mean that a homeless man has as much power than a DG or than a whole company. That's not true.

You want free market? Well let me tell you what would happen in a free market! In a free market the internet supplyer (sorry don't know the correct word for that) would start filtering which content they would send you, and only the big websites like amazon that accept to pay the internet supplyer will be seen. In a free market what forbids brands to actually put advertising in schools? In a free market what prevents companies from putting people in need of work against each other in order to have the lowest possible salary? Ever read the grapes of wrath of Steinbeck?

It seems you believe that in a free market, the strong will not take advantage of the weak. Well experience and nature tend to prove you wrong here.

[mOgliE]

I would like to introduce all of you an important thing which is not famous enough. You probably all know what growth is, what GDP is...

But have you heard of the Gini index?

The gini index is extremely important. It goes from 0 to 1 and describes inequality of wealth. At 0 everybody in a country owns exactly the same amount of wealth. At 1 one person owns everything.

In France the gini index steadily decreased years after years under a true socialist government. It stabilized around 0.27; which seemed to be a good end point as you don't want EVERYONE to have exactly the same thing, that would make no sense.
For the last 15 years, we had liberals only, they could be left or right wings but they were not socialist that's for sure. What happened? They got rid of regulations, taxes, work laws... They slowly turned French economy into a free economy. Direct consequence? A rise of unemployment and poverty but also a rise of Gini index which came back again to 0.3 and will grow steadily...

http://www.inegalites.fr/spip.php?article632

Socialism is about helping each other. It's about one being successful and help the whole society. It's about EVERYONE having the chance to success if you work hard enough.

It's not possible in a free market simply because those who already have power and money will not let you try.

[mOgliE]

And take a look at Gini index of the USA, one of the most free market of the world:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/rich-and-rest-us-united-states

Yeah it gonna reach 0.5 one of the highest it ever was.

You still think free market is giving everyone his chance?

[BARR_Official]

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.

If that was true, the laborer would just "create a product" and sell it to another laborer for 12 labor/hours.
Maybe you've left out some important details?

What you've described makes "laborers" look like complete fools,
obviously in need of your control to save them from their own choices.

The truth is that a free market allows everyone to engage in voluntary exchange. 
Whatever deal the laborer makes, he makes it freely because he feels that it is beneficial to himself. 

But you don't want the laborer to be able to decide what is best for himself.

And that is what socialism is about: 
taking away people's freedom, their power of choice,
and giving all that power to a few people.

[yugo23]

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.

If that was true, the laborer would just "create a product" and sell it to another laborer for 12 labor/hours.
Maybe you've left out some important details?

What you've described makes "laborers" look like complete fools,
obviously in need of your control to save them from their own choices.

The truth is that a free market allows everyone to engage in voluntary exchange. 
Whatever deal the laborer makes, he makes it freely because he feels that it is beneficial to himself. 

But you don't want the laborer to be able to decide what is best for himself.

And that is what socialism is about: 
taking away people's freedom, their power of choice,
and giving all that power to a few people.

Because that's not EXACTLY what's happening with the whole food industry?

Thank you for proving how horrible the capitalism and free market system is.

Big companies like Walmart corrupt consumers. Consumers only go here because they're brainwashed as fuck. Peasants can only sell to Walmart. Walmart decides how much they pay the peasants.

That's what is currently happening. And not only with food. With everything.

You think that people can be totally free and that is not the case, they will always be manipulated and influenced by the companies.

[diodio5]

I see in western countries and American countries, many people are indifferent and do not like to socialize with other people. if this habit of your nation?
so many fights between people. and many who do not respect others

[daveon]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

This is sad to find people like you here. What has bitcointalk come to? Bitcoin is here to wipe out socialism. Try to force me to pay for someone else's mistake with Bitcoin. You cannot. OP needs to get his head out of his ass.

[btcbug]

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.

If that was true, the laborer would just "create a product" and sell it to another laborer for 12 labor/hours.
Maybe you've left out some important details?

What you've described makes "laborers" look like complete fools,
obviously in need of your control to save them from their own choices.

The truth is that a free market allows everyone to engage in voluntary exchange.  
Whatever deal the laborer makes, he makes it freely because he feels that it is beneficial to himself.  

But you don't want the laborer to be able to decide what is best for himself.

And that is what socialism is about:  
taking away people's freedom, their power of choice,
and giving all that power to a few people.

Nicely said.

The Socialists here don't really give a shit about moral arguments nor logical ones. They're hung up on the fears of "monopolies", meanwhile they advocate for the most dangerous form of monopoly called Government. Nothing was said when I pointed that out to them, except "look at the Gini index". That is not an argument, it's just throwing stats around and avoiding thought.

The gini index is extremely important. It goes from 0 to 1 and describes inequality of wealth. At 0 everybody in a country owns exactly the same amount of wealth. At 1 one person owns everything.

In France the gini index steadily decreased years after years under a true socialist government. It stabilized around 0.27; which seemed to be a good end point as you don't want EVERYONE to have exactly the same thing, that would make no sense.

I do agree a widening gap between rich and poor is not ideal. But who the hell are you to determine what that correct arbitrary number is? You understand that you'll never make everyone equal in terms of wealth and you admit it wouldn't make sense. So in other words, in your opinion, there is some magic number that is "fair", which only Socialism and it's all knowing leaders can determine?

Socialism attempts to make things more equal or more fair based on some purely subjective measure of fairness. Yet fair and equal mean different things to different people, even among Socialists!

Socialism promises equality for everyone (except the ruling class of course). Free markets or Voluntarism just give people the best chance at an equal opportunity.

Notice I didn't say Capitalism. Capitalism these days is way too confused with what I call Cronyism or Corporatism. I refer to free markets (Voluntarism), which under the current Capitalist systems throughout the world, don't really exist. I don't consider the USA to be a free market. There are some elements of free markets, but for the most part Western economies are just mixed economies or semi-socialist.

You're whole argument is essentially that American Socialism (which you call Capitalism) is bad and that European Socialism is better. There is a saying, "Same shit, different pile". They are two sides of the same coin.

You'You can't really have a free market when the Government has monopoly control over the nations money and hence why I am very enthusiastic about Bitcoin. I believe there should be a free and competing market in currencies. They shouldn't be monopolized by nation states. As a Socialist though, I'd assume you'd rather Bitcoin be controlled by government like everything else, correct?

[yugo23]

-big bullshit-

Do you actually understand that since the beginning he's talking about a direct democracy? Which means there is no "rulling class" or "government monopoly" as the government is the people?

[yugo23]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

This is sad to find people like you here. What has bitcointalk come to? Bitcoin is here to wipe out socialism. Try to force me to pay for someone else's mistake with Bitcoin. You cannot. OP needs to get his head out of his ass.

Great, if you admit you don't give a fuck about solidarity and that it's everyone alone then you're right socialism is not for you.

If you find normal that if you die tomorrow your kids will have to take a 200k$ loan in order to go to university then go on.

I don't find it normal though

[yugo23]

Socialism promises equality for everyone (except the ruling class of course). Free markets or Voluntarism just give people the best chance at an equal opportunity.

What equality is there between an engineer child and a worker child in a country where studies cost few hundred thousands dollars?

Edit: And as say above there is no "rulling class" in a direct democracy. That's the whole point of it...

[BARR_Official]

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.

If that was true, the laborer would just "create a product" and sell it to another laborer for 12 labor/hours.
Maybe you've left out some important details?

What you've described makes "laborers" look like complete fools,
obviously in need of your control to save them from their own choices.

The truth is that a free market allows everyone to engage in voluntary exchange. 
Whatever deal the laborer makes, he makes it freely because he feels that it is beneficial to himself. 

But you don't want the laborer to be able to decide what is best for himself.

And that is what socialism is about: 
taking away people's freedom, their power of choice,
and giving all that power to a few people.

Because that's not EXACTLY what's happening with the whole food industry?

No, it's not.  And you know it's not.

It's a ridiculous lie to say that people work 8 hours and then owe 12 hours.  
No reasonable person can honestly believe that.

For one thing, workers don't buy all the products they make themselves.
So it wouldn't matter even if it did cost 12 hours to buy something that took them 8 hours to make -
unless it's something they absolutely must buy again and again every single day of their lives.
But that would be stupid, not to mention impossible.

The typical reality is something more like this:
 - They go to the factory and make things
 - They get paid for their work, and they can't find anyone in the world to pay them more
 - They don't ever have to buy the things they make, unless they want to
 - It's cheaper than what they could have made by themselves, thanks to "the capitalists"
 - It only costs the worker 6 hours to buy the product that would cost them 24 hours to make at home
 - The only time their money and labor is taken forcibly from them is by the government
 - The government takes about 16 hours of their labor each week, you want to increase that
 - The workers and the employers both contribute value to the world
 - They both respect the other's freedom and help each other fulfill their needs
 - Money-grabbing socialists contribute nothing

 

Big companies like Walmart corrupt consumers.

You hate freedom, so you don't want people to have the choice to buy what they want.

Consumers only go here because they're brainwashed as fuck.

Wal-Mart sells mirrors.  Look into that.

Consumers only go to Wal-Mart out of a free choice to benefit themselves.

People only argue against that if they're brainwashed.

Peasants can only sell to Walmart. Walmart decides how much they pay the peasants.

So you're saying Black people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed their own money,
because they're an inferior underclass without the capacity to make their own decisions?

Good luck getting people to agree with that, you racist freedom-hating money-grabber.

[yugo23]

-incredible bullshit that hurts my nose-

Seems like you never worked a day in your life and you never heard about mass manipulation if you actually believe companies don't control consumers. And it IS currently happening. See that yourself:

http://www.alternet.org/food/food-brands-climate-change

10 companies control everything in the food industry. You don't have the impression that it's actually going closer and closer to a monopoly?

[BARR_Official]

The Socialists here don't really give a shit about moral arguments nor logical ones.

True, it's probably a waste of time talking to them.

Like this guy who talks about ignorant peasants who can only do what they're told,
and then immediately says he doesn't believe in different classes.

You're right about Bitcoin, and these socialists here wouldn't even be involved with Bitcoin if they followed the rules they want to impose on everyone else.

[yugo23]

The Socialists here don't really give a shit about moral arguments nor logical ones.

True, it's probably a waste of time talking to them.

Like this guy who talks about ignorant peasants who can only do what they're told,
and then immediately says he doesn't believe in different classes.

You're right about Bitcoin, and these socialists here wouldn't even be involved with Bitcoin if they followed the rules they want to impose on everyone else.

Seems like you still don't understand anything...

I never said that. I said the peasants were selling to the only one who accepted to buy from them which is the food industry! Because now nobody buys directly to the peasants!
It's not that they're dumb it's that they have no choice ><

[cjmoles]

It takes the laborer eight hours to create a product for the capitalist.  The capitalist then offers that product back to the laborer for twelve labor/hours.

If that was true, the laborer would just "create a product" and sell it to another laborer for 12 labor/hours.
Maybe you've left out some important details?

What you've described makes "laborers" look like complete fools,
obviously in need of your control to save them from their own choices.

The truth is that a free market allows everyone to engage in voluntary exchange.  
Whatever deal the laborer makes, he makes it freely because he feels that it is beneficial to himself.  

But you don't want the laborer to be able to decide what is best for himself.

And that is what socialism is about:  
taking away people's freedom, their power of choice,
and giving all that power to a few people.

It's a ridiculous lie to say that people work 8 hours and then owe 12 hours.  
No reasonable person can honestly believe that.

For one thing, workers don't buy all the products they make themselves.
So it wouldn't matter even if it did cost 12 hours to buy something that took them 8 hours to make -
unless it's something they absolutely must buy again and again every single day of their lives.
But that would be stupid, not to mention impossible.

The typical reality is something more like this:
 - They go to the factory and make things
 - They get paid for their work, and they can't find anyone in the world to pay them more
 - They don't ever have to buy the things they make, unless they want to
 - It's cheaper than what they could have made by themselves, thanks to "the capitalists"
 - It only costs the worker 6 hours to buy the product that would cost them 24 hours to make at home
 - The only time their money and labor is taken forcibly from them is by the government
 - The government takes about 16 hours of their labor each week, you want to increase that
 - The workers and the employers both contribute value to the world
 - They both respect the other's freedom and help each other fulfill their needs
 - Money-grabbing socialists contribute nothing

1) Why would a venture capitalist pay a laborer to create a product that the capitalist is going to sell for the same amount it cost to produce it?  That's not how the market works!  The capitalists sell the product at what is called a "markup."  It is usually much greater than the 8/12, on average, than I included in my example.

2) When I say laborer, I am talking about anybody in the labor pool....so, if one laborer produces broomsticks and another laborer produces mop heads, they don't necessarily have to buy the exact product they produce to lose the value of their labor because we're looking at the pool in its entirety.  The broomstick laborer will need a mop head and the mop head laborer will need a broomstick....therefore, their labor/hours are still spent in proportions unequal to the rate they are paid. That's how the system works.....it is a fact, not an opinion.

3) When I am talking about the "market" I am not referring to any type of governmental structure....economic systems and governance systems are two distinct entities.  Many confuse the two because they are often interrelated in rhetoric.

4) It was asked why the laborer would work for the capitalist if the laborer could just go out and produce the product on their own....the capitalist owns the means of production....that's what makes them the capitalist.  Therefore, the rich get richer (they own the means of production), and the poor get poorer (they're not receiving the true value of their labor).

Now, I have no opinion on which economic system is best....I'm just pointing out some facts to explain why the gap between the very rich and the very poor is increasing.  That's all.

[yugo23]

1) Why would a venture capitalist pay a laborer to create a product that the capitalist is going to sell for the same amount it cost to produce it?  That's not how the market works!  The capitalists sell the product at what is called a "markup."  It is usually much greater than the 8/12, on average, than I included in my example.

2) When I say laborer, I am talking about anybody in the labor pool....so, if one laborer produces broomsticks and another laborer produces mop heads they don't necessarily have to buy the exact product they produce to lose the value of their labor because we're looking at the pool in its entirety.  The broomstick laborer will need a mop head and the mop head laborer will need a broomstick....therefore, their labor/hours are still spent in proportions unequal to the rate they are paid. That's how the system works.....it is a fact, not an opinion.

3) When I am talking about the "market" I am not referring to any type of governmental structure....economic systems and governance systems are two distinct entities.  Many confuse the two because they are often interrelated in rhetoric.

4) It was asked why the laborer would work for the capitalist if the laborer could just go out and produce the product on their own....the capitalist owns the means of production....that's what makes them the capitalist.  Therefore, the rich get richer (they own the means of production), and the poor get poorer (they're not receiving the true value of their labor).

Now, I have no opinion on which economic system is best....I'm just pointing out some facts to explain why the gap between the very rich and the very poor is increasing.  That's all.

OMG are you actually saying that the capitalists owning the means of production will have greater power than the laborers??? And therefore will become richer by exploiting the work of labourers?

Would it mean... That MARX WAS RIGHT??? And that marxism and socialism (which are different things but with some common ideas) are actual answers to the domination of capital?

Damned! Who would have thought that there was such inequalities in our world...

Wait... FUCKING EVERYONE WITH A BRAIN!

[MedaR]

This is sad to find people like you here. What has bitcointalk come to? Bitcoin is here to wipe out socialism. Try to force me to pay for someone else's mistake with Bitcoin. You cannot. OP needs to get his head out of his ass.

First you must know bitcoin have nothing with social system.
Bitcoin is money, decentralized crypto currency and can be used in every system we know it.



Second you probably don't know anything about socialism.
This was first step from monarchist France toward more human system.
First time people were equal in their fight for rights and freedom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMYNfQlf1H8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpDbvlAI_A0

[BARR_Official]

1) Why would a venture capitalist pay a laborer to create a product that the capitalist is going to sell for the same amount it cost to produce it?

People can't sell things for less than they cost, or they quickly end up with nothing.
If they don't make money, they can't keep working.

And yet that's exactly what you're complaining about - the fact that nothing is free and we have to work for a living.

The capitalists sell the product at what is called a "markup."  It is usually much greater than the 8/12, on average, than I included in my example.

It's not called a markup, and it's much less than what you're talking about.

Most businesses only keep about $2,500 for every $100,000 they take in.  If they do well.

So one person pays another person to work, buys the materials, pays for the electricity and property tax, pays the salesmen to sell the product, pays to have the product shipped, pays for any other cost that arises, and pays for anything that breaks or goes wrong.

All of that adds up to $100,000, and if he's lucky he can sell $102,500 worth of brooms.

He does all that, employs all those people so they can feed their children, and at the same time he provides people with the best quality broom for the lowest price, because they need brooms.

And everyone participates freely of their own choice.  
No one is forced to make brooms, no one is forced to buy brooms.
The workers take the job because they want it.
The customers buy the brooms because they want them.

They could make their own brooms instead,
but they would be poorer quality and cost more than the brooms from the factory.
Instead of spending several hours and multiple resources on making a broom at home,
people can buy the factory broom for less "labor hours" than it would take to make one.

And if the owner of the factory only sells $97,500 worth of brooms, he's still spent $100,000.  He has to pay $2,500 of his own money just to give everyone else a job.  He ends up with less money than he had when he started.  But the worker still gets 100% of his pay.  The salesmen get 100% of their pay.  The material suppliers get 100% of their money for the wood and the straw and the metal and the stitching.  The truck drivers still get paid to deliver the brooms.  The repairmen get 100% of their pay for maintaining the machines at the factory.  

The retail stores get to sell the brooms for more than they paid, and they use that money to pay their own employees and their own bills.

And the people who buy the brooms still get to sweep their floors, even if the man who owns the broom factory lost money.

And by the way, the factory didn't appear out of thin air.
If the man hadn't built the factory, none of those people would be able to get paid by the factory.
None of those people could afford to build a building,
and they certainly couldn't afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for the machinery.

Even if they had borrowed the money, they wouldn't have known how to build a broom factory.
And even while they're getting paid by the factory, they don't work one bit harder than they have to.
They waste time, waste money, screw things up,
and if they cause the factory to go out of business,
leaving the owner and his wife homeless and in millions of dollar of debt,
the employees just go get another job.  They owe nothing.
The employees don't care, because they're only in it for the money.  They're greedy and selfish.

The employees didn't help pay for the building or the machines,
but they don't mind taking the money that comes from those machines.  
The employees don't even help pay for maintenance and repairs.

In fact, the employees are free to leave whenever they want, with no responsibility to the factory, while the owner might end up losing his house, or even going to jail, if the employees break the rules without his knowledge or screw up bad enough just one time.  So the job pays the workers enough to buy 100% of all their needs in life, and it brings no risk or responsibility for them, while the owner risks everything he has to give them those jobs.
 

2) When I say laborer, I am talking about anybody in the labor pool....so, if one laborer produces broomsticks and another laborer produces mop heads they don't necessarily have to buy the exact product they produce to lose the value of their labor

"Value of their labor"?

There are 7 billion people on this planet.
If not one of those 7 billion people values your labor any more than your current employer values it, then that's probably a pretty good estimate of your labor's real value.  Your paycheck gives you 100% of what you earned, and probably more than you're worth.

If you're "losing the value of your labor", then quit and get a better job.

If someone is asking too much for a broom, go buy one cheaper.

If you can make a broom or a mop at home, then make it instead of buying it.

But if you can't find a better or cheaper broom anywhere on Planet Earth,
then your whining about how it costs too much is pure garbage.  Isn't it?

"This is better quality for a lower price than any human has been able to buy in all of human history.  And it's oppressing me!"

3) When I am talking about the "market" I am not referring to any type of governmental structure

You're not referring to any type of reality.

4) It was asked why the laborer would work for the capitalist if the laborer could just go out and produce the product on their own....the capitalist owns the means of production....that's what makes them the capitalist.

So if the worker quits his job at the broom factory,
goes home and cuts down a tree,
and starts making brooms in his garage,
owning the tools and materials which are the means of production,
then he's suddenly transformed from a laborer into a capitalist?

HINT:  He was already a capitalist when he took his paycheck every week

Therefore, the rich get richer (they own the means of production),

Unless they lose everything they own and go out of business,
which happens to rich people every day.

So...what you're saying is stupid.

and the poor get poorer

If they have nothing, how can they get any poorer than that?

It's nonsense.  You're saying things that are impossible.

(they're not receiving the true value of their labor).

What does that mean?

That other humans beings are obligated to give us things, and it is our right to receive them?
Tell that to the millions of people throughout history who starved to death, or were eaten by wild animals.

None of our so-called "poor people" in the United States ever starve to death, and they never get eaten by wild animals.  Do you know why?  Because they're receiving the benefit of other people's labor which keeps them safe and well-fed.  And the majority of all U.S. residents "under the poverty line" have more than 1 video game console, cable TV, cell phones, a different change of clothes for every day of the week, and they eat meat 3 times a day.

So the poor get richer.  A LOT richer.

"Poor people" now have things that rich people didn't have 100 years ago.
Because poor people have consistently gotten richer in the free market system.

And they don't even have to work.
Basically, they live like kings.  
They can eat and get drunk and have sex and consume entertainment,
all day and all night,
and they never have to lift a finger for anyone else.

So the people who "own the means of production" go to work every day and pay for "poor people" to party.  In other words, the factory owner is a slave who is forced to work for the enjoyment of the privileged class who receive "welfare" tribute appeasement money.

Now, I have no opinion on which economic system is best....I'm just pointing out some facts to explain why the gap between the very rich and the very poor is increasing.  That's all.

You think rich people get their money from poor people.

If that doesn't sound like a joke to you, then you have serious problems.

[btcbug]

Do you actually understand that since the beginning he's talking about a direct democracy? Which means there is no "rulling class" or "government monopoly" as the government is the people?

Oh well than I guess that invalidates everything I said  


Look, if every single issue was voted on directly by the people it would still be in complete violation of individual rights. Do you value minority rights at all?

Democracy is in essence a tyranny of the majority. Why? Because when any issue is put up to vote, it means that whatever the outcome, anybody in disagreement with that outcome will still be compelled by law to obey it. It takes the freedom of choice away from the individual. Democratically determined policies are always a one-size-fits-all solutions that everybody within that certain jurisdiction must follow.

For example if an certain policy is put to vote and the results are 60% - 40%, the minority group (40%) must comply with the new ruling despite the fact that almost half the voters did not agree with the result.

If you want the best form of direct democracy, than a completely free market environment is what you should favor. Products and services are competing in the market and consumers can choose whatever they want. It's 100% voluntary and for mutual benefit of both parties.


Let me also add something else here...

In a Voluntarist, Free Market society private property and individual rights are the foundation. If you and I were both living in a Voluntarist society, you would have every right to go buy some land, gather your friends and go live in your own little Socialist state. Everybody in within that geographical area could pay taxes, get free stuff, and participate in a Democracy. Personally, I would see no harm in that and although I don't necessarily want to live there, I'd respect your choice.

Myself on the other hand, I would expect that you Socialists would show me the same respect and not FORCE me to live under your governmental structure and pay taxes. I would take care of myself, purchase my health from a private clinic, pay for my childrens education, etc.

Interestingly there is not a single place in the world that exists today where I can exercise my freedom of choice to just opt out of these services! Socialism and governments do not allow for that option because if they did, they would in effect, not be considered Governments.

[cjmoles]

--snip--

I was just pointing out some common facts that any University educated person in the US already understands. I have no opinion on the subject....

And, as far as the social programs that the rich put in place: they put them there for they're own protection!  Do you think that police are hired to protect the poor?  Or, welfare programs are in place because the poor get paid well?  Or, prisons are built to house investment bankers?  Police are hired to stop the poor from slapping the shit out of the rich and taking back their money!  Welfare programs are in place to appease the unemployed so as to maintain a larger labor pool!  And, prisons are built to house those who disagree with the system!

Don't agree with the tax system?....don't use the highways, don't bitch when your water is polluted, don't call the cops when a hood rat threatens to take your stuff, and don't complain when you're city is bombed!

I'm not directing any of this at you specifically....I'm just trying to illustrate a situation that I think we're over simplifying.  Believe me, I have no opinion....I have more than I will ever need thanks to the free market.  I just think it's important to point out facts rather than chase delusions.  The world is constantly at war!  There is a huge global wealth disparity.  And, there is a controlling population of over privileged people who are too distant from global reality, too caught up in there baser daily activities, and too arrogant to listen to facts.

There are no easy questions, no perfect solutions, and no reasonable expectations that people will begin to be fair with one another within the context of our current global economy.

Why was bitcoin conceived? Was it conceived to concentrate wealth or redistribute wealth? How does it fit into our current global economy?  Things are getting BIG!  We need to  start thinking on a macro-scale rather than confine our thinking to our micro-realities! You want to turn a profit off of bitcoin? Embrace its global potential!

[BARR_Official]

I was just pointing out some common facts that any University educated person in the US already understands.

Actually you posted mostly false statements and unfounded opinions.

An actual fact would be something more like "The majority of university professors have no business experience."

[Fatman3001]

Cool thread!

Can't follow you all the way there Mowgli, but it's refreshing to see someone in Bitcoin who's not a right wing nutter.

[cjmoles]

I was just pointing out some common facts that any University educated person in the US already understands.

Actually you posted mostly false statements and unfounded opinions.

An actual fact would be something more like "The majority of university professors have no business experience."

Wow, I wasn't aware of that fact.  Okay, in light of that new information I am going to have to retract my position that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and I am going to have to adopt your understanding that the poor have too much money and the rich don't have enough.  You are too bright for me; therefore, I concede. You win....good luck with your investments.

[BARR_Official]

You can say "the poor are getting poorer" as many times as you want,
but it's still the same lie every time you say it.

The poor are getting richer.


http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/poor-getting-richer

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-us-poor-getting-richer-envy-of.html

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2015/11/18/poor-getting-richer-faster-than-the-rich

[Pab]

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.agree very much demoracy agree we have false
democracy but if you will nationalise you will kill economy you will even kill socialism,nationalism
nationalise it worst thing i know that very well

[romero121]

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.agree very much demoracy agree we have false
democracy but if you will nationalise you will kill economy you will even kill socialism,nationalism
nationalise it worst thing i know that very well

That's what exactly happening. The false socialism is followed in countries where socialism is followed. Only change can be made by good leaders who has the mind to work for the country rather than working for his fellow family and friends

[DeDordtenaar]

countries that have the socialization of society. will be to survive the brunt of the problem.

[mOgliE]

1) Why would a venture capitalist pay a laborer to create a product that the capitalist is going to sell for the same amount it cost to produce it?

People can't sell things for less than they cost, or they quickly end up with nothing.
If they don't make money, they can't keep working.


....


You think rich people get their money from poor people.

If that doesn't sound like a joke to you, then you have serious problems.

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

[mOgliE]

--snip--

I was just pointing out some common facts that any University educated person in the US already understands. I have no opinion on the subject....

And, as far as the social programs that the rich put in place: they put them there for they're own protection!  Do you think that police are hired to protect the poor?  Or, welfare programs are in place because the poor get paid well?  Or, prisons are built to house investment bankers?  Police are hired to stop the poor from slapping the shit out of the rich and taking back their money!  Welfare programs are in place to appease the unemployed so as to maintain a larger labor pool!  And, prisons are built to house those who disagree with the system!

Don't agree with the tax system?....don't use the highways, don't bitch when your water is polluted, don't call the cops when a hood rat threatens to take your stuff, and don't complain when you're city is bombed!

I'm not directing any of this at you specifically....I'm just trying to illustrate a situation that I think we're over simplifying.  Believe me, I have no opinion....I have more than I will ever need thanks to the free market.  I just think it's important to point out facts rather than chase delusions.  The world is constantly at war!  There is a huge global wealth disparity.  And, there is a controlling population of over privileged people who are too distant from global reality, too caught up in there baser daily activities, and too arrogant to listen to facts.

There are no easy questions, no perfect solutions, and no reasonable expectations that people will begin to be fair with one another within the context of our current global economy.

Why was bitcoin conceived? Was it conceived to concentrate wealth or redistribute wealth? How does it fit into our current global economy?  Things are getting BIG!  We need to  start thinking on a macro-scale rather than confine our thinking to our micro-realities! You want to turn a profit off of bitcoin? Embrace its global potential!

Interesting to see you having such a good understanding of our current system but still not being a convinced socialist

I do hope though that this thread interested you, and made you consider the alliance of direct democracy and socialism which would be, for me at least, the best solution I can come up with.

Even if as you said there is no perfect solution, that's for sure. And I've got no doubt someone one day will come up with something even better!

[yugo23]

You can say "the poor are getting poorer" as many times as you want,
but it's still the same lie every time you say it.

The poor are getting richer.

So now basic propaganda?

Bravo! Your graphs show that poor earn more $ every year! Does that make them richer?

No. Why not? Because if the wages go up, THE PRICES TOO!

OMG you just basically FORGOT INFLATION!!! How can you conclude anything if you don't take into account that things get more and more expensive???

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards

Oh and here is a small article about Wealth concentration, seems like you need some reading and education!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_concentration

[yugo23]

Do you actually understand that since the beginning he's talking about a direct democracy? Which means there is no "rulling class" or "government monopoly" as the government is the people?

In a Voluntarist, Free Market society private property and individual rights are the foundation. If you and I were both living in a Voluntarist society, you would have every right to go buy some land, gather your friends and go live in your own little Socialist state. Everybody in within that geographical area could pay taxes, get free stuff, and participate in a Democracy. Personally, I would see no harm in that and although I don't necessarily want to live there, I'd respect your choice.

I'm ok with that. It's more or less already what's happened considering the ideological fracture between Europe and USA.

[BARR_Official]

You can say "the poor are getting poorer" as many times as you want,
but it's still the same lie every time you say it.

The poor are getting richer.

So now basic propaganda?

Bravo! Your graphs show that poor earn more $ every year! Does that make them richer?

And their lifespan is twice as long.

I'm sorry you hate the truth and freedom.

[Laosai]

You can say "the poor are getting poorer" as many times as you want,
but it's still the same lie every time you say it.

The poor are getting richer.

So now basic propaganda?

Bravo! Your graphs show that poor earn more $ every year! Does that make them richer?

And their lifespan is twice as long.

I'm sorry you hate the truth and freedom.

Hmm... Just breaking in to say that life expectancy has nothing to do with income for first, and second life expectancy isn't increasing anymore and hasn't increase in a significant amount for a few decades.

[jjoorriissjjuuhh]

But I dont want to share my btc with others, they are mine and mine alone 

[BARR_Official]

Hmm... Just breaking in to say that life expectancy has nothing to do with income

I'm sorry you can't read the graph

life expectancy isn't increasing anymore

I'm sorry you can't read the graph

[Laosai]

Hmm... Just breaking in to say that life expectancy has nothing to do with income

I'm sorry you can't read the graph

life expectancy isn't increasing anymore

I'm sorry you can't read the graph

I'm sorry you can't make the difference between correlation and causation.

[BARR_Official]

Hmm... Just breaking in to say that life expectancy has nothing to do with income

I'm sorry you can't read the graph

life expectancy isn't increasing anymore

I'm sorry you can't read the graph

I'm sorry you can't make the difference between correlation and causation.

I'm sorry you think "correlation" means "has nothing to do with"


And also that you don't care about making life better for poor people.

[cooldgamer]

I don't think complete socialism is the key, but I do think we need to get much closer to it than the United States has now.  Things like healthcare and higher education shouldn't be things that the poor should have to worry about.

We won't be able to truly flourish as a country until the necessities are taken care of so our best and brightest minds can rise to the top, and nobody should die due to a lack of money while others could afford a whole damn hospital.

[Laosai]

I don't think complete socialism is the key, but I do think we need to get much closer to it than the United States has now.  Things like healthcare and higher education shouldn't be things that the poor should have to worry about.

We won't be able to truly flourish as a country until the necessities are taken care of so our best and brightest minds can rise to the top, and nobody should die due to a lack of money while others could afford a whole damn hospital.

There is nothing as "complete socialism".

Socialism is just an ideaology. The idea of a country where everyone helps those who are in need of course, but that's not the most important. Socialism is essentially about redistribution of wealth, and it's up to you to decide how far you have to go in redistribution.

[cjmoles]

Excellent discussion....It really demonstrates how much people understand how their own societies work within the broader global society!  If we simplify everything we're discussing here into one world, and we consider the distribution and consumption of resources, then even the lesser educated individuals could appreciate the fact that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.  Our global resources are limited, so when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

Now, none of this discussion has taken into account that "we" as a world "people" are depleting the earths resources and polluting the planet with our consumptive behaviors. We're gonna have to start looking for another planet if we keep it up.  We need to come together and start treating our planet's resources with a mutual respect....greed is killing earth!

[BARR_Official]

that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.

So you can't read charts, and you are unfamiliar with reality.

when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

I usually don't like to call people idiots.





When people are allowed freedom, everyone gets richer.  It has happened all over the world.

When people are not allowed freedom, everyone gets poorer.  It has happened in every communist country.

Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea -
they were the same country, with the same language, culture, and ethnic group.
They were separated into two countries which do not trade with each other,
so it's not the South's fault that people are starving in the North. 

Wealth comes from productivity, not from poor people who have nothing.
When everyone is more productive, everyone can get wealthier.
When everyone is less productive, everyone can get poorer.

We now have more wealth in the world than what existed 100 years ago.
Therefore, some of our wealth has been created recently.
Therefore, it wasn't taken away from anyone.

[craked5]

Excellent discussion....It really demonstrates how much people understand how their own societies work within the broader global society!  If we simplify everything we're discussing here into one world, and we consider the distribution and consumption of resources, then even the lesser educated individuals could appreciate the fact that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.  Our global resources are limited, so when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

Now, none of this discussion has taken into account that "we" as a world "people" are depleting the earths resources and polluting the planet with our consumptive behaviors. We're gonna have to start looking for another planet if we keep it up.  We need to come together and start treating our planet's resources with a mutual respect....greed is killing earth!

It's complicated to make them understand basic things...

But don't even try to bring the planet side on this discussion. Americans don't even admit climate change so...
I mean they get hit every year by more natural disasters and stronger natural disasters but they keep claiming climate change is an hoax xD

Maybe once they all die they'll admit they were wrong :-/

[craked5]

that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.

So you can't read charts, and you are unfamiliar with reality.

You haven't taken inflation into account...
Are you well aware that wages go up but so do prices?

when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

I usually don't like to call people idiots.





When people are allowed freedom, everyone gets richer.  It has happened all over the world.

Yeah cause the average American is getting richer every day xD

When people are not allowed freedom, everyone gets poorer.  It has happened in every communist country.

Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea -
they were the same country, with the same language, culture, and ethnic group.
They were separated into two countries which do not trade with each other,
so it's not the South's fault that people are starving in the North. 

Wealth comes from productivity, not from poor people who have nothing.
When everyone is more productive, everyone can get wealthier.
When everyone is less productive, everyone can get poorer.

Who said the contrary?
But have you consider that if everyone get 10% more productive, the one controlling the distribution of this new wealth is the one owning the mean of production? It means that if we all get 10% more productive, the capitalist can decide to give back to us 0.05% of this new productivity and keep the rest!

We now have more wealth in the world than what existed 100 years ago.
Therefore, some of our wealth has been created recently.
Therefore, it wasn't taken away from anyone.

It seems like you don't understand it's not about people not getting richer.
It's about people not getting what they deserve.
When few people own so much, they decide what will be given to others.

[craked5]

You can say "the poor are getting poorer" as many times as you want,
but it's still the same lie every time you say it.

The poor are getting richer.

So now basic propaganda?

Bravo! Your graphs show that poor earn more $ every year! Does that make them richer?

No. Why not? Because if the wages go up, THE PRICES TOO!

OMG you just basically FORGOT INFLATION!!! How can you conclude anything if you don't take into account that things get more and more expensive???

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/02/poor-richer-poverty-living-standards

Oh and here is a small article about Wealth concentration, seems like you need some reading and education!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_concentration

Hey BARR_OFFICIAL, why didn't you answer to this? The article explains perfectly well why capitalism isn't working and where the problem of wealth distribution is.

[cjmoles]

that it is not possible for everybody to get richer at the same time.

So you can't read charts, and you are unfamiliar with reality.

when one receives more (the very rich), others get less (the very poor)....simple math!

I usually don't like to call people idiots.





When people are allowed freedom, everyone gets richer.  It has happened all over the world.

When people are not allowed freedom, everyone gets poorer.  It has happened in every communist country.

Just look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea -
they were the same country, with the same language, culture, and ethnic group.
They were separated into two countries which do not trade with each other,
so it's not the South's fault that people are starving in the North.  

Wealth comes from productivity, not from poor people who have nothing.
When everyone is more productive, everyone can get wealthier.
When everyone is less productive, everyone can get poorer.

We now have more wealth in the world than what existed 100 years ago.
Therefore, some of our wealth has been created recently.
Therefore, it wasn't taken away from anyone.

I already conceded the argument with you earlier in the thread.  I cannot match your reasoning skills....There is obviously a mismatch in intelligence between you and I, so I cannot maintain a reasonable debate with you on your level.  You win!

[BARR_Official]

You haven't taken inflation into account...

Yes I have.  Poor people are still getting richer.

Yeah cause the average American is getting richer every day xD

Plenty of millionaires lose all their money.

Why don't you talk about how the rich are getting poorer?

Who said the contrary?

Several people here.

But have you consider that if everyone get 10% more productive, the one controlling the distribution of this new wealth is the one owning the mean of production?

That's not true.  Every person is free to control the distribution of his own resources, labor, and money.

It means that if we all get 10% more productive, the capitalist can decide to give back to us 0.05% of this new productivity and keep the rest!

Not really.  

Besides, prices go down when supply goes up.

It seems like you don't understand it's not about people not getting richer.

Yes, that is exactly what we've been discussing.

It's about people not getting what they deserve.

That is a childish sentiment which is impossible to define.

When few people own so much, they decide what will be given to others.

And you are greedy, you want to take what other people have,
and you want to decide what will be given to others.

If you hate the rich, why are you obsessing with becoming just like them?

[btcbug]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

[cjmoles]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!  One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth?  Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?


EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:

"Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?"

("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)

Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish.  In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep.  Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so.  If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?

Some things are just common sense.....

[btcbug]

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!

Sorry, this is not an argument

One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  

Is this supposed to be where you explain your first point? This is nonsensical. Now explain how exchanging the fruits of your labor with somebody is a zero sum outcome. I took the time in my last post to use a simple example and the best you can do is this?

By the way, a zero sum means that when one person produces it necessarily deprives the other person. In other words, they cannot both create wealth simultaneously.

I produce socks, you produce knives. We exchange them at a price agreed upon by both of us. Inherent to that transaction is that we both must value what the other person has more than we value what we have. We both profited by this transaction, but the actual wealth was not created here. It was created because we both had excess production, which we could then trade for other things of value.

Now explain how one person was deprived? You failed to explain this about my example in my previous post. Now are you just going to keep talking over top of me or actually think and respond.

[cjmoles]

Sorry, without going into the details of linear programming or going through the trouble of formatting a matrix, zero-sum mathematics dictates that wins are equal to losses.  A position in which neither person wins, nor loses, is a zero-sum matrix because wins==losses.

[MedaR]

There is nothing as "complete socialism".

Socialism is just an ideaology. The idea of a country where everyone helps those who are in need of course, but that's not the most important. Socialism is essentially about redistribution of wealth, and it's up to you to decide how far you have to go in redistribution.

This Is way is socialism powerful, redistribution of power and wealth is something that
can influence on poor people with great attraction. This is only way for majority of population on the world to avoid hunger!
This can be, and will be misused by powerful and wealthy elite to bring NWO upon us.
You only need good trigger-War.
They will repack old communism nothing more, and they will be in power.
Now this doesn't look as ideology?

[btcbug]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!  One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth?  Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?


EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:

"Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?"

("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)

Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish.  In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep.  Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so.  If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?

Some things are just common sense.....

Socialism is unnecessary to deal with scarcity of resources. In fact, it does a poor job.

If you believe in the will of the people as a reason for Democracy, than why would the will of the people change in a free market?

Take poverty and homelessness. People claim we need the welfare system otherwise the poor would starve in the streets. Politicians campaign on this lie and because people believe it, they will vote for that politician because because they desire that poor people are cared for. Remove the political bullshit and do you think people will stop caring for the poor? Of course not. If you think otherwise, than you fall into the category of assholes that think they know how to spend peoples money better than those people can. Most socialists do tend to have a holier than thou attitude, hopefully you're not one.

Demand for environmental protection and management of scarce resources does not need to be assigned to a government monopoly. If there is a demand for conservation than the market will provide it and because the ideas on how to solve this problem would be in a competitive market environment, it's a virtual guarantee that the problem would be handled much better.

People tend to not care as much about things that they don't own. Common areas are generally abused, oceans are overfished, etc. Private ownership of common areas is the solution to the economic tragedy of the commons.

[cjmoles]

Ladies and gentlemen, I consider my point as proven. As you can see this fellow seems to believe rich people get there money from some where else than poor people (probably from their own assholes who know?) and he doesn't seem to be aware that people are actually ending up with nothing but survival food all around the world.

If you think the same please just pass through and vote for Trump. You've been brainwashed already.

You and you're Socialist buddies on this thread are implying that wealth is a zero sum game. This is completely false.

Can we agree that wealth is relative at least? What I mean is that in a country like the USA, if you make $50,000 per year you are by no means wealthy compared to Bill Gates. However, in comparison to a homeless man you might be considered wealthy. Even a welfare recipient in the USA could be considered wealthy when compared to a beggar in third world Africa. Does that make sense? Of course Socialists all have their own little ideas about what would be considered wealthy vs poor and constitutes fairness.

Anyway, let's pretend we live in a more basic economy because what you (and all Socialists) tend to do is disconnect modern society from economics. Say I'm a farmer who claims a piece of vacant land. I clear it, build a home, till the soil, and plant a crop. Each year I consume 75% of my crop, but I save the other 25%. This is called producing wealth. It's the basic economic idea, which is common sense to most people, that you would consume less than you produce and save the rest. The rest of this savings can be consumed later or it can be exchanged with your neighbors for different types of goods, which you lack the time or skill-set to produce yourself.

Now in that example, if I was to do that consistently for 20 - 30 years, you might say I'd become "wealthy". Again, wealth is relative, so doing this by hand I'd certainly be wealthier than some people. If I was innovative and bought some tools and scaled up my production I could become even wealthier.

Please explain where I deprived anyone else of their freedom to produce and become wealthy for themselves? Where did I steal from the poor in my example?

What you are also failing to realize is that the money of a rich person is wealth that was ALREADY produced and exchanged for money. Their money sitting in a bank is doing no harm to anyone. If they choose to never spend it, that does not harm to anyone. It is the equivalent of the farmer who produced excess food or cotton and put it in a warehouse. Morally speaking, he has no obligation to give it to anyone, nor does anyone have the moral right to force it from him. If that farmer had a lot of profits (excess production) and he chose to trade it for firewood, then he could store his firewood in a barn for as long as he chooses. He's really only hurting himself by choosing not to spend (consume) it at some point.

You see, your problem is that you are observing poor people in modern society and instead of being rational and getting a basic understanding of economics, you are confusing yourself and blaming others. You're unable to strip away the layers of complexity in this admittedly very complex society we live in. It's normal, but it's also very dangerous. You are setting yourselves up to be emotionally manipulated by politicians who will always hide behind the facade of good intentions, while promising you "your fair share" of someone else's property.

This article can probably explain it better: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#3cb1e2db7c1c

Yes....If that was the way things worked.  But it is not the way things work!  One doesn't "really" go next door and trade the fruits of their labor in an equal exchange for the fruits of the neighbor's labor because that WOULD be a zero sum outcome, and that would be a form of socialism.  Ask yourself: Is that what the cotton farmers did to accumulate their wealth?  Or, is that what the oil barons did to accumulate their wealth?


EDIT: In the article you referred to it gives this example to illustrate the point:

"Let’s break that down a little. Suppose Robinson Crusoe is tired of trying to scoop up fish with his hands and figures out how to turn a tree branch into a spear, increasing his daily catch tenfold. Can Friday, who never thought to make a spear, properly complain that Crusoe has received an “unfair distribution” of fish?"

("When It Comes to Wealth Creation, There Is No Pie," accessed at http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#1420e5cd7c1c, on 03/02/2016)

Friday MAY have a right to claim that Crusoe received an unfair distribution of fish.  In fact, in most places around the USA that is exactly the stance and that is why Departments of Fish and Wildlife set limits on the number of fish one may catch and keep.  Those fish are not his...they belong to the world like air, water, and sunlight.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?  There are certain things in our sphere that belong to the world which no single entity has the right to spoil or plunder, even if they come up with innovative ways to do so.  If I found a way to take your wind, does that mean I'm justified to take it?

Some things are just common sense.....

Socialism is unnecessary to deal with scarcity of resources. In fact, it does a poor job.

If you believe in the will of the people as a reason for Democracy, than why would the will of the people change in a free market?

Take poverty and homelessness. People claim we need the welfare system otherwise the poor would starve in the streets. Politicians campaign on this lie and because people believe it, they will vote for that politician because because they desire that poor people are cared for. Remove the political bullshit and do you think people will stop caring for the poor? Of course not. If you think otherwise, than you fall into the category of assholes that think they know how to spend peoples money better than those people can. Most socialists do tend to have a holier than thou attitude, hopefully you're not one.

Demand for environmental protection and management of scarce resources does not need to be assigned to a government monopoly. If there is a demand for conservation than the market will provide it and because the ideas on how to solve this problem would be in a competitive market environment, it's a virtual guarantee that the problem would be handled much better.

People tend to not care as much about things that they don't own. Common areas are generally abused, oceans are overfished, etc. Private ownership of common areas is the solution to the economic tragedy of the commons.

I know, I know....And, there's no such thing as global climate change, the theory of evolution is big fat lie the commies made up, give tax breaks to the rich so money trickles down to the poor, and we need to engage in war more to promote peace....Blah, Blah, Blah!  

EDIT:  I apologize for the above dismissal.

See, I'm not for big government either....and, what I don't like about our present form of socio-economic governing is that our laws are applied unequally.  Our representatives are chosen by those with deep pockets, our media is controlled by the very rich, and the poor are too ignorant to get a step up because they either have felony convictions or can't afford to go to school.  Anyway, I'd rather not have a governing body at all....give us back our guns and let's see who gets what when the smoke settles.  That's all!  I don't believe humankind has the empathy, the intelligence, nor the will power to do the right thing....As far as I'm concerned, we can all settle it on the yard!

[Hirose UK]

fighting by making democracy is not good idea. maybe we need to share money with those who need it. it won't change reality that government will still take money from society, but at least the poor will not be poorer. that's good way to fight maybe

[RealBitcoin]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Exactly.

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

No, what we need is the free market to drive costs down, and then it wont be that costly anyway.

Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

Yea lets just loot everything in our way, what the fuck are you a mongol invader?

You know the mongol invaders looted and burned everything in their way across all europe.

Aaa there is prosperous village... lets loot it and burn it down...



For fuck sake is there any other strategy for socialists other than stealing and looting? Is really theft and looting the only thing socialists can do? BANDITS!!!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

And then when you run out of money, you have to privatize it again because no leftist can produce anything, you can only steal so after you ran out of lootable objects your ideology is over.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

The only greedy folks are leftist socialists who want something for nothing.

[Laosai]

I already conceded the argument with you earlier in the thread.  I cannot match your reasoning skills....There is obviously a mismatch in intelligence between you and I, so I cannot maintain a reasonable debate with you on your level.  You win!

Not nice to mock your opponent like this ^^

[Laosai]

There is nothing as "complete socialism".

Socialism is just an ideaology. The idea of a country where everyone helps those who are in need of course, but that's not the most important. Socialism is essentially about redistribution of wealth, and it's up to you to decide how far you have to go in redistribution.

This Is way is socialism powerful, redistribution of power and wealth is something that
can influence on poor people with great attraction. This is only way for majority of population on the world to avoid hunger!
This can be, and will be misused by powerful and wealthy elite to bring NWO upon us.
You only need good trigger-War.
They will repack old communism nothing more, and they will be in power.
Now this doesn't look as ideology?

Which is why it's important to maintain a direct democracy, avoiding a small elite to take control of socialist principle and thus restauring the "good old communism" as you say

[Laosai]

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

Here is a good article explaining why taxes are important:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

I'm sorry but there is nothing to answer to people comparing socialism and Athila... You'r doomed I'm really sorry for you.

[Laosai]

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

No, what we need is the free market to drive costs down, and then it wont be that costly anyway.

WTF are you talking about it's already a free market!

Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

Yea lets just loot everything in our way, what the fuck are you a mongol invader?

You know the mongol invaders looted and burned everything in their way across all europe.

Aaa there is prosperous village... lets loot it and burn it down...



For fuck sake is there any other strategy for socialists other than stealing and looting? Is really theft and looting the only thing socialists can do? BANDITS!!!

What are you talking about? What would be the steal in taking a private company owned by 3 persons and give it back to the people?

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

And then when you run out of money, you have to privatize it again because no leftist can produce anything, you can only steal so after you ran out of lootable objects your ideology is over.

Whaou that's really an amazing reasonning. Please explain me how we could lose money with Highways? --'

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

The only greedy folks are leftist socialists who want something for nothing.

Wanting to stop corruption and wealth concentration... Yeah truly a crime...

[RealBitcoin]

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

Here is a good article explaining why taxes are important:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

I'm sorry but there is nothing to answer to people comparing socialism and Athila... You'r doomed I'm really sorry for you.

I`m not american and i dont like socialism.

What is going on over there is not capitalism it has been dominated by huge corporations for hundreds of year now.

Capitalism can only be small and medium sized, not giant corps running it.

I`m sorry I have plenty of posts here debunking socialist economy, start reading here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373.2360

I`ve posted there enough, and made socialists cry because their logic was completely debunked.

[Laosai]

See, I'm not for big government either....and, what I don't like about our present form of socio-economic governing is that our laws are applied unequally.  Our representatives are chosen by those with deep pockets, our media is controlled by the very rich, and the poor are too ignorant to get a step up because they either have felony convictions or can't afford to go to school.  Anyway, I'd rather not have a governing body at all....give us back our guns and let's see who gets what when the smoke settles.  That's all!  I don't believe humankind has the empathy, the intelligence, nor the will power to do the right thing....As far as I'm concerned, we can all settle it on the yard!

Considering the amount of stupidity in the "critics" of socialism I can only agree with you...

They just keep yelling socialism is stealing and we should all get our complete freedom...

Because of course when 1% of the country has more power than 99% the 99% are still free...

[Laosai]

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

Here is a good article explaining why taxes are important:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/03/its-not-just-you-americans-are-actually-still-getting-poorer/

I'm sorry but there is nothing to answer to people comparing socialism and Athila... You'r doomed I'm really sorry for you.

I`m not american and i dont like socialism.

What is going on over there is not capitalism it has been dominated by huge corporations for hundreds of year now.

Capitalism can only be small and medium sized, not giant corps running it.

I`m sorry I have plenty of posts here debunking socialist economy, start reading here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5373.2360

I`ve posted there enough, and made socialists cry because their logic was completely debunked.

AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT WITHOUT THE STATE INTERFERING???

How do you ensure that companies keep the small sizes???

For god I fucking agree on a small size capitalism! That would be a good thing too and maybe even better than socialism! But HOW DO YOU CONTROL THAT?

[Laosai]

I think there is a problem here. Most of you think that it's not good to see the state controlling things. I'm ok with that.

But if the state isn't in control, how do you ensure that the companies won't take the control?

That's exactly what's currently happening in our world.

Look at the multinational corporations! Look at food industry, Google, Apple...

Yeah freedom is better, but I'd rather see my freedom reduces by the government than by the companies!

[Laosai]

WTF are you talking about it's already a free market!

It's not a fucking free market, damnit socialists are very illiterate, almost every socialist I argued with cant comprehend the difference between a free market and a government regulated economy.

When you have 10,000 pages of regulation its not a free market, got it?

Ok so you want something with like no rule at all? Oo
Damn... And what will prevent the food industry to sell you only low quality and OGM full food as only 10 companies control everything? They just have to agree between them. What will prevent telecom companies to forbid you to use internet for bitcoin for example? As only 3 companies control everything.

What are you talking about? What would be the steal in taking a private company owned by 3 persons and give it back to the people?

Because it's not theirs. Why dont you give all your bitcoins back to the 'people'?

Ok so the fact that those 3 persons stole the business through corruption and manipulation is no problem?

Whaou that's really an amazing reasonning. Please explain me how we could lose money with Highways? --'

Those are small things, I`m talking about factories and businesses.

How are you going to micromanage an economy by the government when that business was run by competent people before?

You hire ☭☭comrade commissars☭☭ to manage the ☭☭people's factory☭☭? Fuck that, it has already been proven that that system fails.

More corrupt government bureocracts... nice... what can i say.

Again you're confusing socialism with communism... But I suppose it was predictable... Yeah it's exactly what would happen... Government burocrats everywhere... Cause the state couldn't at all just own it and regulate it while letting it be managed by competent people exactly like a normal company? If the state owns it it can only finish with red everywhere and burocrats!

Wanting to stop corruption and wealth concentration... Yeah truly a crime...

Yes by stealing and looting, that is a crime actually, but nobody cares when it's on the behalf of the 'people' right?

So I`m allowed to win 1 million $ on the lottery, but if I win 2, I have to share it with the 'people'?

Wait a fucking second, I already do that, its called income tax, and its disgusting.

Perfect if you're ok with the wealth concentration and the rising poverty of your country then do nothing!

[Laosai]

AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT WITHOUT THE STATE INTERFERING???

How do you ensure that companies keep the small sizes???

For god I fucking agree on a small size capitalism! That would be a good thing too and maybe even better than socialism! But HOW DO YOU CONTROL THAT?

By shrinking the state, the limited government concept of libertarianism, you seriously need to read up on that.

Companies can hardly expand if you have balance of power, and balance of power you achieve by frictionless competition, and no interference in the system.

The market is a delicate system, and if you interfere in the market with the might of the state, it is like dropping a meteor in a lake and complaining about the water not being calm.

Remove government interference from the economy, and the economy slowly calms down, (people become equal even by socialist standards), like a lake's surface in a sunny day.

Dumb as hell. Dumbest idea I ever heard.

What you're saying is actually not only a nonsense but also incredibly dangerous.

Imagine we stop any kind of regulation tomorrow. You know what would happen?
I'll tell you: Big companies would CRASH DOWN the smaller ones. Nothing else.

[Laosai]

Remove government interference from the economy, and the economy slowly calms down, (people become equal even by socialist standards), like a lake's surface in a sunny day.

People become equal?

Ok dude, you know what, explain me how someone coming from a poor family with his two parents working but barely earning enough to eat can become equal with high class kids. Explain me how a low income kid can succeed with education costing 200k$.

Just explain me that and I'll walk with you and get rid of socialism. Period.

[Laosai]

What you all seem to forget is about a simple fact.

In a "free of tax" country, there is no police, no health care and no education. At least for the majority.

You're actually all fighting for a world in which only 10% of the population would get an education, the 90% being too poor to afford it... And you find socialism disgusting?

[Laosai]

Ok so the fact that those 3 persons stole the business through corruption and manipulation is no problem?

That is problem, but most businesses now do contracts with the state, and that is how their corruption exists.

1)Politician gets in office
2)His friend opens up a business
3)Politician gives contracts to his friend from public money
4)They split the profits

This is what happens everywhere in the world, and these businesses would close down immediately once they dont get more funding.

How to stop politicians from becoming corrupt? You cant.  You should just not feed them.

The less public money they have, the less they can steal, as simple as that.

That would be totally erased by direct democracy. There would no longer be any kind of corruption. And that's why I agree with you socialism or even government can't be good for the people without direct democracy.

Again you're confusing socialism with communism... But I suppose it was predictable... Yeah it's exactly what would happen... Government burocrats everywhere... Cause the state couldn't at all just own it and regulate it while letting it be managed by competent people exactly like a normal company? If the state owns it it can only finish with red everywhere and burocrats!

Socialism will become communism:

"The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin ☭☭

I know more about leftist ideas than you do, that is why I oppose it.

Oh because if Lenine said it it must be true? Funny a non communist thinks something like this ^^

Lenine is 70 years old philosophy. We saw. We learnt. We know now that communism brings nothing. We can restrain socialism to... Well socialism.

Perfect if you're ok with the wealth concentration and the rising poverty of your country then do nothing!

No I am not, and I do my best to help.

I support bitcoin, which would be the moral way of 'redistributing'  wealth, by not being exposed to inflation.

Inflation is the biggest wealth redistributor and its stealing from your pocket and giving it to banks.

I disagree with this but at least we both agree on the necessity to simply destroy banks ^^

Dumb as hell. Dumbest idea I ever heard.

What you're saying is actually not only a nonsense but also incredibly dangerous.

Imagine we stop any kind of regulation tomorrow. You know what would happen?
I'll tell you: Big companies would CRASH DOWN the smaller ones. Nothing else.

Yes unfortunately you are right here, the regulations are so embedded in the system that its hard to remove them.

But it can still be removed slowly, and phased out into market self-regulation.

It cannot happen over night, but over a few years its doable.

It's not really regulation. Simply power of an elite over the people.
But anyway it's too late. Leaving the market alone would simply crush us all. It would be a complete suicide, it would never "slowly remove it". Your idea was a good one 100 years ago, and maybe we should have done it. But now it's too late.

[Laosai]

Sigh...

You're for a country of liberty of "opportunity"...

But liberty of opportunity is useless if you don't give people the means to use it!

What you want to do is to let everyone do whatever they want.
But if you do this, there is NO REASON for rich families to make sure poor people will have the chance to get an education.

It would simply make it easier for everyone to keep the poors under the water that's all.

Libertarian economy is simply Anarchy. And Anarchy is the rule of the strongest.

[RealBitcoin]

Sigh...

You're for a country of liberty of "opportunity"...

But liberty of opportunity is useless if you don't give people the means to use it!

What you want to do is to let everyone do whatever they want.
But if you do this, there is NO REASON for rich families to make sure poor people will have the chance to get an education.

It would simply make it easier for everyone to keep the poors under the water that's all.

Libertarian economy is simply Anarchy. And Anarchy is the rule of the strongest.

I`m not denying that, however, the strongest ones can lift up the weak ones too.

You can create green energy, abundance of necessities at cheap price, great inventions that help humanity progress and make it better for everyone.

Or you can build atomic bombs and war machines.


Both systems are ruled by the strongest, but I ask you which one is more preferable for humanity??

[Laosai]

Sigh...

You're for a country of liberty of "opportunity"...

But liberty of opportunity is useless if you don't give people the means to use it!

What you want to do is to let everyone do whatever they want.
But if you do this, there is NO REASON for rich families to make sure poor people will have the chance to get an education.

It would simply make it easier for everyone to keep the poors under the water that's all.

Libertarian economy is simply Anarchy. And Anarchy is the rule of the strongest.

I`m not denying that, however, the strongest ones can lift up the weak ones too.

You can create green energy, abundance of necessities at cheap price, great inventions that help humanity progress and make it better for everyone.

Or you can build atomic bombs and war machines.


Both systems are ruled by the strongest, but I ask you which one is more preferable for humanity??

Yeah sure. And I'm the one living up in my dream?

I prefer a socialist direct democracy for a simple reason: the weaks ones are the most numerous, and direct democracy compensate this weakness.

[BARR_Official]

It's incredible, truly amazing how Americans have been totally brainwashed by capitalism.
Capitalists did indeed an AMAZING job here.

People are actually defending them... And with incredible violence and agressivity. They don't even understand how they've become slaves.

A slave has limited freedom, limited personal property rights, and is not allowed to keep what he works for.

He also believes that he should "keep his place" and that he is not important as an individual.

Sounds like someone living in a socialist country.

[doublemore]

I think there is a problem here. Most of you think that it's not good to see the state controlling things. I'm ok with that.

But if the state isn't in control, how do you ensure that the companies won't take the control?

That's exactly what's currently happening in our world.

Look at the multinational corporations! Look at food industry, Google, Apple...

Yeah freedom is better, but I'd rather see my freedom reduces by the government than by the companies!

Both have pros and cons, companies act logically in some ways and will adapt well.  Govs can act illogically but can also provide some moral protection.  Really depends on your life, your age and the situation.

[MedaR]

Which is why it's important to maintain a direct democracy, avoiding a small elite to take control of socialist principle and thus restauring the "good old communism" as you say

Yes but democracy is nothing more than a shield for  free market economy,
which destroying whole world with greed for power and resources.
This is why we must implement some principles from socialism to democracy.
Family, workers, kids, must be protected from greed of bankers and multinational corporations.
Only mixing few elements from democracy and socialism we can find nearly perfect system for today people needs.

If you ask me i'm ready for Venus project,  and resources based economy.

[valta4065]

Which is why it's important to maintain a direct democracy, avoiding a small elite to take control of socialist principle and thus restauring the "good old communism" as you say

Yes but democracy is nothing more than a shield for  free market economy,
which destroying whole world with greed for power and resources.
This is why we must implement some principles from socialism to democracy.
Family, workers, kids, must be protected from greed of bankers and multinational corporations.
Only mixing few elements from democracy and socialism we can find nearly perfect system for today people needs.

If you ask me i'm ready for Venus project,  and resources based economy.

Hmm... I understand your love for the Venus project but the problem with it is we still don't have a technology that can produce sustainable energy. So you just can't do it.

[MedaR]

Hmm... I understand your love for the Venus project but the problem with it is we still don't have a technology that can produce sustainable energy. So you just can't do it.

Not for now, but we have a lot to learn and to improve ourselves as society.
Technology will come but what will happen if we are not ready yet?

We all wasting our precious time, we could be more creative and useful if we stop working for money..
 This economic system killing everything human within.

We are still in dark ages if you look at whole picture.
Wars, hunger, hate, religions , money , blood..

[yugo23]

I think there is a problem here. Most of you think that it's not good to see the state controlling things. I'm ok with that.

But if the state isn't in control, how do you ensure that the companies won't take the control?

That's exactly what's currently happening in our world.

Look at the multinational corporations! Look at food industry, Google, Apple...

Yeah freedom is better, but I'd rather see my freedom reduces by the government than by the companies!

Both have pros and cons, companies act logically in some ways and will adapt well.  Govs can act illogically but can also provide some moral protection.  Really depends on your life, your age and the situation.

Yeah of course if your in your 50's and have already succeeded in life no reason to go for socialism!

Which is also why old people shouldn't have the same weight while voting...

[iv4n]

I lived in socialism, before changes people smiled, almost everyone had work, people was happy. And now..? Older generation is disillusioned, younger generation embraced new "values". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I would think differently if I never felt socialism and I have 18 years old again.

[craked5]

I lived in socialism, before changes people smiled, almost everyone had work, people was happy. And now..? Older generation is disillusioned, younger generation embraced new "values". Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I would think differently if I never felt socialism and I have 18 years old again.

Here you get it brother. They don't know what they've lsot so they don't understand how important socialism is.
It's about everyone helping each other. It's about everyone rising together.
But no they prefer competition. They'll die fighting each other.

[bitbunnny]

Like every other system socialism has good and bad sides. It was often related to comunism and that is the reason why people have negative opinon about it but in its substance I don't think that its a bad system. It should be modified or let say "modernised" in some way to be implemented in the modern society. I have also lived in socialism and don't have bad memories about it at all, although I'm aware that it was far from ideal. 

[yugo23]

Like every other system socialism has good and bad sides. It was often related to comunism and that is the reason why people have negative opinon about it but in its substance I don't think that its a bad system. It should be modified or let say "modernised" in some way to be implemented in the modern society. I have also lived in socialism and don't have bad memories about it at all, although I'm aware that it was far from ideal. 

Exactly!

Socialism doesn't mean you're not allowed to work for yourself. It doesn't mean everything you build will be seize by government. Simply that parts of what you earn will be taken to pay up for the roads, the health care, social welfare and EDUCATION!

How can anyone think it's a bad thing to pay for education? ><

Everyone will benefits from a better educated country!

[btcbug]

It's not a fucking free market, damnit socialists are very illiterate, almost every socialist I argued with cant comprehend the difference between a free market and a government regulated economy.

When you have 10,000 pages of regulation its not a free market, got it?

Haha, have fun!


Most people, such as the Socialists in this thread, view the political spectrum as something like this first image.






When the world around you is viewed through that lense, you often hold conflicting ideas and your moral compass is inconsistent. This is why on one hand, people can agree that theft is morally wrong between two individuals. Yet they also believe that if a group of people get together and vote to steal from others, it is morally good. This is a huge double standard that can't be reconciled when you view reality through this spectrum.

They are stuck in a false paradigm.







In reality, it's actually freedom vs slavery. Freedom being that each individual has the right to his own body, the fruits of his labor, and property. Nobody has the right to initiate violence or use aggression against him. Unfortunately all forms of government must inherently violate these principles of freedom.

I understand the need for helping people, but if I ask you to donate to charity and you refuse, it is none of my business to question your reasons. Now if there were 5 of us in a group and 3 of us voted to force you to donate, would that be morally ok? This is the whole basis for Democracy / Socialism. It is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

Two Wolves and a Sheep deciding what's for dinner!

The ideas of Socialism (health care, schools, etc.) are attractive because they're like a form of insurance. Everybody pays into a pot and then they can go to the doctor whenever they have issues. Some people who are very healthy will use the doctor very little, while others may be unlucky and need to see a doctor often. I actually think insurance is a great idea, and so do most people.

Socialists want to make this insurance mandatory for everybody under jurisdiction of a certain government. When something is mandatory and I happen to live in that area, it means that I cannot opt out of the system, in other words I am FORCED to partake. All I want is to be LEFT THE FUCK ALONE! Socialists don't believe I have that right.

In a free market, we have insurance we just don't FORCE you to pay for it. It's optional. You may or may not think it's necessary and that is 100% your own free choice. Private insurance could handle ALL of the things that government currently does and do a much better job because they'd be competing for your business.

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

[BARR_Official]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

[Fatman3001]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

[BARR_Official]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

[Fatman3001]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

Yes and no.

There's a difference between a spelling error in a second language and misusing language to give a false impression that a fairly extreme position somehow has broad support.

[Laosai]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

Yes and no.

There's a difference between a spelling error in a second language and misusing language to give a false impression that a fairly extreme position somehow has broad support.

What? English is not your first language? It means you're not a civilised American? I bet you're one of those socialists monsters of Europe!

[Laosai]

-nonsense-

Ok so you're actually saying that without any kind of government it would be absolute freedom?

So what will prevent big rich guys to oppress you? They got the money so they'll just use their power to put you down.

What you're saying is dumb as hell simply because it implie that humans are good by nature, and that if they're given the choice they'll always do the right thing. Experience shows it is not the case.

[Fatman3001]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

Yes and no.

There's a difference between a spelling error in a second language and misusing language to give a false impression that a fairly extreme position somehow has broad support.

What? English is not your first language? It means you're not a civilised American? I bet you're one of those socialists monsters of Europe!

I've heard we eat babies.

[BARR_Official]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

Yes and no.

There's a difference between a spelling error in a second language and misusing language to give a false impression that a fairly extreme position somehow has broad support.

So you're using the excuse that you don't know English well enough to spell words correctly,
but you just got done representing yourself as an expert who knows all popular English sayings.

You didn't say, "I've never heard that saying, but then English is my second language."
You said, "It's not a saying."

In your language, how do you say "full of shit"?

[Laosai]

I've heard we eat babies.

Oh no! Even worse!

We give them FREE EDUCATION!!! YOU IMAGINE?
And then we make everyone pay for it! So that no matter who, black white, rich or poor, all children can afford to go to the school he wants if he works hard enough. Brrr... Just by imagining it... You seriously imagine that? A country where all children can make their studies without taking out 200k$ loans. Horrible.

[Laosai]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

Yes and no.

There's a difference between a spelling error in a second language and misusing language to give a false impression that a fairly extreme position somehow has broad support.

So you're using the excuse that you don't know English well enough to spell words correctly,
but you just got done representing yourself as an expert who knows all popular English sayings.

You didn't say, "I've never heard that saying, but then English is my second language."
You said, "It's not a saying."

In your language, how do you say "full of shit"?

I don't know for fatman but in my language it's rather popular to say BARR_Official 

[BARR_Official]

I've just owned him more thoroughly than socialist government employees own the results of production.

He will probably never post on the internet again.

[Laosai]

I've just owned him more thoroughly than socialist government employees own the results of production.

He will probably never post on the internet again.

I don't know:
1/ what you mean, makes no sense to me
2/ who you're talking to

Unless you're talking to fatman. Cause you know he just came here cause he was bored for 2 min. He won't take time toanswer you. I shouldn't even waste time for you in fact. But I can't let you say the same shit again and again.

[BARR_Official]

But I can't let you say the same shit again and again.

lol, are you daydreaming that your socialist fantasy has come true, and you are in charge of what everyone is allowed to say?

[doublemore]

Which is why it's important to maintain a direct democracy, avoiding a small elite to take control of socialist principle and thus restauring the "good old communism" as you say

Yes but democracy is nothing more than a shield for  free market economy,
which destroying whole world with greed for power and resources.
This is why we must implement some principles from socialism to democracy.
Family, workers, kids, must be protected from greed of bankers and multinational corporations.
Only mixing few elements from democracy and socialism we can find nearly perfect system for today people needs.

If you ask me i'm ready for Venus project,  and resources based economy.

Hmm... I understand your love for the Venus project but the problem with it is we still don't have a technology that can produce sustainable energy. So you just can't do it.

I'd probably support TZM guys over the venus project, but still it does seem like something that sounds nice right now but we cant get everyone to agree to work towards the same cause.   Maybe we need a war with aliens or something to unite us.

[Laosai]

But I can't let you say the same shit again and again.

lol, are you daydreaming that your socialist fantasy has come true, and you are in charge of what everyone is allowed to say?

Pff... Cause socialism = dictatorship and end of freedom of speech of course...

I meant I can't let you say the same shit again and again without countering you that's all.

[BARR_Official]

But I can't let you say the same shit again and again.

lol, are you daydreaming that your socialist fantasy has come true, and you are in charge of what everyone is allowed to say?

Pff... Cause socialism = dictatorship and end of freedom of speech of course...

I meant I can't let you say the same shit again and again without countering you that's all.

If you're going to start countering me, I'll wait until you come up with something.

[btcbug]

Ok so you're actually saying that without any kind of government it would be absolute freedom?

Now now, don't get all scared and start implying chaos. I am not saying freedom in the sense that anything goes. I did explain previously that initiating force against others was morally wrong. You are choosing to ignore half of what I said and start ranting about oppression. That being said, freedom is scary thing to most people. It means admitting that you are 100% accountable for your own life!

So what will prevent big rich guys to oppress you? They got the money so they'll just use their power to put you down.

Very simple, competitive markets limit power. Giant corporations don't just appear out of nowhere. I understand it's hard to strip away the layers of complexity, when we were all born into the present situation. Businesses grow because they are providing a valuable service to their customers, who (in a free market) CHOOSE to do business with them. Does Apple hold a gun to your head when you buy an iPhone? Nope. On the other hand I will have a gun held to my head if I choose to not do business with the local or federal governments when they provide me service that I don't ask for.

Taxation = Coercion
Buying a product from a business out of your own free will = Freedom.

What you're saying is dumb as hell simply because it implie that humans are good by nature, and that if they're given the choice they'll always do the right thing. Experience shows it is not the case.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. I recognize that some people are bad and hence why I'd prefer that we didn't grant them a vehicle (government and coercive taxation), in which to take over and use for to further their sociopathic agendas.

The belief in government is the same as belief in Gods. They are both comforting, in that people can shrug off responsibility for their lives, but they are both fundamentally destructive. If people stopped believing in this thing called "authority" then nobody (corporations, or warlords) would be able to rule. Why do you think it is that Bill Gates does not have the ability to tax people? Because nobody BELIEVES that he has the authority! It's that simple.

[cjmoles]

So, we've pointed out several problems with the ways we govern our societies within the framework of our current financial systems.  I am truly on the isle with much of what has been discussed here.  However, what I am pondering now is: How do technologies, such as bitcoin, change the financial landscape within the framework of our geo-socio-economic structure.  Could bitcoin change how we govern?  Seriously?

What problems within our several systems could these new technologies reconcile?

[Fatman3001]

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

+1

It's not a saying just because right wing nutters keep repeating it. A saying has its origin from the broader populous.

-us and -ous aren't interchangeable just because people use them incorrectly. 

The ability to use words properly is an important part of knowing what you're talking about.

Yes and no.

There's a difference between a spelling error in a second language and misusing language to give a false impression that a fairly extreme position somehow has broad support.

So you're using the excuse that you don't know English well enough to spell words correctly,
but you just got done representing yourself as an expert who knows all popular English sayings.

You didn't say, "I've never heard that saying, but then English is my second language."
You said, "It's not a saying."

In your language, how do you say "full of shit"?

I could have said I was thinking of the game Populous, but that might have been too esoteric.

Anyhew, are you saying I am wrong?

[Fatman3001]

I've just owned him more thoroughly than socialist government employees own the results of production.

He will probably never post on the internet again.

Picking on people for spelling errors. You're a hero.

[BARR_Official]

He probably sold his account, too ashamed to post here again himself

[Fatman3001]

He probably sold his account, too ashamed to post here again himself

I like your scam site. Perfect for right wing nutters.

[BARR_Official]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

[Fatman3001]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

He doesn't, you'll get your share even if you didn't vote for him.

Why he's promising stuff he'll never get through congress is a different matter. But that sort of goes for all the candidates.

[BARR_Official]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

He doesn't, you'll get your share even if you didn't vote for him.

Even if he doesn't get elected?

[Fatman3001]

Bernie Sanders should be arrested for offering money in exchange for votes.

He doesn't, you'll get your share even if you didn't vote for him.

Even if he doesn't get elected?

You can ask.

[BARR_Official]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

[AndySt]

Socialism is a wonderful thing when its construction and operation are angels otherwise this is not the most effective and clumsy thing

[Fatman3001]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

Huh?

No, you've misunderstood.

Socialism is a wonderful thing when its construction and operation are angels otherwise this is not the most effective and clumsy thing

The extreme types of socialism (except anarchism) will even corrupt angels.

[Laosai]

But I can't let you say the same shit again and again.

lol, are you daydreaming that your socialist fantasy has come true, and you are in charge of what everyone is allowed to say?

Pff... Cause socialism = dictatorship and end of freedom of speech of course...

I meant I can't let you say the same shit again and again without countering you that's all.

If you're going to start countering me, I'll wait until you come up with something.

You mean like the three articles about wealth concentration we posted or the multiple proofs of power concentration of an elite when the market is free?

[Laosai]

Ok so you're actually saying that without any kind of government it would be absolute freedom?

Now now, don't get all scared and start implying chaos. I am not saying freedom in the sense that anything goes. I did explain previously that initiating force against others was morally wrong. You are choosing to ignore half of what I said and start ranting about oppression. That being said, freedom is scary thing to most people. It means admitting that you are 100% accountable for your own life!

Ok so how do you make sure nobody uses force without using force? You ask kindly?

So what will prevent big rich guys to oppress you? They got the money so they'll just use their power to put you down.

Very simple, competitive markets limit power. Giant corporations don't just appear out of nowhere. I understand it's hard to strip away the layers of complexity, when we were all born into the present situation. Businesses grow because they are providing a valuable service to their customers, who (in a free market) CHOOSE to do business with them. Does Apple hold a gun to your head when you buy an iPhone? Nope. On the other hand I will have a gun held to my head if I choose to not do business with the local or federal governments when they provide me service that I don't ask for.

Taxation = Coercion
Buying a product from a business out of your own free will = Freedom.

So duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb ><

You're actually saying that customers would chose to buy products taking into account the power of the company and that they would actually chose to balance the market by themselves???

Do you even understand how impossible this is?

What you're saying is dumb as hell simply because it implie that humans are good by nature, and that if they're given the choice they'll always do the right thing. Experience shows it is not the case.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. I recognize that some people are bad and hence why I'd prefer that we didn't grant them a vehicle (government and coercive taxation), in which to take over and use for to further their sociopathic agendas.

The belief in government is the same as belief in Gods. They are both comforting, in that people can shrug off responsibility for their lives, but they are both fundamentally destructive. If people stopped believing in this thing called "authority" then nobody (corporations, or warlords) would be able to rule. Why do you think it is that Bill Gates does not have the ability to tax people? Because nobody BELIEVES that he has the authority! It's that simple.

Again you're talking about a government when I'm talking about the people. I'll try to say it again but it seems you don't listen: in direct democracy government = people

[Laosai]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

Could we just settle on the fact that you're probably one of the dumbest person of this forum? Even more than BADECKER!!!

[btcbug]

Ok so how do you make sure nobody uses force without using force? You ask kindly?

Umm... initiating force against somebody is a completely different thing from self defense. Why on earth would you think people aren't allowed to defend themselves?

So duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumb ><

You're actually saying that customers would chose to buy products taking into account the power of the company and that they would actually chose to balance the market by themselves???

Re-read what I said. You literally aren't making any sense.

Again you're talking about a government when I'm talking about the people. I'll try to say it again but it seems you don't listen: in direct democracy government = people

You haven't even read my previous posts apparently, so why am I wasting my time?


If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

If we add two more people two this scenario and the three of you vote to take away my property is that now somehow morally acceptable? Yes or No?

Political rituals called voting to impose taxes on people does not change the facts of morality.

[sallymeeh27]

Socialism nowadays is very important in many ways. It affects people on how to have a positive approach to each other. This is very helpful for interaction that will undergo all aspects of communication. I believe that this will also bring positive and negative outcome when dealing with different types of people.

[Fatman3001]

If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

Depends on if he has a legal basis for doing so. This can be had if he's lent you some money and you won't/can't pay him back, if you've caused damage and refuse to compensate or repair what's damaged, or if you haven't paid your taxes.

[btcbug]

If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

Depends on if he has a legal basis for doing so. This can be had if he's lent you some money and you won't/can't pay him back, if you've caused damage and refuse to compensate or repair what's damaged, or if you haven't paid your taxes.

Lol, for fucks sake that why I explicitly said " If you take MY PROPERTY...".  Taking back something that was originally yours is not theft. Now go ahead and answer my questions.

[BARR_Official]

So he's offering money in exchange for votes.

But of course you won't tell it like it is, socialism can never win honestly.

Could we just settle on the fact that you're probably one of the dumbest person of this forum? Even more than BADECKER!!!

I agree that BADecker might be smarter than me.

Anyway I think he's smart enough to admit that politicians try to bribe people and buy votes with promises of free money to appeal to the greed of short-sighted and selfish voters.

[btcbug]

Haha, have fun!


Most people, such as the Socialists in this thread, view the political spectrum as something like this first image.

...

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

Its more like a 2D plane than a 1D line, where you have Y axis being the authority vs freedom, and the X axis being left vs right.

Although it's hard to imagine libertarian socialism, but they think that such system could exist.

Well micro-black holes can also exist according to physics, but they collapse pretty soon.

Thats why any sort of leftism (progressives,social democrat, socialist, libertarian socialist,etc...) quickly collapses into authoritarian communist tyrrany with gulags, genocide and the rest of it.


I`m on the right , but I dont think full freedom is good for humans, because too many dumb morons walk the earth, there needs to be some sort of hierarchy to control the masses but one that is based on libertarian principles.

Well good to hear you think rationally!

Believe me if we could return to stripped down constitutional republic like the US was founded on, it would be a massive improvement and I'd be pretty happy with that.

When you say "full freedom is not good for humans", then you'd also have to answer the moral question of why a political ritual called voting can magically change theft from morally bad to morally good. Because that's really the only difference between free markets and government. Coercive taxation (a unique property only governments possess) is what I have an issue with.

I do agree that society needs rules and law enforcement, but those rules need to be based on universal principles. Meaning that what is wrong for individuals (ie theft) must also necessarily be wrong for a group of individuals (government taxation aka theft).

Anyway, if the we were "governed" as a constitutional republic, most of the moral double standards would be taken care of. It's only about 100 years ago that they implemented the income tax.

[cjmoles]

Haha, have fun!


Most people, such as the Socialists in this thread, view the political spectrum as something like this first image.

...

There is a saying: "Government. Ideas so good, we have to force you to pay for them!"

Its more like a 2D plane than a 1D line, where you have Y axis being the authority vs freedom, and the X axis being left vs right.

Although it's hard to imagine libertarian socialism, but they think that such system could exist.

Well micro-black holes can also exist according to physics, but they collapse pretty soon.

Thats why any sort of leftism (progressives,social democrat, socialist, libertarian socialist,etc...) quickly collapses into authoritarian communist tyrrany with gulags, genocide and the rest of it.


I`m on the right , but I dont think full freedom is good for humans, because too many dumb morons walk the earth, there needs to be some sort of hierarchy to control the masses but one that is based on libertarian principles.

Well good to hear you think rationally!

Believe me if we could return to stripped down constitutional republic like the US was founded on, it would be a massive improvement and I'd be pretty happy with that.

^^^^^^^
/ / / / / / /
That would be nice; however, I very seriously doubt that the blacks would go back into slavery submissively.  I also don't believe Irish immigrants would allow themselves to be indentured again. And, it probably wouldn't get the women's vote anyway.

When you say "full freedom is not good for humans", then you'd also have to answer the moral question of why a political ritual called voting can magically change theft from morally bad to morally good. Because that's really the only difference between free markets and government. Coercive taxation (a unique property only governments possess) is what I have an issue with.

I do agree that society needs rules and law enforcement, but those rules need to be based on universal principles. Meaning that what is wrong for individuals (ie theft) must also necessarily be wrong for a group of individuals (government taxation aka theft).

Anyway, if the we were "governed" as a constitutional republic, most of the moral double standards would be taken care of. It's only about 100 years ago that they implemented the income tax.

[Fatman3001]

If you take my property from me it's called theft and it's morally wrong. Agree? Yes or No?

Depends on if he has a legal basis for doing so. This can be had if he's lent you some money and you won't/can't pay him back, if you've caused damage and refuse to compensate or repair what's damaged, or if you haven't paid your taxes.

Lol, for fucks sake that why I explicitly said " If you take MY PROPERTY...".  Taking back something that was originally yours is not theft. Now go ahead and answer my questions.

It might have been your property. He might have taken your car, your TV or something else with the potential value to cover what you owe. With the backing of the courts of course.

But it's good to see you don't object to tax collection.

[valta4065]

I think I lost most of my faith in humanity in this thread... This is all pathetic...

I'm still waiting for any of you all capitalists pigs to explain Laosai how you can give everyone an education without taxes and socialism!

But you all freaks believe that in some kind of magical way everything will work out?

[valta4065]

So what will prevent big rich guys to oppress you? They got the money so they'll just use their power to put you down.

Very simple, competitive markets limit power. Giant corporations don't just appear out of nowhere. I understand it's hard to strip away the layers of complexity, when we were all born into the present situation. Businesses grow because they are providing a valuable service to their customers, who (in a free market) CHOOSE to do business with them. Does Apple hold a gun to your head when you buy an iPhone? Nope. On the other hand I will have a gun held to my head if I choose to not do business with the local or federal governments when they provide me service that I don't ask for.

Taxation = Coercion
Buying a product from a business out of your own free will = Freedom.

Funny. You're saying that without rules or taxes, in a free market, everyone would be equals.

Well here's a good example: there is no rule about internet in 99% countries. Why is Google dominating and killing everything else so much then?

[valta4065]

AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT WITHOUT THE STATE INTERFERING???

How do you ensure that companies keep the small sizes???

For god I fucking agree on a small size capitalism! That would be a good thing too and maybe even better than socialism! But HOW DO YOU CONTROL THAT?

By shrinking the state, the limited government concept of libertarianism, you seriously need to read up on that.

Companies can hardly expand if you have balance of power, and balance of power you achieve by frictionless competition, and no interference in the system.

The market is a delicate system, and if you interfere in the market with the might of the state, it is like dropping a meteor in a lake and complaining about the water not being calm.

Remove government interference from the economy, and the economy slowly calms down, (people become equal even by socialist standards), like a lake's surface in a sunny day.

Hey buddy, got a question for you:

Funny. You're saying that without rules or taxes, in a free market, everyone would be equals.

Well here's a good example: there is no rule about internet in 99% countries. Why is Google dominating and killing everything else so much then?

[RealBitcoin]

Hey buddy, got a question for you:

Funny. You're saying that without rules or taxes, in a free market, everyone would be equals.

Well here's a good example: there is no rule about internet in 99% countries. Why is Google dominating and killing everything else so much then?

Because they got huge investments and fundraisers from stock market or other loans.

It ties into the banking system, and if I cant get a fundraiser, but a big company can, that is not equal.

In a free market, everyone can get fundraiser for any project, just like now in the bitcoin space. Just go to a bitcoin fundraiser site and get any funds or loans your business needs.

In the fiat economy its heavily regulated.

[yugo23]

Hey buddy, got a question for you:

Funny. You're saying that without rules or taxes, in a free market, everyone would be equals.

Well here's a good example: there is no rule about internet in 99% countries. Why is Google dominating and killing everything else so much then?

Because they got huge investments and fundraisers from stock market or other loans.

It ties into the banking system, and if I cant get a fundraiser, but a big company can, that is not equal.

In a free market, everyone can get fundraiser for any project, just like now in the bitcoin space. Just go to a bitcoin fundraiser site and get any funds or loans your business needs.

In the fiat economy its heavily regulated.

Ok so from what I saw two systems are opposed here:

Socialism system, needing direct democracy to work
Absolute free market, which can't really work cause no police no government no army... No?

But what's funny is that both systems need the end of banks to work!
Seems like we at least can ally on this.

[HeroCat]

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere. 

[craked5]

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere. 

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism communism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere.  food for everyone and one of the best healthcare in the world while the USA makes a total and absolute embargo on them making it impossible for them to exchange new goods such as more modern cars.

[BARR_Official]

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere. 

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism communism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere.  food for everyone and one of the best healthcare in the world while the USA makes a total and absolute embargo on them making it impossible for them to exchange new goods such as more modern cars.

It would be dangerous for you to say those lies in Miami where so many Cubans live.

Just for your own good, keep it on the internet.

[Laosai]

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere. 

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism communism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere.  food for everyone and one of the best healthcare in the world while the USA makes a total and absolute embargo on them making it impossible for them to exchange new goods such as more modern cars.

It would be dangerous for you to say those lies in Miami where so many Cubans live.

Just for your own good, keep it on the internet.

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

[Laosai]

Hey buddy, got a question for you:

Funny. You're saying that without rules or taxes, in a free market, everyone would be equals.

Well here's a good example: there is no rule about internet in 99% countries. Why is Google dominating and killing everything else so much then?

Because they got huge investments and fundraisers from stock market or other loans.

It ties into the banking system, and if I cant get a fundraiser, but a big company can, that is not equal.

In a free market, everyone can get fundraiser for any project, just like now in the bitcoin space. Just go to a bitcoin fundraiser site and get any funds or loans your business needs.

In the fiat economy its heavily regulated.

Ok then you need absolutely no rule, a free currency of course, like btc.

And how do you protect citizens? I mean what would prevent a company like Google to just hire some mercenaries and kill the potential competitors as there is no police and no government?

[eternalgloom]

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere. 

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism communism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere.  food for everyone and one of the best healthcare in the world while the USA makes a total and absolute embargo on them making it impossible for them to exchange new goods such as more modern cars.

It would be dangerous for you to say those lies in Miami where so many Cubans live.

Just for your own good, keep it on the internet.

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

Yeah, they may not have everything we have in the western world, but I do think they are generally pretty happy.
There are other countries where socialism has failed though..

[btcbug]

I think I lost most of my faith in humanity in this thread... This is all pathetic...

I'm still waiting for any of you all capitalists pigs to explain Laosai how you can give everyone an education without taxes and socialism!

But you all freaks believe that in some kind of magical way everything will work out?

I highly doubt you read my posts. If you did, it's clear you didn't think very hard afterwards.


I think people should be educated too. In fact, probably 99% of people would share out opinion on education. Would you agree?

If that's the general consensus throughout the population, then doesn't it seem probable that this opinion would translate into market demand? Surely if 99% of everybody wants education than there will be education provided in a free market. The reason that education would be provided is because EVERYONE would gladly pay for it and so it's a business opportunity. People don't need to give control of the education system to a government monopoly. Thankfully, in most places we still have private schools, however even though I might choose to use a private school, unfortunately I'm still forced to pay for the public education system through taxes.

All you are really implying with your above comment, is that in your mind, YOU can't think of any possible way to educate people without the government forcing them to pay taxes and then giving them an education. That's just intellectual laziness, sorry.

I'm showing you guys the logic and you're saying stupid shit like, "But you all freaks believe that in some kind of magical way everything will work out? "

There is no magic dumbass. Socialists just think they know what's best for everyone else and because they have such good intentions, that means it's morally acceptable to use taxes and force people to pay for their great ideas. Good ideas don't require force. Do I need to tax you to make sure you feed yourself? Some extreme Socialist would probably say yes to that too!

[btcbug]

Just look around in Cuba and you will see socialism in action with shops without food and antique cars everywhere. 

But they probably just need MORE Socialism and it would be better! 

[btcbug]

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

Just. Fucking. WOW!


Here's what the black slave owners used to say about slavery:

"My slaves aren't always happy, but I give them food, water and take them to the doctor regularly."

[BARR_Official]

[Barnabe]

Cuba is not a very good example in my opinion since they are under embargo since a few decades now.
A Europe vs US is a much more accurate comparaison since most European countries define themselves as socialist.

[Barnabe]

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

Just. Fucking. WOW!


Here's what the black slave owners used to say about slavery:

"My slaves aren't always happy, but I give them food, water and take them to the doctor regularly."

If you look at other countries in the region Cuba is not bad at all, they are ranked as the better country of the Caribbeans in terms of development index (which includes healthcare and education) and are comparable to poor European countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
http://www.antillean.org/caribbean-ranked-uns-human-development-report-2014/

[btcbug]

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

Just. Fucking. WOW!


Here's what the black slave owners used to say about slavery:

"My slaves aren't always happy, but I give them food, water and take them to the doctor regularly."

If you look at other countries in the region Cuba is not bad at all, they are ranked as the better country of the Caribbeans in terms of development index (which includes healthcare and education) and are comparable to poor European countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
http://www.antillean.org/caribbean-ranked-uns-human-development-report-2014/

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

[Barnabe]

Calm down man don't get mad over things like this...
What I am saying is that I would rather live in a communist shithole slaveland as you call it, rather than in Haiti in where "entrepreneurship skills" are necessary if you want to keep barely living.

Like it or not, Cuba is where it is today it's thanks to socialist policies (you can't deny this since they kept the same policies for decades).

I think you are just looking at this with a first world person's eye.
You keep saying "MUH FREEDOM" "IM NO SLAVE", because you have enough to eat and have other problems in mind.

In my opinion, the priority in poor countries is safety and food. And Cuba is doing quite well with this, which is not bad at all.

You have to understand that you cannot apply the same criteria to all places.


In a few years, we might see improvement in individual rights in Cuba. That would be the normal evolution, (they begin to care about less important problems since their basic needs are met).

[Fatman3001]

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing.

If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray.

[Fatman3001]

Ok then you need absolutely no rule, a free currency of course, like btc.

And how do you protect citizens? I mean what would prevent a company like Google to just hire some mercenaries and kill the potential competitors as there is no police and no government?

Who said no police? You can still have police run privately like a corporation.

Basic policing like keeping the streets clean and emergency 911 calls can be easily done (and possibly more efficiently) than government police.

You know in Japan the subway system has a maximum 1 minute delay and its run by private corps.

When I was last time in government subway they always have a 10-15 minute delay.

So you have to admit that private stuff is managed better, and when you call the cops because there is somebody in your house, then its a matter of life and death if they delay 15 minutes because they forgot to buy their donuts.

And for personal protection, there are always security guards and security services available, you just cant afford it currently, but with low or no taxes I guarantee you it would be as cheap as buying a hamburger.

There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.

[btcbug]

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing.

If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray.

Here's a couple definitions from a dictionary.

slavery
/ˈsleɪvərɪ/
noun

1.
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

2.the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work


So yes having absolute power over another persons fortune would qualify as slavery. I stated it as controlling their productive output.

Keeping slaves can be done in a number of ways. It doesn't always mean chains, whips, and beatings like in the movies. Black slaves in America were not always treated THAT badly, but that doesn't mean we can excuse the idea whereby one person seeks to control another. I don't give a shit what free handouts my slave master gives me, I care about the freedom of choice, which is non-existent with government taxation.

[btcbug]

There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.

Right, so because YOU can't possibly fathom how something would work without a monopoly that means that violently imposing taxes over the people in a certain geographical area is the only possibility?
 
Again, Socialists always know what's right for everyone!

In essence all that I am asking is that you respect my right to opt out of paying into YOUR system. You might find it great. Maybe I don't and I'd rather be left the fuck alone to buy security or healthcare. What is so hard difficult about that, besides the fact that you desire to control people? The whole goddamn argument comes down to voluntary and involuntary relationships. The state that only allows one option and no freedom to opt out is no better than the slave master who claims what he's doing is virtuous because his slaves are allowed to walk around his fenced in 5 acre property. No freedom to leave!

[Anddos]

I spent 3 months in Cuba. I confirm what Craked5 says.
Cubans are not always happy for sure, communism is a dictatorship. But they still get an incredible healthcare. And food for everyone.

Just. Fucking. WOW!


Here's what the black slave owners used to say about slavery:

"My slaves aren't always happy, but I give them food, water and take them to the doctor regularly."

Exactly how the Romans did it: bread and circus. And the people were content.

[btcbug]

A short video. Essentially, Socialism in a nutshell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[Fatman3001]

You missed my point so badly it's just laughable.

You are like a slave owner trying to justify slavery by pointing out the fact that your slaves are somewhat healthy and well fed. You are completely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY IS FUCKING IMMORAL BECAUSE YOU ARE STEALING A PERSONS PRODUCTIVE OUTPUT. Can I make it any clearer for you?

If slavery is defined as stealing 100% of a persons production. Then at what percentage is not called slavery? Socialists would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery. So taxing people (stealing their productive output) at 100% is slavery, but at 80% or 50% is somehow magically morally acceptable because people voted for it. I'm just calling BULLSHIT!

You are confused. Slavery is not "defined as stealing 100% of a persons production" nor are there any socialists who "would argue that at some completely arbitrary percentage it's no longer slavery". Nor is taxing people stealing.

If you find taxes morally reprehensible then you can make that argument and that should suffice. If you find different forms of socialism morally reprehensible you can make that case and see if it sticks. This constant mislabeling of things you don't like as slavery, theft, and similar by right wing nutters extremists enthusiasts confuses the issues and will consistently lead you astray.

Here's a couple definitions from a dictionary.

slavery
/ˈsleɪvərɪ/
noun

1.
the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune

2.the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work


So yes having absolute power over another persons fortune would qualify as slavery. I stated it as controlling their productive output.

Keeping slaves can be done in a number of ways. It doesn't always mean chains, whips, and beatings like in the movies. Black slaves in America were not always treated THAT badly, but that doesn't mean we can excuse the idea whereby one person seeks to control another. I don't give a shit what free handouts my slave master gives me, I care about the freedom of choice, which is non-existent with government taxation.

I'm not a fan of that definition, but it doesn't fit your definition anyway. "[A] civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune" is not the same as "stealing 100% of a persons production". Nor is the second definition much closer. Especially when both definitions state that this relationship is person to person. When a state wields that kind of power it's called something else.

[Fatman3001]

There's a slight difference between someone offering transport and someone offering violence. It's very difficult to control violence without a monopoly.

Right, so because YOU can't possibly fathom how something would work without a monopoly that means that violently imposing taxes over the people in a certain geographical area is the only possibility?
 
Again, Socialists always know what's right for everyone!

My point was narrowly aimed at your idea for replacing the states monopoly of violence. Violence is not well suited for the free market.

In essence all that I am asking is that you respect my right to opt out of paying into YOUR system. You might find it great. Maybe I don't and I'd rather be left the fuck alone to buy security or healthcare. What is so hard difficult about that, besides the fact that you desire to control people? The whole goddamn argument comes down to voluntary and involuntary relationships. The state that only allows one option and no freedom to opt out is no better than the slave master who claims what he's doing is virtuous because his slaves are allowed to walk around his fenced in 5 acre property. No freedom to leave!

I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.

Edit:

No freedom to leave!

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

[Anddos]

I think it's simple to observe which type of states work and which do not. And communism isn't one of them.

[btcbug]

I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.

It was an example and of course you avoided the moral question with your "don't blame me" juvenile non-answer. For the sake of argument just assume we do live in the same geographical area under it's government. Now answer my question. Why can't you respect another persons freedom to opt-out of paying for something just because YOU find value in it?

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

Yes, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. This would imply that because I was born into it (without choice btw) that I'm actually making my choice to live under the system simply by staying. Well, things aren't that simple. Borders are imposed on people and largely close off to immigration. A lot of people honestly do not have the luxury of immigrating. The other thing that makes this argument completely fucking stupid is that most people that would make this argument, would also have some empathy for the American Indian or other groups that had previously inhabited an area BEFORE the new population forced it's will upon them. If you can see how absurd it is to impose a system on the existing population, than it's not that big of a leap to see why it's just as ridiculous to impose a system on anybody simply because half the population votes for it.


This is similar to the typical Christian who that claims they choose to accept Jesus of their own free will, meanwhile the religion itself is clear that if you reject Christ you are going to hell.    At best it's a cruel illusion of choice.

[RealBitcoin]

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

So you are in a gulag...? Dont like it? No problem just grab a passport and leave.

[Fatman3001]

I'm pretty sure you don't live in my country so don't blame me if there are people in your country who want to prevent you from becoming an involuntary sex toy for the bigger boys, or that there are people ready to stitch you up afterwards.

It was an example and of course you avoided the moral question with your "don't blame me" juvenile non-answer. For the sake of argument just assume we do live in the same geographical area under it's government. Now answer my question. Why can't you respect another persons freedom to opt-out of paying for something just because YOU find value in it?

I'll try, but I fear we'll constantly fall back to this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmtJpzoW0o (thx macsga)

Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. In order to enforce this freedom you need violence. You'll soon find that, as I tried to hint at earlier, you'll need a monopoly of violence. What you've suggested earlier is sometimes called the state of nature, but more accurately to be thought of as a state of war. Now... a monopoly of violence can be a rather depressing thing if it's randomly applied. So you'll want a rechtsstaat or some kind of rule of law. This is best achieved in a democracy. But not just any democracy, you'll want a representative democracy with separation of powers between the courts, the lawmakers, and the ruler.

Ok, so far, so good. Now you have a sound foundation for regulating society in a way that secures the freedom of every citizen. But what is freedom? Now we're back to what I mentioned in the beginning. Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. That is the extent and limit of your freedom. If you go beyond this you're causing harm to others. More precisely there is negative freedom. Freedom from being arrested for no good reason, freedom from being caused bodily harm, freedom from persecution, freedom from being deprived of property for no good reason, etc. But there are also such a thing as positive freedom. That is, the freedom to realize your own potential by actually being enabled to pursue the opportunities you find in a society with negative freedom. This must be ensured by having access, in a real way, to education, healthcare, etc. Where the actual lines are drawn are decided by the politics of the system.

But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

Yes, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. This would imply that because I was born into it (without choice btw) that I'm actually making my choice to live under the system simply by staying. Well, things aren't that simple. Borders are imposed on people and largely close off to immigration. A lot of people honestly do not have the luxury of immigrating. The other thing that makes this argument completely fucking stupid is that most people that would make this argument, would also have some empathy for the American Indian or other groups that had previously inhabited an area BEFORE the new population forced it's will upon them. If you can see how absurd it is to impose a system on the existing population, than it's not that big of a leap to see why it's just as ridiculous to impose a system on anybody simply because half the population votes for it.


This is similar to the typical Christian who that claims they choose to accept Jesus of their own free will, meanwhile the religion itself is clear that if you reject Christ you are going to hell.    At best it's a cruel illusion of choice.

I know, it's a ridiculous argument. And I'm not a big fan of the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. But you actually cried out "No freedom to leave!" so I was curious to see what your response was. It's not unheard of for libertarians/anarchists to look for virgin territory.

[Fatman3001]

Sure there is. Just grab a passport and go to Somalia. I'm sure a bunch of you can manage to carve out a piece of land for yourself. You just have to stop being such a weakly interacting massive particle and get a move on!!!

You can do it!

So you are in a gulag...? Dont like it? No problem just grab a passport and leave.

I'm sorry, I was not aware of that he's in a gulag. Good to see he's got internet.

[Pab]

You are saying about Cuba Cuba has never been socialsm Cuba was communist by name
These photos are from Gantanamo i suppose.Tortured people by special commando like german nazi Gestapo
from  democratic USA

nazi germany it was pure socialism

[jaysabi]

I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.

In which way is socialism not compatible with what you're saying? The fact that no one should tell you what to do or take parts of what you have/earn?
Well it's already the case no?

And you're saying this as if all men were not equal in a socialist country! Why shouldn't they be all equal in the eyes of the law?

If a group of men have the power or the right to take the possessions of another person, then those men are not equal under the law. That is how socialism is not compatible with what I am saying.

[btcbug]

But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

My civic duties? Lol. As I said, we are all born into certain nations by accident. We did not choose. The previous inhabitants of many territories have also had the will of the colonizing population imposed upon them. You can't simply invade somebodies home land, impose a tax system and then tell them they have the "choice" to leave.

You're answer is basically that society cannot permit me to be left alone and therefore I must be forced to comply with what the majority dictates. Nice! You've really mastered the art of authoritarianism.

Furthermore, no, I am not infringing on the freedom of others. You have this extremely ridiculous notion (despite my addressing it) that somebody who simply doesn't want to do business with the government must also be violent and dangerous.

If I exercise my right to be left alone, the reason this is threatening to you is because your "construct" is based on legalized theft. It's obviously inherently unstable if when due to the fact that somebody is born, they are automatically in violating your "freedom". Do you not realize how absurd that is?

A child born without say in the matter and without say in what your system dictates, who doesn't like your "choice" to pay up or leave, is automatically somebody who is a threat?

Really all I can say to that is FUCK YOU!

[jaysabi]

Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. In order to enforce this freedom you need violence. You'll soon find that, as I tried to hint at earlier, you'll need a monopoly of violence. What you've suggested earlier is sometimes called the state of nature, but more accurately to be thought of as a state of war. Now... a monopoly of violence can be a rather depressing thing if it's randomly applied. So you'll want a rechtsstaat or some kind of rule of law. This is best achieved in a democracy. But not just any democracy, you'll want a representative democracy with separation of powers between the courts, the lawmakers, and the ruler.

I'm with you up to the democracy part, because I don't think freedom is best achieved in a democracy if your version of democracy is that popular ideas are deemed moral because they're the most popular. That doesn't follow logically. If there are no absolute freedoms, democracy is rather worthless in my opinion. So it has to be a democracy that doesn't have the power to infringe on the freedom of the individual, and now we're back to a moral government.

Ok, so far, so good. Now you have a sound foundation for regulating society in a way that secures the freedom of every citizen. But what is freedom? Now we're back to what I mentioned in the beginning. Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. That is the extent and limit of your freedom... [snip] But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

All this means is nobody's freedom takes precedence over any other person's freedom. No one can assign a "civic duty" to you without your consent, as such an action would be immoral. You are not born with an obligation to anyone, and any construct of such is artificial.

[bumbacoin]

There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it.

There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals.

There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth.

There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted.

Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.

All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.

All people are born.

All people die.

[Sourgummies]

I'm with you up to the democracy part, because I don't think freedom is best achieved in a democracy if your version of democracy is that popular ideas are deemed moral because they're the most popular. That doesn't follow logically. If there are no absolute freedoms, democracy is rather worthless in my opinion. So it has to be a democracy that doesn't have the power to infringe on the freedom of the individual, and now we're back to a moral government.

Free shit folks:

Free money, free food, free education ,free sex, free immortality, etc...


How do you achieve that?

Free money: Steal from productive people and give it to unproductive people

Free food: Steal from farmers and give it to lazy people who dont grow their crops

Free education: Steal from educated parents and give it to uneducated ones who did poor choices in their lives because they are dumb

Free sex: Legalize rape and lets see how well it turns out.

Free immmortality:  No idea, but socialist can fantasize about this too.

etc... you get the idea

Socialism and communism seem good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it. You HAVE to take from some source, and it just feels like you're incentivizing people to work less. The rich can get taxed, sure, but everybody wants to be rich, right? Greed will reign supreme in all cases, and for those who actually achieve that upper-class level, they'll be PUNISHED for the hard work.

[bumbacoin]

Socialism and communism seem good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it. You HAVE to take from some source, and it just feels like you're incentivizing people to work less. The rich can get taxed, sure, but everybody wants to be rich, right? Greed will reign supreme in all cases, and for those who actually achieve that upper-class level, they'll be PUNISHED for the hard work.

Capitalism equally seems good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it.
As with any form of bigotry (such as racism, sexism, homophobia), there are advantages to being in the priveleged class that give those an unequal boost at life.

There are many that work longer and harder and receive barely enough to sustain themselves. Look at the use of foodstamps in the USA. How is that anyone working full time should need to rely on govt subsidies to survive?

The Magna Carta, created in 1215, was an important step in creating freedom for the serfs of England. The basic truth in equality of birth has not changed.

The very idea of personal freedom is threatened by both capitalism AND socialism as we know it. There is no freedom when some people are "more equal than others".

[RealBitcoin]

Socialism and communism seem good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it. You HAVE to take from some source, and it just feels like you're incentivizing people to work less. The rich can get taxed, sure, but everybody wants to be rich, right? Greed will reign supreme in all cases, and for those who actually achieve that upper-class level, they'll be PUNISHED for the hard work.

The rich never gets taxed and it never will. They have enough offshore schemes and hidden undeground bunkers to hide their wealth tax-free.

What gets taxed is the suckers, the low hanging fruits, the middle class and the poor class.


Socialism is nothing more than forced redistribution of wealth between poor people and other poor people.


Is it a coincidence that poor people earn less every single year? And all taxes impact the poor? Sure it isnt.


I`m not defending the rich here, but you have to admit they are smart enough to not fall for the socialist crap.

[RealBitcoin]

Capitalism equally seems good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it.
As with any form of bigotry (such as racism, sexism, homophobia), there are advantages to being in the priveleged class that give those an unequal boost at life.

There are many that work longer and harder and receive barely enough to sustain themselves. Look at the use of foodstamps in the USA. How is that anyone working full time should need to rely on govt subsidies to survive?

The Magna Carta, created in 1215, was an important step in creating freedom for the serfs of England. The basic truth in equality of birth has not changed.

The very idea of personal freedom is threatened by both capitalism AND socialism as we know it. There is no freedom when some people are "more equal than others".

Why do you have to tie racism sexism and homophobia with a system? It has nothing to do with it, that just how humans are.

Gay people were stoned to death 5000 year ago, far before capitalism existed. Women were heavily discriminated, and definitely colored people too.

This shit goes on for tens of thousands of years, while  capitalism is only about 200-300 years old.

This is human behaviour, nothing more. And it will be the same in socialism too.

So what you want to send homophobes to gulags? Will that be better solution?

[bumbacoin]

Capitalism equally seems good on paper, but in reality there are many problems associated with it.
As with any form of bigotry (such as racism, sexism, homophobia), there are advantages to being in the priveleged class that give those an unequal boost at life.

There are many that work longer and harder and receive barely enough to sustain themselves. Look at the use of foodstamps in the USA. How is that anyone working full time should need to rely on govt subsidies to survive?

The Magna Carta, created in 1215, was an important step in creating freedom for the serfs of England. The basic truth in equality of birth has not changed.

The very idea of personal freedom is threatened by both capitalism AND socialism as we know it. There is no freedom when some people are "more equal than others".

Why do you have to tie racism sexism and homophobia with a system? It has nothing to do with it, that just how humans are.

Gay people were stoned to death 5000 year ago, far before capitalism existed. Women were heavily discriminated, and definitely colored people too.

This shit goes on for tens of thousands of years, while  capitalism is only about 200-300 years old.

This is human behaviour, nothing more. And it will be the same in socialism too.

So what you want to send homophobes to gulags? Will that be better solution?

to one persperctive there's no difference between one opinion based belief system and another.
sexism and capitalism have more in common than you obviously realise. but there is obviously a lot of difference too

if someone uses sexism to control another person versus capitalism to control another person ??

[bumbacoin]

the basic truth is that many people claim either socialism or capitalism as the only obvious reality

they ignore that many decisions are made that have no relevance to either.

how do you judge/admonish a rapist under a capitalist system? rape is not a crime of capital but rather an ethical issue that must reside within a seperate realm

amusingly i'm finding it hard to come up with an example under socialism, the example governments so far have muddied the socialist waters with extreme shades of facism that make it hard to imagine a true socialist culture.

[OROBTC]

...

I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin.  As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).

The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).

[faridkifly]

to me socialism is important.
because i think we live to socialize. we will never live alone. it same to blame

[Fatman3001]

...

I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin.  As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).

The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).

I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized.

The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments.

[ObscureBean]

Socialism is just a concept and like the millions of other concepts out there, it is not perfect, it can only resolve certain existing issues at the expense of creating new ones elsewhere.
No theory out there can eradicate greed and corruption as these are inherent to humans. The most powerful feature of the blockchain is transparency, the fact that a transaction cannot be faked, that anything it records cannot be tampered with. I too think it would be a great step forward if governments started using the blockchain to document every action, transaction or decision they make but that's not going to put an end to corruption and greed. 

[RealBitcoin]

...

I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin.  As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).

The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).

I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized.

The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments.

Socialism creates a ponzi scheme economy.

They all know that the pension system and endless welfare cannot be funded by taxation, so it feeds on itself and creates a ponzi economy.

The financial ponzi scheme is inevitable under a socialist economy.

Unless you want to choose North Korean economics with 50% yearly inflation and wiping out bank accounts every 2 years. At least North Koreans are honest about it, and dont try to hide their ponzi in financial derivatives.

[Barnabe]

...

I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin.  As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).

The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).

I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized.

The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments.

Socialism creates a ponzi scheme economy.

They all know that the pension system and endless welfare cannot be funded by taxation, so it feeds on itself and creates a ponzi economy.

The financial ponzi scheme is inevitable under a socialist economy.

Unless you want to choose North Korean economics with 50% yearly inflation and wiping out bank accounts every 2 years. At least North Koreans are honest about it, and dont try to hide their ponzi in financial derivatives.

I partially agree with this, very often socialist countries make short-sighted decisions (like non-capitalized pensions systems). I don't know if it's ignorance (thinking that the system will be able to grow forever) or entitlement (why would the old generation get to profit from this without any contribution ?).

[Losvienleg]

No, are talking here about the true socialism or the neo-socialism. The difference between both of them lies in the fact that the neo-socialism is a dumb multiculuralist ideology while common socialism isn't. While I can't mind neo-socialism, a well-defented traditional socialist position can convince me.

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Why? France is socialist since 1789 and is leading in many technological development!

France is far from having been socialist since 1789, really far from that !

[RealBitcoin]

I partially agree with this, very often socialist countries make short-sighted decisions (like non-capitalized pensions systems). I don't know if it's ignorance (thinking that the system will be able to grow forever) or entitlement (why would the old generation get to profit from this without any contribution ?).

Only partially? It can be demonstrated easily that this is absolute truth.

How a pension/welfare/social system works?

1) You pay taxes every month
2) Taxes go into a fund that is a collection of all paid-in taxes
3) Every month the pension/welfare/or other stuff gets paid out of it.

Until the in-payments are higher than the out-payment , the system works.

HOWEVER, when the unemployment is high and wages low, so that less people pay in, and they pay in less, then the balance is shaken. Because more people will need to be paid out from it.

PLAN A) Therefore, you have to raise taxes. If you raise taxes then the system gets even worse, since if you suffocate businesses in more taxes, then wont grow, wont hire more people, and wont expand to generate more wealth, that gets taxed.

So many governments that have any intellect, wont raise taxes because that will put them at an economic collapse.

PLAN B) They dont raise taxes, and just continue to pay out the pension/welfare etc. from the money that is taken in, even if the cashflow balance is negative and the fund is in deficit every single month. THIS IS A PONZI SCHEME, AND MOST GOVERNMENTS CHOOSE THIS OPTION.

YES YOUR PENSION SYSTEM IS A PONZI SCHEME, AND IF YOU ARE YOUNG YOU ARE MOST LIKELY NOT SEEING ANY MONEY FROM THAT, IT WILL COLLAPSE BEFORE YOU GET OLD

Now of course normally the ponzi scheme would collapse after a few years, so they have to rely on the banks and the central bank to hide their ponzi in inflation , endless loans, bank derivatives, financial instruments.

Basically all funds like this issue bonds or take out endless loans of faked credit ratings and other instruments to hide their ponzi in, and thats how the entire global economy works today.

So an economic collapse is around the corner once the ponzi gets out of control, all thanks to the socialist.

[Barnabe]

I partially agree with this, very often socialist countries make short-sighted decisions (like non-capitalized pensions systems). I don't know if it's ignorance (thinking that the system will be able to grow forever) or entitlement (why would the old generation get to profit from this without any contribution ?).

Only partially? It can be demonstrated easily that this is absolute truth.

How a pension/welfare/social system works?

1) You pay taxes every month
2) Taxes go into a fund that is a collection of all paid-in taxes
3) Every month the pension/welfare/or other stuff gets paid out of it.

Until the in-payments are higher than the out-payment , the system works.

HOWEVER, when the unemployment is high and wages low, so that less people pay in, and they pay in less, then the balance is shaken. Because more people will need to be paid out from it.

PLAN A) Therefore, you have to raise taxes. If you raise taxes then the system gets even worse, since if you suffocate businesses in more taxes, then wont grow, wont hire more people, and wont expand to generate more wealth, that gets taxed.

So many governments that have any intellect, wont raise taxes because that will put them at an economic collapse.

PLAN B) They dont raise taxes, and just continue to pay out the pension/welfare etc. from the money that is taken in, even if the balance is negative and the fund is in deficit every single month. THIS IS A PONZI SCHEME, AND MOST GOVERNMENTS CHOOSE THIS OPTION.


Now of course normally the ponzi scheme would collapse after a few years, so they have to rely on the banks and the central bank to hide their ponzi in inflation, bank derivatives, financial instruments.

Basically all funds like this issue bonds and other instruments to hide their ponzi in, and thats how the entire global economy works today.

So an economic collapse is around the corner once the ponzi gets out of control, all thanks to the socialist.

There is a very simple solution to this (applied by some countries). The state could make different pension systems.
The first one would guarantee a minimum to each retired (living on this would be almost impossible), then the state would manage pensions funds to complete the first revenue (only used by willing people).

By doing so you could have a basic income guaranteed to everyone without its sustainability problems (it would be at least easier to manage during recessions since it's not as heavy compared to traditional socialist countries)

[Barnabe]

There is a very simple solution to this (applied by some countries). The state could make different pension systems.
The first one would guarantee a minimum to each retired (living on this would be almost impossible), then the state would manage pensions funds to complete the first revenue (only used by willing people).

That is still a ponzi scheme and it will fail sooner or later

You dont get it. The entire tax system is based on the premise that the economy always grows, because the government expense is always growing, so you need always a growing economy so make the government income growing too.

This will become a problem, and with 40-50% taxes the economy wont grow.

If the taxes are lowered, then the economy will grow, but not faster than the government expenses, and it will create a deficit, which the they will cover from endless loans ---> PONZI SCHEME ECONOMY

A.K.A:  The Sword of Damocles: http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/


The entire system is doomed for failure, because taxes dont work, you cant forcibly redistribute wealth. Money has to be spend on naturally by the forces of the market. Therefore any coercive pension/welfare/tax system has to be replaced by a voluntary insurance system.

It may be a ponzi scheme, but the state may be able to afford it. And it may be cheaper to do this than to let people become homeless and/or sick.

I disagree that the tax system supposes that the economy will always grow. The goal of the state is to have 0 profit (and also 0 loss). There is no point in taxing more than they need and they know it.
The only function of the state is to allow its citizen to live in a fair/safe system, ideally this could be the case if the state knew how to spend money (or if money was very expensive to get from loans for instance). I think the main problem here, is that in the nobody is responsable from its failures.
This means that every politician can do whatever they want without consequences.

I understand your logic, but in my opinion money won't be redistributed by the market. The system is rotten. People/coroprations with money will only get more money, therefore you can not let the market act on its own. Especially now that a very large number of jobs can be automatized.

[Fatman3001]

...

I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin.  As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).

The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).

I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized.

The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments.

Socialism creates a ponzi scheme economy.

They all know that the pension system and endless welfare cannot be funded by taxation, so it feeds on itself and creates a ponzi economy.

The financial ponzi scheme is inevitable under a socialist economy.

Unless you want to choose North Korean economics with 50% yearly inflation and wiping out bank accounts every 2 years. At least North Koreans are honest about it, and dont try to hide their ponzi in financial derivatives.

?

Poorly financed pension systems are not exclusive to countries with socialist governments. One of the things that weighed down GM and Chrysler in the 2008-2009 financial crisis was their massively under financed pension obligations. So they were bailed out with the tax-payers money. Nor do all countries with socialist governments have poorly financed pension systems. In fact, much of Europe have had comprehensive overhauls of their pension systems to make them more sustainable in the future.

As for your admiration of North Korea, I've got nothing.

[GeniuSxBoY]

Socialism: Idea so good, people risk their lives by building boats out of trash in order to escape it.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/16/cubans-risked-escape-communism-see-sailed-america/

[Fatman3001]

Socialism: Idea so good, people risk their lives by building boats out of trash in order to escape it.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/16/cubans-risked-escape-communism-see-sailed-america/

Hong Kong has been part of communist China for the last 20 years.

[Fatman3001]

Any 5 year old can understand it.

And oddly enough we don't let them run the country.

[GeniuSxBoY]

Fatman. Capitalism made Hong Kong.
Capitalism is the system that made Hong Kong prosperous.
Capitalism is the system that also made America the most prosperous nation on Earth.

The poorest countries like Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea all used communism.
Show me any country that was the richest and freest nation on Earth under socialism or communism and I'll give you a sticker.
Spoiler: There weren't any because there is no incentive to work in socialism and there is no freedom because the government controls everything.

Eventually you run out of the money that capitalism created -- that's why socialism sucks.

[Fatman3001]

Fatman. Capitalism made Hong Kong.
Capitalism is the system that made Hong Kong prosperous.
Capitalism is the system that also made America the most prosperous nation on Earth.

The poorest countries like Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea all used communism.
Show me any country that was the richest and freest nation on Earth under socialism or communism and I'll give you a sticker.
Spoiler: There weren't any because there is no incentive to work in socialism and there is no freedom because the government controls everything.

Eventually you run out of the money that capitalism created -- that's why socialism sucks.

I'm simply objecting to your and others binary approach to the issue.

Very few proponents of socialism wants communism. Very few countries can be said to be without socialist influence. Hong Kong was a British territory during a time where Britain was strongly left leaning, so they weren't a purely capitalist entity back then either. 

Oh, and btw, The United States is not the most prosperous nation on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

[RealBitcoin]

I'm simply objecting to your and others binary approach to the issue.

Very few proponents of socialism wants communism. Very few countries can be said to be without socialist influence. Hong Kong was a British territory during a time where Britain was strongly left leaning, so they weren't a purely capitalist entity back then either. 

Oh, and btw, The United States is not the most prosperous nation on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Of course socialists dont want communism, but that is where it will lead to after it's finished sucking dry the host body.

Socialism is a parasite system where you suck off the prosperity of the free market and redistribute it between the parasites.

When there is nothing more to be sucked off, everything becomes nationalized and it turns into communism, where the parasites suck off eachother.

I`ve lived under communism and I tell you it's not an paradise utopia, it's the most vicious 'everyone for himself' type of system that you can imagine, with absolute no cooperation with eachother, everyone is a snitch rat, that is betraying everyone to the gestapo for 30 pieces of silver, like Judas did.


We capitalists try to design a perfect immune system that makes capitalism immune to parasites to never let parasites again leech off productive people.

Bitcoin is one of them, no wealth redistribution here.

[Fatman3001]

I'm simply objecting to your and others binary approach to the issue.

Very few proponents of socialism wants communism. Very few countries can be said to be without socialist influence. Hong Kong was a British territory during a time where Britain was strongly left leaning, so they weren't a purely capitalist entity back then either. 

Oh, and btw, The United States is not the most prosperous nation on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Of course socialists dont want communism, but that is where it will lead to after it's finished sucking dry the host body.

Socialism is a parasite system where you suck off the prosperity of the free market and redistribute it.

When there is nothing more to be sucked off, everything becomes nationalized and it turns into communism.


We capitalists try to design a perfect immune system that makes capitalism immune to parasites to never let parasites again leech off productive people.

I don't mean to cause offense, but what you are saying is complete nonsense.

I know it's very in vogue to say stuff completely detached from reality (with Ronald McDonald winning the republican nomination and all), but unless you're running for public office I don't really see the point in hammering on about it here.

[RealBitcoin]

It's very hard to get rich, but imagine being rich, and constantly having an army of parasites on your tail that demand 24/7 to give them your money.

It's as if you're a human and have billions of bacteria around you demanding a piece of your body, it's exactly the same.


Of course for bacteria you have developed an immune system that protects you until your death. But for socialism you are just supposed to spread your legs and not resist? Well hell no, socialism is a disease, an virus infection of the economy that must be fought off with proper medicine, and a strong immune system.

[Fatman3001]

It's very hard to get rich, but imagine being rich, and constantly having an army of parasites on your tail that demand 24/7 to give them your money.

It's as if you're a human and have billions of bacteria around you demanding a piece of your body, it's exactly the same.


Of course for bacteria you have developed an immune system that protects you until your death. But for socialism you are just supposed to spread your legs and not resist? Well hell no, socialism is a disease, an virus infection of the economy that must be fought off with proper medicine, and a strong immune system.

What's the point of the bacterias, ponzis, virus crap? Can't you describe the problem you're seeing? It's not a virus, it's not a bacteria, it's not a ponzi.

And no, it isn't very hard to get rich for some people. Some people are very interested in society and economics and see genuine opportunities everywhere, some people love nothing more than waking up at 5.30 AM, talking to customers all day, making sales, organizing their business and leaving for home at 9 PM in the evening.

Other people are content with driving a truck or painting houses. They're happy to teach kids to play musical instruments and having lectures on literature. Quite a few of these are shit at what Warren Buffett does, but that doesn't make them less valuable. Even Warren Buffett says these people need to be saved from the increasing wealth discrepancy we're seeing in the world today. He understands that what he does so easily and so happily, is impossible for most people. Sure there are those who struggled to get where they are. But that goes for both rich and poor.

[RealBitcoin]

What's the point of the bacterias, ponzis, virus crap? Can't you describe the problem you're seeing? It's not a virus, it's not a bacteria, it's not a ponzi.

What is it then? What is socialism then the core of it if not theft and looting?

And no, it isn't very hard to get rich for some people. Some people are very interested in society and economics and see genuine opportunities everywhere, some people love nothing more than waking up at 5.30 AM, talking to customers all day, making sales, organizing their business and leaving for home at 9 PM in the evening.

Ok sure, but then the teacher wants to rob the salesman and the car mechanic wants to rob the banker.

How about just everone mind their own business and stop stealing from eachother.

Civilization is measured by how wise and cooperating people are. And a systematic robbery system like socialism is barbarian.

[MedaR]

I don't understand why many think in socialism there is no progress only stagnation?
Yes they are maybe stuck in time but they have quality, and this quality is so unbelievably cheap.

"Life expectancy is 77.5 years, one of the world's highest. And until not so long ago, there was one doctor for every 170 citizens - the highest patient-per-doctor ratio in the world. "
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201265115527622647.html

"Cuba has a possible lung cancer vaccine that America can now test"
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8613019/cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine

Russia was communist country and conduct many researcher in honeybee therapy (apitherapy), and they had many achievements in treating rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy..with bee venom.

I don't know how you can judge by those silly pictures.
Only capitalism can bring you so much joy and happiness and suicidal thoughts after loss only in one day.
 Communism, and socialism are more simple for adopting.





What do you say about Cuba now?
https://www.pinterest.com/explore/varadero-cuba/

[OROBTC]

...

I may have ONE exception to my belief that Socialism is a plague upon any unfortunate country to be under its heel.  That would be the small countries of Scandinavia that are (or were until the recent Muslim rapefugee invasion) relatively monolithic in culture and mentality.

I write this as an observer from what I saw in Denmark, although I am not even close to being an authority on Scandinavia.  While I was in Denmark I found that many of the Danes were against such notions as WalMart, guns, etc, that we Americans think are normal; and take for granted.  For example, the fact that an American poor person could buy $5.00 t-shirts and cheap socks did not impress them, they were OK with their little village shops selling t-shirts for $30.00.

What I believe I found is that they have FEW poor people.  They also have (had anyway) a monolithic culture, they are all "Vikings rowing in the same boat", team players...  Our Danish hosts had no problems with 50% + taxation.

In other words, it's a CULTURAL thing.  The Danes I talked with almost saw their country as one big family (not the way we Americans view our very different melange of cultures).  So maybe Socialism works for THEM.  It does not work (nor "Socialist Lite" of Hillary) for the USA.

[OROBTC]

I don't understand why many think in socialism there is no progress only stagnation?
Yes they are maybe stuck in time but they have quality, and this quality is so unbelievably cheap.

"Life expectancy is 77.5 years, one of the world's highest. And until not so long ago, there was one doctor for every 170 citizens - the highest patient-per-doctor ratio in the world. "
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201265115527622647.html

"Cuba has a possible lung cancer vaccine that America can now test"
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8613019/cuba-lung-cancer-vaccine

Russia was communist country and conduct many researcher in honeybee therapy (apitherapy), and they had many achievements in treating rheumatoid arthritis, epilepsy..with bee venom.

I don't know how you can judge by those silly pictures.
Only capitalism can bring you so much joy and happiness and suicidal thoughts after loss only in one day.
 Communism, and socialism are more simple for adopting.





What do you say about Cuba now?
https://www.pinterest.com/explore/varadero-cuba/

MedaR

My wife and I know some Cuban-Americans, and even a newly arrived Cuban.

Your pretty pictures only show a small facet of Cuban reality.  A couple we know (a Cuban-American and a "Cuban-Cuban") recently went there to visit some of one of their families.  Ahh, Cuba has many health problems that we (USA) resolved, ah, 80 years ago.

Both got sick (bad food).  They report that Cuba smells bad (bad sanitation?).  Neither has any desire to live there (even though they both speak the colloquial Spanish).  They did not say anything about delightful beaches...  I suppose that the beaches will best be enjoyed once Communism falls, and the AMERICAN hotel companies get down there and put up nice resorts with safe food...


EDIT: Ah, forget about spending your Bitcoin in Cuba, it's hard enough to get internet access.  

Oh, and be careful with what you say to to locals, you could get them, or even YOURSELF, into trouble.  Cuban jails are worse than the USA's.

[btcbug]

I don't understand why many think in socialism there is no progress only stagnation?
Yes they are maybe stuck in time

I don't know what to say, are you joking?

...but they have quality, and this quality is so unbelievably cheap.

If I take 95% of the money you earn and then I give you back some of that in the form of food, healthcare, etc., well of course anybody can look at that situation and say, "but look, he's fed, and sheltered, so how can you say Socialism is bad?". That is completely missing the point.

The POINT is that they were forced to turnover 95% of their income in the first place! Which means the individual has no choice in how their own money is spent. The government determines that for them and hence why this translates into shitty quality. There is nothing in place to check the excessive wastes of the government because there is no competitive market. It's unsustainable because eventually more and more of that money is siphoned off by the parasites in power, and/or simply wasted on administration.

Socialists do not understand the difference between actual productive work and unproductive work. I can pay somebody to grow food or I can pay somebody to dig a hole, fill it back in, and repeat everyday. Do you see how bureaucracy is sort of like digging the hole everyday? Sure, it creates a job, but the job is fucking useless as far as producing wealth is concerned. When too many people in society are digging the holes we reach the tipping point and the system collapses. Most countries in the world today are nearing that point.

EDIT:

And you guys can tell me this incorrect, because the USA isn't "technically" Socialist, it's considered Capitalist. Well sorry, but that is just bickering about the details and the "proper" implementation, of which there is no such thing.

While you guys are fighting about the correct way to redistribute those tax dollars to best suit your ideal version of Socialism, the rest of us are saying, "Hey guys, we don't care how you divide them because the principle of forced wealth redistribution will never work". That's what the circus of politics is all about. Politicians fooling their sheep into believing their scheme is the correct one. If you believe there is a proper scheme you will always be a sheep and in the end you will be sheared, possibly slaughtered.

[jaysabi]

Here, I fixed that for you.

There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it except that they earned it or were peacefully given it by someone who earned it, and in a free and equal society, no one else gets to impose their will on you or what you are allowed to own.

There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals except that private property is an inherent human right originating from mankind's dominion over the Earth.

There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth, which doesn't justify forcibly taking from people out of a misplaced sense of morality.

There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted, which is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the theft necessary to enforce socialism.

Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.

All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.

All people are born.

All people die.

It's much better now.

[jaysabi]

the basic truth is that many people claim either socialism or capitalism as the only obvious reality

they ignore that many decisions are made that have no relevance to either.

how do you judge/admonish a rapist under a capitalist system? rape is not a crime of capital but rather an ethical issue that must reside within a seperate realm

amusingly i'm finding it hard to come up with an example under socialism, the example governments so far have muddied the socialist waters with extreme shades of facism that make it hard to imagine a true socialist culture.

Capitalism and socialism are economic models, and rape is not an economic crime. Ostensibly there would be no difference in how rape is prosecuted under a capitalist or socialist government. The question doesn't even make sense. The economic model employed by a particular government or society has no bearing on how rape is punished.

[LEONPATTON]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

Your exactly what is wrong with Crypto.

[jaysabi]

...

I'm surprised that COLLECTIVISM (Socialism) is so popular among people interested in Bitcoin.  As told over and over above, Socialism takes by force the property of the productive, and gives it to the governing class (who the bulk) and the lazy (who get some crumbs for political support).

The most fundamental right of anyone is the right to be left alone (unmolested).

I'm assuming you're talking about taxation. Just about every country levy taxes. It's not unique to socialism. There are some exceptions, but they've got some rather odd justifications that cannot be universalized.

The United States has a higher level of maximum taxation than most countries with a history of social democratic governments.

Socialism creates a ponzi scheme economy.

They all know that the pension system and endless welfare cannot be funded by taxation, so it feeds on itself and creates a ponzi economy.

The financial ponzi scheme is inevitable under a socialist economy.

Unless you want to choose North Korean economics with 50% yearly inflation and wiping out bank accounts every 2 years. At least North Koreans are honest about it, and dont try to hide their ponzi in financial derivatives.

?

Poorly financed pension systems are not exclusive to countries with socialist governments. One of the things that weighed down GM and Chrysler in the 2008-2009 financial crisis was their massively under financed pension obligations. So they were bailed out with the tax-payers money. Nor do all countries with socialist governments have poorly financed pension systems. In fact, much of Europe have had comprehensive overhauls of their pension systems to make them more sustainable in the future.

As for your admiration of North Korea, I've got nothing.

Pensions are a socialist idea, and the fact that for-profit companies have attempted them has no bearing on the fact that they commonly fail because the idea is unviable writ large. GM and Chrysler had a form of internal socialism to the company, managed with the profits of the business for the benefit of the workers, and when the unviability of the program dragged those companies down, it still sucked in tax payers who had nothing to do with the irresponsible promises those companies made or the fact they they couldn't honor them. And the fact that Europe has to continually undergo "comprehensive overhauls of their pension systems to make them more sustainable in the future" is not because the pension system is economically viable, it's because the programs are not economically viable, and they need to keep scaling back the promises made under the pension programs in order to keep the charade going longer. Pension systems are almost universally under-financed because the socialist concept of pensions is economically unsound.

[Fatman3001]

What's the point of the bacterias, ponzis, virus crap? Can't you describe the problem you're seeing? It's not a virus, it's not a bacteria, it's not a ponzi.

What is it then? What is socialism then the core of it if not theft and looting?

Not those things. Grab a book.

And no, it isn't very hard to get rich for some people. Some people are very interested in society and economics and see genuine opportunities everywhere, some people love nothing more than waking up at 5.30 AM, talking to customers all day, making sales, organizing their business and leaving for home at 9 PM in the evening.

Ok sure, but then the teacher wants to rob the salesman and the car mechanic wants to rob the banker.

How about just everone mind their own business and stop stealing from eachother.

Civilization is measured by how wise and cooperating people are. And a systematic robbery system like socialism is barbarian.

No, nobody is robbing anyone as a function of normal contemporary socialist policy.

[bumbacoin]

Here, I fixed that for you.

There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it except that they earned it or were peacefully given it by someone who earned it, and in a free and equal society, no one else gets to impose their will on you or what you are allowed to own.

There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals except that private property is an inherent human right originating from mankind's dominion over the Earth.

There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth, which doesn't justify forcibly taking from people out of a misplaced sense of morality.

There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted, which is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the theft necessary to enforce socialism.

Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.

All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.

All people are born.

All people die.

It's much better now.

private property stretches from toothbrushes to the entire earth. obviously they offer different scopes to dominion.

one fiinds it hard to consider that a human overlord owning vast tracts of wealth is meant by "an inherent human right", whilst many others are relegated to a dependent reality relying on the overlords good will to share their wealth.

instead a shared community based ownership seems more in line where all mankind can share in this apparent right.

there is no reason why wealth should be assigned by position of birth, or even by position of current wealth. if a situtation is unjust/unfair/broken that is a good reason to fix it.
your morality is misplaced if you think it's fine for some people to indulge in wealth while others starve because of the status quo. just because.

theft is not as obvious as you claim.
my inherent human right has been stolen from me by those who monopolise wealth/property.

[bumbacoin]

this whole discussion has so many fallacies that it's pointless.
people have been so poisoned by america's view of "socialism" that it has become a gigantic false dichotomy.

ownership of property has been declared as theft therefore capitalism is theft.
taxes and re-distribution has been declared as theft therefore socialism is theft.

you're all wrong.



if you want a serious conversation,
you need to consider how a community could exist without either.

[jaysabi]

Here, I fixed that for you.

There is no true reason that wealth should be held by those who hold it except that they earned it or were peacefully given it by someone who earned it, and in a free and equal society, no one else gets to impose their will on you or what you are allowed to own.

There is no true reason that private property should be owned by personal individuals except that private property is an inherent human right originating from mankind's dominion over the Earth.

There are obvious examples that show those born into poverty have far more hindrances to achieving their "true potential" than those born into wealth, which doesn't justify forcibly taking from people out of a misplaced sense of morality.

There is no true example of a socialist country, nor a capitalist country. They have all been corrupted, which is irrelevant to the question of the morality of the theft necessary to enforce socialism.

Corruption is real. Anyone who thinks that either pure socialism or pure capitalism can work by themselves is deluded.

All governments require the threat and use of force to maintain their status quo.

All people are born.

All people die.

It's much better now.

private property stretches from toothbrushes to the entire earth. obviously they offer different scopes to dominion.

one fiinds it hard to consider that a human overlord owning vast tracts of wealth is meant by "an inherent human right", whilst many others are relegated to a dependent reality relying on the overlords good will to share their wealth.

instead a shared community based ownership seems more in line where all mankind can share in this apparent right.

there is no reason why wealth should be assigned by position of birth, or even by position of current wealth. if a situtation is unjust/unfair/broken that is a good reason to fix it.
your morality is misplaced if you think it's fine for some people to indulge in wealth while others starve because of the status quo. just because.

theft is not as obvious as you claim.
my inherent human right has been stolen from me by those who monopolise wealth/property.

What I meant that you didn't understand is that property is unique to the human species. Man is the first species that has had the capacity to understand the concept of property, therefore is the first species on Earth capable of owning property. The Earth was therefore man's for the taking the moment that mankind first asserted it.

Wealth is not assigned by position of birth in non-caste systems. In America, you have the ability to move up. More can be done to lessen the obstacles, but trying to create equality through the use of force is immoral. When socialism can achieve its ends without the use of force, it will be a morally acceptable system, but of course, it cannot by its very nature.

[bumbacoin]

What I meant that you didn't understand is that property is unique to the human species. Man is the first species that has had the capacity to understand the concept of property, therefore is the first species on Earth capable of owning property. The Earth is therefore man's for the taking. Wealth is not assigned by position of birth in non-caste systems. In America, you have the ability to move up. More can be done to lessen the obstacles, but trying to create equality through the use of force is immoral. When socialism can achieve its ends without the use of force, it will be a morally acceptable system, but of course, it cannot by its very nature.

If you are born rich you are born rich, caste is irrelevant.

In any capitalist society your caste is determined by birth, but not totally so,
your life choices are overwhelmingly limited by your birth caste. If you are born poor and for some reason you are not the victim of poor dietary habits, exposed to hideous psychological traumas, educated in a lacklustre way maybe you might grow up to be rich.
(children are victims, they cannot control their environment).

Morally acceptable force is everywhere.
Police is a socially acceptable community based force. Community based force is not inherently moral/immoral.

Ownership does not rely on inequality, if everyone has a toothbrush there is no issue.
But when ownership = inequality it becomes immoral.

To use community force to correct an immoral reality is not immoral.


your idea of force is poorly presented. It is a highly ambiguous concept that is portrayed in a one dimensional way to suggest it is immoral.
We use force when we chew our food.
We use force to protect our communities.
We use force to protect our personal being.
Force has no necessary moral/immoral position.

[bumbacoin]

Q. You teach a course on ethics and heroism at Virginia Tech. How exactly does one teach heroism to college students?

A. We teach aspirational ethics. What I teach my students is, You’re born heroic. I go into these animal studies, and heroism is actually in our nature. What you have to do is make sure that the system doesn’t change you, that our educational system doesn’t teach you to be willfully blind and to forget your aspirations, because that’s the default position.

We talk about the realities of heroism too. It’s not fun. These are gut-wrenching things. But the main thing is, Do not let our educational institutions make you into something that you will be ashamed of.


http://chronicle.com/article/The-Water-Next-Time-Professor/235136/



If something is broken you don't need to roll over and deal with as best you can.
The status quo is hard to overcome, but that does not mean to suffer in silence

[RealBitcoin]

Not those things. Grab a book.

Oh I know exactly what it is, but you have denied my arguments without any proof or backing ,so the burden of proof is on you.

No, nobody is robbing anyone as a function of normal contemporary socialist policy.

I`m sure the forced taxation with the threat of jailtime is exactly the definition of armed robbery or extorsion.

[valta4065]

I think I lost most of my faith in humanity in this thread... This is all pathetic...

I'm still waiting for any of you all capitalists pigs to explain Laosai how you can give everyone an education without taxes and socialism!

But you all freaks believe that in some kind of magical way everything will work out?

I highly doubt you read my posts. If you did, it's clear you didn't think very hard afterwards.


I think people should be educated too. In fact, probably 99% of people would share out opinion on education. Would you agree?

If that's the general consensus throughout the population, then doesn't it seem probable that this opinion would translate into market demand? Surely if 99% of everybody wants education than there will be education provided in a free market. The reason that education would be provided is because EVERYONE would gladly pay for it and so it's a business opportunity. People don't need to give control of the education system to a government monopoly. Thankfully, in most places we still have private schools, however even though I might choose to use a private school, unfortunately I'm still forced to pay for the public education system through taxes.

All you are really implying with your above comment, is that in your mind, YOU can't think of any possible way to educate people without the government forcing them to pay taxes and then giving them an education. That's just intellectual laziness, sorry.

I'm showing you guys the logic and you're saying stupid shit like, "But you all freaks believe that in some kind of magical way everything will work out? "

There is no magic dumbass. Socialists just think they know what's best for everyone else and because they have such good intentions, that means it's morally acceptable to use taxes and force people to pay for their great ideas. Good ideas don't require force. Do I need to tax you to make sure you feed yourself? Some extreme Socialist would probably say yes to that too!

I'm just crying in a corner.
Coming back after the weekend to read something like this... Ô tempora Ô mores!

Well little thing. What will happen TO THOSE WHO CAN'T PAY FOR IT??

You're saying "there will be a market" oh no doubt! There is already one in the USA! And you saw what is costs!!!

[valta4065]

Ok then you need absolutely no rule, a free currency of course, like btc.

And how do you protect citizens? I mean what would prevent a company like Google to just hire some mercenaries and kill the potential competitors as there is no police and no government?

Who said no police? You can still have police run privately like a corporation.

Basic policing like keeping the streets clean and emergency 911 calls can be easily done (and possibly more efficiently) than government police.

You know in Japan the subway system has a maximum 1 minute delay and its run by private corps.

When I was last time in government subway they always have a 10-15 minute delay.

So you have to admit that private stuff is managed better, and when you call the cops because there is somebody in your house, then its a matter of life and death if they delay 15 minutes because they forgot to buy their donuts.

And for personal protection, there are always security guards and security services available, you just cant afford it currently, but with low or no taxes I guarantee you it would be as cheap as buying a hamburger.

Ahahahahah xD

Ok Stop, I stop right there! I just can't go on, you won I can't fight people saying things like this! There is nothing more to discuss I give up, just all die alone as you have to.

[valta4065]

I'm with you up to the democracy part, because I don't think freedom is best achieved in a democracy if your version of democracy is that popular ideas are deemed moral because they're the most popular. That doesn't follow logically. If there are no absolute freedoms, democracy is rather worthless in my opinion. So it has to be a democracy that doesn't have the power to infringe on the freedom of the individual, and now we're back to a moral government.

Free education: Steal from educated parents and give it to uneducated ones who did poor choices in their lives because they are dumb

Yeah, so the children don't have to be destroyed by the poor parents choices...

And of course it's only because the parents are dumb. It can't be anything else. Nothing can happen in a life that could explain people are not able to afford education for their children.

[yugo23]

this whole discussion has so many fallacies that it's pointless.
people have been so poisoned by america's view of "socialism" that it has become a gigantic false dichotomy.

ownership of property has been declared as theft therefore capitalism is theft.
taxes and re-distribution has been declared as theft therefore socialism is theft.

you're all wrong.



if you want a serious conversation,
you need to consider how a community could exist without either.

Thank you.

I'm still glad to see that some persons still have a brain.

Though I agree with you it's incredible to see how Americans have been brainwashed!

They compare socialism to nazism Oo

It's like they compare private property to human life!
That's the true victory of capitalism here! They're actually saying it's better to have 20% of the population dying and 75% trying to survive than a mandatory participation... Incredible!

[yugo23]

I`m sure the forced taxation with the threat of jailtime is exactly the definition of armed robbery or extorsion.

Yeah because once police is private and that calling 911 costs you 1k$ armed robbery and extorsion will disappear xD

[yugo23]

Yeah, so the children don't have to be destroyed by the poor parents choices...

And of course it's only because the parents are dumb. It can't be anything else. Nothing can happen in a life that could explain people are not able to afford education for their children.

Actually education has nothing to do with success in life, that is a big misconception.

What matters is good genes that on most part are inherited. So there is a big chance that if the parent is dumb the kid will be too, no matter how much education you give them.

I can't find my words. Do you have anything to support your claims?

Because from my point of view, it seems you don't have the good genes...

Yeah because once police is private and that calling 911 costs you 1k$ armed robbery and extorsion will disappear xD

Yes just like how your internet bill costs 1 million $ / month because it's not managed by the government.

Oh wait it isnt, it's actually very cheap and it costs only a few % points off your monthly income.


Or how your phone bill costs 15 million $/month because its a private company no?

Thanks for pointing this out. You know that before privatisation electricity cost 1.5 times less where I live? You know what happened after privatisation? They fired half people working here, cut all the costs then increased the price.

The "private companies work better" is just a big fat lie. It's not true. The only things that changed after privatisation of energy in my country was a rise of prices, more unemployment and more debt for the states that's all.

[Fatman3001]

Not those things. Grab a book.

Oh I know exactly what it is, but you have denied my arguments without any proof or backing ,so the burden of proof is on you.

It's sort of pointless. I guess I could spend a lot of energy on proving things like "Why butterflies aren't Nazis" as well, but it's not really of interest to anyone.

No, nobody is robbing anyone as a function of normal contemporary socialist policy.

I`m sure the forced taxation with the threat of jailtime is exactly the definition of armed robbery or extorsion.

Nope. You know it isn't. You're just being silly.

[MedaR]

 I suppose that the beaches will best be enjoyed once Communism falls, and the AMERICAN hotel companies get down there and put up nice resorts with safe food...


EDIT: Ah, forget about spending your Bitcoin in Cuba, it's hard enough to get internet access.  

Oh, and be careful with what you say to to locals, you could get them, or even YOURSELF, into trouble.  Cuban jails are worse than the USA's.

Believe you would rather to see big corporate money invested in CUBA, instead help them to find their own way through their problems. Yes they have problems, every country on the world have some problems.

They are eyesore for US government.

Many people today live on the edge of hunger and without any medical help in democracy in AMERICA. Probably they can tell us more about this topic.

You can't show only picture of rich places and people and tell how some system is good. System is measured by how many hungry people do you have on street. Not with internet bandwidth.

[BARR_Official]

Many people today live on the edge of hunger and without any medical help in democracy in AMERICA.

That's not true.

You can't show only picture of rich places and people and tell how some system is good.

Who is doing that, other than you?

What do you say about Cuba now?
https://www.pinterest.com/explore/varadero-cuba/

I say people still die trying to escape Cuba.

Their closest alternatives are Haiti, Mexico, Jamaica, or the Bahamas.

But they go to the United States instead. 

The system you support causes people to kill themselves rather than continue living under your system.
The people living under your system risk their lives to escape and go somewhere that has the system you hate.

Therefore, you are the enemy of the poor and hungry people who want a better life.

[MedaR]

If I take 95% of the money you earn and then I give you back some of that in the form of food, healthcare, etc., well of course anybody can look at that situation and say, "but look, he's fed, and sheltered, so how can you say Socialism is bad?". That is completely missing the point.

The POINT is that they were forced to turnover 95% of their income in the first place! Which means the individual has no choice in how their own money is spent. The government determines that for them and hence why this translates into shitty quality. There is nothing in place to check the excessive wastes of the government because there is no competitive market. It's unsustainable because eventually more and more of that money is siphoned off by the parasites in power, and/or simply wasted on administration.

Socialists do not understand the difference between actual productive work and unproductive work. I can pay somebody to grow food or I can pay somebody to dig a hole, fill it back in, and repeat everyday. Do you see how bureaucracy is sort of like digging the hole everyday? Sure, it creates a job, but the job is fucking useless as far as producing wealth is concerned. When too many people in society are digging the holes we reach the tipping point and the system collapses. Most countries in the world today are nearing that point.

This is simply not true. No one in socialism taking your money that way.
Yes there is some certain amount collected for poor regions in order to build industry and infrastructure.

You think on Communism! This is not the same.

If you think in socialism there is no work and everybody are lazy, you are wrong again!
Many of these socialists countries are very proud countries with higher consciousness of patriotism and almost majority gives more then the average worker in the West.
You forgetting one thing, majority of socialist countries suffered many wars and turmoils maybe if socialism withstand for 200 years will show real face. It is to early to talk about one system after 50 years since its establishment.

[btcbug]

If I take 95% of the money you earn and then I give you back some of that in the form of food, healthcare, etc., well of course anybody can look at that situation and say, "but look, he's fed, and sheltered, so how can you say Socialism is bad?". That is completely missing the point.

The POINT is that they were forced to turnover 95% of their income in the first place! Which means the individual has no choice in how their own money is spent. The government determines that for them and hence why this translates into shitty quality. There is nothing in place to check the excessive wastes of the government because there is no competitive market. It's unsustainable because eventually more and more of that money is siphoned off by the parasites in power, and/or simply wasted on administration.

Socialists do not understand the difference between actual productive work and unproductive work. I can pay somebody to grow food or I can pay somebody to dig a hole, fill it back in, and repeat everyday. Do you see how bureaucracy is sort of like digging the hole everyday? Sure, it creates a job, but the job is fucking useless as far as producing wealth is concerned. When too many people in society are digging the holes we reach the tipping point and the system collapses. Most countries in the world today are nearing that point.

This is simply not true. No one in socialism taking your money that way.

Try NOT paying your taxes. What happens?

[Fatman3001]

If I take 95% of the money you earn and then I give you back some of that in the form of food, healthcare, etc., well of course anybody can look at that situation and say, "but look, he's fed, and sheltered, so how can you say Socialism is bad?". That is completely missing the point.

The POINT is that they were forced to turnover 95% of their income in the first place! Which means the individual has no choice in how their own money is spent. The government determines that for them and hence why this translates into shitty quality. There is nothing in place to check the excessive wastes of the government because there is no competitive market. It's unsustainable because eventually more and more of that money is siphoned off by the parasites in power, and/or simply wasted on administration.

Socialists do not understand the difference between actual productive work and unproductive work. I can pay somebody to grow food or I can pay somebody to dig a hole, fill it back in, and repeat everyday. Do you see how bureaucracy is sort of like digging the hole everyday? Sure, it creates a job, but the job is fucking useless as far as producing wealth is concerned. When too many people in society are digging the holes we reach the tipping point and the system collapses. Most countries in the world today are nearing that point.

This is simply not true. No one in socialism taking your money that way.

Try NOT paying your taxes. What happens?

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

[MedaR]

Who is doing that, other than you?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1370279.msg14113456#msg14113456


China Shanghai
https://chinaluxculturebiz.wordpress.com/tag/chengdu/

I say people still die trying to escape Cuba.
Their closest alternatives are Haiti, Mexico, Jamaica, or the Bahamas.
But they go to the United States instead. 

You can not globalized situation after viewing few pictures.
 CUBA having problems but this wasn't the case when Russia was communist and other half of the world was also.
Now they are isolated and they are not welcomed by many democratic countries.

Probably socialism will fall at the end.

We need something different, and this is not Democracy and free trade.

The system you support causes people to kill themselves rather than continue living under your system.
The people living under your system risk their lives to escape and go somewhere that has the system you hate.
Therefore, you are the enemy of the poor and hungry people who want a better life.

This is not "my system".
You are talking like there will burst flame or war.
Too much drama.

[btcbug]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

And you guys can tell me this incorrect, because the USA isn't "technically" Socialist, it's considered Capitalist. Well sorry, but that is just bickering about the details and the "proper" implementation, of which there is no such thing.

While you guys are fighting about the correct way to redistribute those tax dollars to best suit your ideal version of Socialism, the rest of us are saying, "Hey guys, we don't care how you divide them because the principle of forced wealth redistribution will never work". That's what the circus of politics is all about. Politicians fooling their sheep into believing their scheme is the correct one. If you believe there is a proper scheme you will always be a sheep and in the end you will be sheared, possibly slaughtered.

I put this video here for you again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[RealBitcoin]

I can't find my words. Do you have anything to support your claims?

Because from my point of view, it seems you don't have the good genes...

Haha keep on insulting, it wont make your point more valid.

How about study the relationship between genes and IQ and see for yourself:
http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/

Thanks for pointing this out. You know that before privatisation electricity cost 1.5 times less where I live? You know what happened after privatisation? They fired half people working here, cut all the costs then increased the price.

The "private companies work better" is just a big fat lie. It's not true. The only things that changed after privatisation of energy in my country was a rise of prices, more unemployment and more debt for the states that's all.

Cherrypick 1 situation that we dont know anything about, I dont know the circumstances of your situation with the electricity, but it may be just because the companies are forced to deliver the electricity cheaper.

Which is kind of anti-free market, price controls and shit like that. And eventually it will end in disaster as those companies could go bankrupt if their prices are not allowed to freefloat

[RealBitcoin]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.

In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).


The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

[MedaR]

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.
In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).
The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

This is very cruel conclusion.

I believe socialism is more than taxation of people and stealing money from them.
If you living whole your life in capitalism and democracy then you can't say anything about socialism because you don't know good sides.

Such care for children, for ill and homeless. You won't find people starving on the streets. Everybody must work, they have protection, as worker you don't have to think will you get canceling of the contract.

People are working without stress. They are happy with friends and family don't need expensive cars for enjoying in life.. Traveling, organized workers games with everything for free only money for beer.

Army is something mandatory, you can made friends for life , learn many skills. Move up your boundaries. You cannot imagine such Dignity and Patriotism founded in army. (Without wars in peace).

Best example is EX YU. if we don't count civil war 90s.

[MedaR]

This you can imagine as constant party and enjoying in life..
Yes there is lot of work but there is no stress around everything and everyone working with smile. Because nobody worry about tomorrow how will pay debts or how will kids go to school..
This is very nice if you think about it now, this kind life had my father.
And i know all stories very well and i have many pictures how his life was complemented and beautiful and rich.
And majority of people were modest and happy with this way of life!
Money isn't everything in life.

[GeniuSxBoY]

Price controls lead to shortages because you cannot legislate away the reality of scarcity
#WhySocialismFails

[GeniuSxBoY]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.

In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).


The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

Taxes at their most fundamental level are meant to afford the necessary papers, rents, and essentials for government to function properly. Taxes cannot be based on donations because laws will be biased towards the donors. Each individual must have an equal investment, equal stake in the government to have an equal voice. It is not possible to live in anarchy because you would need a government to ensure that government doesn't form-- which negates itself. It is hereby proven that we can't live with too much government and we can't live without it, therefore we must put into place a limited government that benefits the most people by being the most transparent in its prime reason for existing: To guarantee individual's right to life, liberty, and property.

[ctlaltdefeat]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

socialism is the key of good life and interaction each human being,we can't denied that,i think even greed or corruption cannot killing it,socialsm will grow as many people more care each other,even so many bad people,there will always hero for who have good will to make world better plcae for us.

[locho16]

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[7] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[8] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, cooperative, or collective ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[9] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[10] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms

[btcbug]

...It is not possible to live in anarchy because you would need a government to ensure that government doesn't form-- which negates itself. It is hereby proven that we can't live with too much government and we can't live without it, therefore we must put into place a limited government that benefits the most people by being the most transparent in its prime reason for existing: To guarantee individual's right to life, liberty, and property.

The constitution has no power to limit government. Politicians will simply wipe their asses with it. All it takes is a bit of fear and manipulation and foolish voters will beg them to amend it into the worthless garbage it is today.

I'm glad you're for limited government, thank you.

I agree that at present, lacking rulers, people would seek to put in power the next lunatic that would offer to be their master. Just as they currently do.

When people are ready to accept full responsibility for their lives then we will live in Anarchy. That is not say without laws, or rules, but that those things would be market services. There will be a tipping point at which time enough people will reject the notion of being ruled just in the same way that the world is quickly becoming less religious. Lacking belief in a deity and accepting that gods have no power in our lives is called Atheism. Anarchy is simply Atheism towards the state and full acceptance of the fact that we each control our own lives.

When enough people reject this superstition of authority then there is no power to grab. Don't confuse what I'm saying. People will always try to seek power and evil will always exist, we just won't let it have any mass influence where it can grow to something as grotesque as the USA is today.

The man who has no fear of pain and death cannot be controlled and is truly free. He rejects that any other man can control his life or liberty and is willing to die. Ask yourself how would the sociopaths rule us if most people truly understood that they are free?

Please watch the video I posted above for the an excellent explanation of this.

[Fatman3001]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.

In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).


The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

No, they aren't. This is the age of the internet. It's pretty easy to check these things for yourself. Taxation has been a way of financing the state long before it ever took it upon itself to offer any welfare services. To finance policing, the government, the courts and the military.

[Fatman3001]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

And you guys can tell me this incorrect, because the USA isn't "technically" Socialist, it's considered Capitalist. Well sorry, but that is just bickering about the details and the "proper" implementation, of which there is no such thing.

While you guys are fighting about the correct way to redistribute those tax dollars to best suit your ideal version of Socialism, the rest of us are saying, "Hey guys, we don't care how you divide them because the principle of forced wealth redistribution will never work". That's what the circus of politics is all about. Politicians fooling their sheep into believing their scheme is the correct one. If you believe there is a proper scheme you will always be a sheep and in the end you will be sheared, possibly slaughtered.

Please stop rewriting the thesaurus. If you disagree with something it doesn't automatically mean it's socialism. And again, the state is about more than redistribution. That needs to be paid for.

I put this video here for you again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Drivel. Just about every "fact" he presents is wrong. Learn to use your own head, sheep!

[craked5]

I can't find my words. Do you have anything to support your claims?

Because from my point of view, it seems you don't have the good genes...

Haha keep on insulting, it wont make your point more valid.

How about study the relationship between genes and IQ and see for yourself:
http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/

Your link isn't even talking about IQ and genes you know? Did you actually read the article? xD

[craked5]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.

In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).


The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

No, they aren't. This is the age of the internet. It's pretty easy to check these things for yourself. Taxation has been a way of financing the state long before it ever took it upon itself to offer any welfare services. To finance policing, the government, the courts and the military.

What? You mean socialism didn't invent taxes and that even Pharaoos had taxes? 

[Fatman3001]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.

In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).


The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

No, they aren't. This is the age of the internet. It's pretty easy to check these things for yourself. Taxation has been a way of financing the state long before it ever took it upon itself to offer any welfare services. To finance policing, the government, the courts and the military.

What? You mean socialism didn't invent taxes and that even Pharaoos had taxes? 

Thx for bringing that up. I can't wait to hear the stories of the socialist Pharaohs.

[craked5]

Taxes aren't unique to socialism. Never has been.

Yes they are, its the parasite class that demands forced redistribution of wealth.

In a productive economy, everyone would keep what they earn, and everyone would spend on what they want (voluntarly).


The only ones that support taxation are the parasites that are unproductive and want to steal money from the productive people, because they are the only beneficiaries of it.

No, they aren't. This is the age of the internet. It's pretty easy to check these things for yourself. Taxation has been a way of financing the state long before it ever took it upon itself to offer any welfare services. To finance policing, the government, the courts and the military.

What? You mean socialism didn't invent taxes and that even Pharaoos had taxes? 

Thx for bringing that up. I can't wait to hear the stories of the socialist Pharaohs.

Horrible dudes.
They actually took the ressources of the people and split it through the temples in order to have their whole population fed and educated.

Those barbarians that created nothing invented nothing and were not even a civilization.

[Hizzmoot]

About Socialism.
The socialism that Russia eneted is far way from theory of socialism.
The only socialism I approve is Scandinavian Socialism. I am actualy living in one of Scaninavian countries and I can see how great society is here.
The only think that can upset the balance are refugees that use that good economy by getting as much benefits as its possible

[valta4065]

Ok so you care about people around you, fine. And you think there is no other way of doing that without violence and a system based on theft?

No there is none. Or at least nobody created another one. The violence of the system is here to compensate the greed and the individualism of humans.

Because if you really care about people around you, you would not want them subjected to this violent system.

Sur because a system in which poor people can't afford an education is much better. A system where if you got a cancer and you don't have enough money you gonna die slowly and painfully is incredibly better.

Taxes at their most fundamental level are meant to afford the necessary papers, rents, and essentials for government to function properly. Taxes cannot be based on donations because laws will be biased towards the donors. Each individual must have an equal investment, equal stake in the government to have an equal voice. It is not possible to live in anarchy because you would need a government to ensure that government doesn't form-- which negates itself. It is hereby proven that we can't live with too much government and we can't live without it, therefore we must put into place a limited government that benefits the most people by being the most transparent in its prime reason for existing: To guarantee individual's right to life, liberty, and property.

Then reform the tax system and eliminate the tax on income, that is the worst of them all, because it steals away productivity directly.

Wrong. Tax on income doesn't steal productivity wtf are you saying? Tax on income takes away money nothing else. Productivity has nothing to do with that do you even understand what you're talking about?

I personally would have no issue with property tax , but most taxes are just illogical and hurt your quality of life.

Property tax? Why is this one better than the other?
What you have to tax is the wealth, the ownership of capitals! That's what is dangerous in capitalism: the concentration of capital.

[valta4065]

Thanks for pointing this out. You know that before privatisation electricity cost 1.5 times less where I live? You know what happened after privatisation? They fired half people working here, cut all the costs then increased the price.

The "private companies work better" is just a big fat lie. It's not true. The only things that changed after privatisation of energy in my country was a rise of prices, more unemployment and more debt for the states that's all.

Cherrypick 1 situation that we dont know anything about, I dont know the circumstances of your situation with the electricity, but it may be just because the companies are forced to deliver the electricity cheaper.

Which is kind of anti-free market, price controls and shit like that. And eventually it will end in disaster as those companies could go bankrupt if their prices are not allowed to freefloat

Because you provided any example to prove your point?

I don't know a single company that was privatized and that is working better, creating more jobs for the people.

[yugo23]

I can't find my words. Do you have anything to support your claims?

Because from my point of view, it seems you don't have the good genes...

Haha keep on insulting, it wont make your point more valid.

How about study the relationship between genes and IQ and see for yourself:
http://pumpkinperson.com/2014/11/09/hypocrites-who-deny-linear-iq-income-correlation/

Did you read your article?
Your article is about correlation between IQ and income. I never said anything against that and it's not what you're talking about.

You're saying one's characteristics are much more determined by their genetic capacities than by their actions through life.

[yugo23]

Thanks for pointing this out. You know that before privatisation electricity cost 1.5 times less where I live? You know what happened after privatisation? They fired half people working here, cut all the costs then increased the price.

The "private companies work better" is just a big fat lie. It's not true. The only things that changed after privatisation of energy in my country was a rise of prices, more unemployment and more debt for the states that's all.

Cherrypick 1 situation that we dont know anything about, I dont know the circumstances of your situation with the electricity, but it may be just because the companies are forced to deliver the electricity cheaper.

Which is kind of anti-free market, price controls and shit like that. And eventually it will end in disaster as those companies could go bankrupt if their prices are not allowed to freefloat

Please explain me how a company with no need of huge profits and no greedy shareholders taking away on average 40% of the income is not able to produce a good or service for cheaper than a private company?

And simple idea: nationalize some companies but don't create a state monopoly. Hence if private companies are so much better they'll just crush the public ones.

But the fact is that I don't know a single company that was privatized and where the privatization was a good thing. The price never dropes, the quality of service doesn't rise but sure as hell the unemployment keep growing.

Give me ONE example of a company that was privatized in a successful way.

[Fatman3001]

About Socialism.
The socialism that Russia eneted is far way from theory of socialism.
The only socialism I approve is Scandinavian Socialism. I am actualy living in one of Scaninavian countries and I can see how great society is here.
The only think that can upset the balance are refugees that use that good economy by getting as much benefits as its possible

The refugee issue is not exclusive to Scandinavia. Nor are they particularly ill equipped to handle it. The frenzy around this issue is due to the lack of preparedness and shoddy handling of the crisis. Shit happens, that doesn't mean it's ok to stop treating people like human beings.

The scandinavian countries have focused on only applying plan economics to the parts of the economy which benefit from it. So health care, child care/kindergartens, education, unemployment pay, and certain types of highly targeted welfare are controlled by the state, either through highly regulated private companies or state owned entities. Unlike France or the USA, the scandinavian countries don't bail out large private companies or nationalize electricity suppliers and similar. Government interference in these areas is rare. This means that, in spite of having a comprehensive social safety net, they rank high in ease of setting up a business and have some of the freest markets in the world.

While GM and Chrysler were deemed "too big to fail" in the United States, both of the swedish brands Volvo and SAAB were in similar dire straits. However, in Sweden the PM simply said: "It's not the business of the state to build cars".

Another thing which helps these countries "stay relevant", and drives natives nuts, is the "scandinavian reformism". These countries are reforming every bit of its government run programs continuously. When people finally are used to the reforms they're changed. This can be tiresome, but it prevents organizational stagnation.

[BTCBinary]

Socialism is key to freedom.
It is currently the only political organization model system that offers true freedom and true citizenship.
It is the most modern and developed political system we have ATM. So let's keep it

[WhatTheGox]

Socialism is key to freedom.
It is currently the only political organization model system that offers true freedom and true citizenship.
It is the most modern and developed political system we have ATM. So let's keep it

I think we need to create platforms and system which offer us the most non forced socialism possible.  Like internet, bitcoin and blockchain tech etc.  Platforms in which people willingly offer their resources for the benefit of society.

[MedaR]

About Socialism.
The socialism that Russia eneted is far way from theory of socialism.
The only socialism I approve is Scandinavian Socialism. I am actualy living in one of Scaninavian countries and I can see how great society is here.
The only think that can upset the balance are refugees that use that good economy by getting as much benefits as its possible

I don't know why people  are so scared from socialism?
Socialism have different forms and can be apply very successfully in every country who cares for its people.
I'm not for communism such was in Russia, but you must understand that many people and today in Russia believe this was best time for living.
Mild variants of socialism as in Scandinavia are a true example in what direction I need to watch.

[RealBitcoin]

No there is none. Or at least nobody created another one. The violence of the system is here to compensate the greed and the individualism of humans.

Wow that is ignorance. So because there is none created that means that we should never try creating one, that is what you are basically saying.

Imagine if Edison or Tesla would have said that when they invented stuff. If a lightbulb doesnt exist, it means we should not try inventing one, lets all use candlesticks forever.

Sur because a system in which poor people can't afford an education is much better. A system where if you got a cancer and you don't have enough money you gonna die slowly and painfully is incredibly better.

But dying slowly and painfully in a gulag is much better?

Because you provided any example to prove your point?

Yes I did, read my previous posts.

Did you read your article?
Your article is about correlation between IQ and income. I never said anything against that and it's not what you're talking about.

You're saying one's characteristics are much more determined by their genetic capacities than by their actions through life.

IQ is predominantly hereditary, therefore genes are responsible for success and wealth in one's life.

Please explain me how a company with no need of huge profits and no greedy shareholders taking away on average 40% of the income is not able to produce a good or service for cheaper than a private company?

And simple idea: nationalize some companies but don't create a state monopoly. Hence if private companies are so much better they'll just crush the public ones.

But the fact is that I don't know a single company that was privatized and where the privatization was a good thing. The price never dropes, the quality of service doesn't rise but sure as hell the unemployment keep growing.

Give me ONE example of a company that was privatized in a successful way.

I`m talking about INCOME TAX, which is not the same as CORPORATE TAX.

Corporations already barely pay 1-2%, while you and me and other poor folks are taxed 40-70% depending on country.

The food is taxed out from the mouth of your children.

Socialism is key to freedom.
It is currently the only political organization model system that offers true freedom and true citizenship.
It is the most modern and developed political system we have ATM. So let's keep it

Because there is nothing better than paradise gulag....

[btcbug]

Please explain me how a company with no need of huge profits and no greedy shareholders taking away on average 40% of the income is not able to produce a good or service for cheaper than a private company?

Lol. I love how you're so cocksure about this. Seems somewhat logical on the surface, I do agree. Socialism is a cute idea where those greedy capitalists aren't taking everything for themselves, right? Oddly, greed still exists even if you try and outlaw it. All you're doing in Socialism is restricting or completely banning competition with the state services. If the market (millions of individuals acting for their own self interests) isn't allowed to determine the natural price levels, then you're just giving that job to people who claim they know better than those individuals (centralizing the job of economic calculation). Being a person here discussing Bitcoin and decentralization, how the fuck do you not see that markets are decentralized and socialism is centralized? Communism just happens to be the most centralized form.

And simple idea: nationalize some companies but don't create a state monopoly. Hence if private companies are so much better they'll just crush the public ones.

Have you ever heard of Cooperatives (Co-ops)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

This would be somewhat similar to what I believe you're proposing. Great I'm all for that! Co-ops have been around for probably 100 years, I honestly don't know. The fact is though, that they are not "crushing" private companies. Co-ops seem to do well enough and I'm happy that people have the choice. That's called the free market!

But the fact is that I don't know a single company that was privatized and where the privatization was a good thing. The price never dropes, the quality of service doesn't rise but sure as hell the unemployment keep growing.

In a government run company they'll just keep propping it up with the use of tax dollars. It doesn't matter that economically speaking, it's a complete disaster. When you do that then of course you can keep your price low, but in the end you can't violate the laws of economics. People will just pay for it out of tax dollars. It's obfuscation and that's a classic strategy of Socialists, Environmentalists and the like. Quality wise you've got to be kidding if you can't understand how market competition improves quality! Look at Uber for example. Where I live we don't have Uber yet, but even the rumor that we will has been enough to get the local taxi cartels upping their game. Wow, all of a sudden they have taxi Apps. Funny how that works.

[craked5]

No there is none. Or at least nobody created another one. The violence of the system is here to compensate the greed and the individualism of humans.

Wow that is ignorance. So because there is none created that means that we should never try creating one, that is what you are basically saying.

Imagine if Edison or Tesla would have said that when they invented stuff. If a lightbulb doesnt exist, it means we should not try inventing one, lets all use candlesticks forever.

Meh? Don't you know how to read?
Or at least nobody created another one. != So because there is none created that means that we should never try creating one

But hey, you keep saying shit so that's not really a surprise ^^

[craked5]

Please explain me how a company with no need of huge profits and no greedy shareholders taking away on average 40% of the income is not able to produce a good or service for cheaper than a private company?

Lol. I love how you're so cocksure about this. Seems somewhat logical on the surface, I do agree. Socialism is a cute idea where those greedy capitalists aren't taking everything for themselves, right? Oddly, greed still exists even if you try and outlaw it. All you're doing in Socialism is restricting or completely banning competition with the state services. If the market (millions of individuals acting for their own self interests) isn't allowed to determine the natural price levels, then you're just giving that job to people who claim they know better than those individuals (centralizing the job of economic calculation). Being a person here discussing Bitcoin and decentralization, how the fuck do you not see that markets are decentralized and socialism is centralized? Communism just happens to be the most centralized form.

What? No! That's communism! Wtf are you talking about? Stop writing if you don't know what you're talking about!

[btcbug]

What? No! That's communism! Wtf are you talking about? Stop writing if you don't know what you're talking about!

Wrong. I'll clarify for you. I said: "...Socialism is restricting or completely banning competition with the state services"

Socialist economies are not all identical. In most, private enterprise is still allowed to compete, however people that opt for the private services are still forced to pay for the public services through taxes.

You're limiting the market when you tax for things like healthcare, schools, etc. because it is less likely that people will be willing to get private healthcare or education when they're already forced to pay for the public offerings through taxes. These private services then become only available to the wealthy who can justify paying twice.

You can have your Socialist oriented businesses in a free market and we won't force you to pay for anything else. Free markets respect individual choice. Socialists on the other hand, insist that everyone pay for their schemes because they are so well intentioned. The individual is demonized and made out to be an ignorant, greedy, fool with no concern for his fellow man. Socialists always no best!

[MedaR]

Ok so you care about people around you, fine. And you think there is no other way of doing that without violence and a system based on theft?

Because if you really care about people around you, you would not want them subjected to this violent system.

Socialism is by nature humane society. But those who become leaders soon establish themselves as dictators. Capitalism from start is unfair system, hidden dictatorship from certain power groups. Kapital don't like active participation only his purpose is gaining more value and in this task is merciless. This naturally lead to imperialism we called globalisation.
Capitalism and democracy have nothing common.
Democracy is a socialist game, totally furnished against freedom. The state always wins in every election.
Socialism is facing to the man and his progress and prosperity.
Capitalism only cares for money.

[phibay]

There is a very important distinction with socialism the economic model and socialism the governing model. I think a world of economic socialism to a certain degree is a good thing without the corrupt-able government given too much control.

[RealBitcoin]

Ok so you care about people around you, fine. And you think there is no other way of doing that without violence and a system based on theft?

Because if you really care about people around you, you would not want them subjected to this violent system.

Socialism is by nature humane society. But those who become leaders soon establish themselves as dictators. Capitalism from start is unfair system, hidden dictatorship from certain power groups. Kapital don't like active participation only his purpose is gaining more value and in this task is merciless. This naturally lead to imperialism we called globalisation.
Capitalism and democracy have nothing common.
Democracy is a socialist game, totally furnished against freedom. The state always wins in every election.
Socialism is facing to the man and his progress and prosperity.
Capitalism only cares for money.

So the socialists are not globalists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International


Besides capitalism  = evolution, human progress towards prosperity. If only socialists would let it happen, we would already be intergalactic.

[valta4065]

Besides capitalism  = evolution, human progress towards prosperity. If only socialists would let it happen, we would already be intergalactic.

Yeah sure. It's all thanks to capitalism only. Socialism countries never invent anything! Look at France: this country never invented anything!

[RealBitcoin]

Besides capitalism  = evolution, human progress towards prosperity. If only socialists would let it happen, we would already be intergalactic.

Yeah sure. It's all thanks to capitalism only. Socialism countries never invent anything! Look at France: this country never invented anything!

That is true, everythin in the soviet union that was invented, like half of the money was already stolen, so it could have been invented 10x faster in other places.

America kept up with many inventions since the 50's and there was 0 corruption because it was done from private money. But when it's done from public money, then usually half of it is stolen.

So that is a huge waste, and if you want to put watchdogs on the funds,then that costs you even more to police them.


So why not give up this whole silly socialist ideas, and embrace private property 100%.

[valta4065]

Besides capitalism  = evolution, human progress towards prosperity. If only socialists would let it happen, we would already be intergalactic.

Yeah sure. It's all thanks to capitalism only. Socialism countries never invent anything! Look at France: this country never invented anything!

That is true, everythin in the soviet union that was invented, like half of the money was already stolen, so it could have been invented 10x faster in other places.

Cause Soviet Union was socialist of course

America kept up with many inventions since the 50's and there was 0 corruption because it was done from private money. But when it's done from public money, then usually half of it is stolen.

So that is a huge waste, and if you want to put watchdogs on the funds,then that costs you even more to police them.


So why not give up this whole silly socialist ideas, and embrace private property 100%.

Don't know. Maybe because it doesn't work? In which area is USA the first exactly? Appart from number of prisonners (because your glorious free market transformed prisons in a market like any other) and number of people who believe in angels? (because your glorious freedom allows sects to operate freely in the USA)

[btcbug]

Cause Soviet Union was socialist of course

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union


Damnit some of you guys are very illiterate about your own beliefs, you should research it more before supporting it.

Let's also not forget the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party aka NAZI

Two sides of the same coin. Two wings of the same bird. However you want to say it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Communism vs Nazism = Socialists with conflicting ideals. That's all.

[MedaR]

Socialism was response from mass of people, unemployed poor and without hope. Same story was with "NAZY" after WW1, yes this is also (national) socialism, right wing.
I wonder which system will be best for American people after great economic collapse? When history repeat itself.
You are not aware how socialist movement was strong in US before WW2.

[Fatman3001]

Cause Soviet Union was socialist of course

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union


Damnit some of you guys are very illiterate about your own beliefs, you should research it more before supporting it.

Let's also not forget the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party aka NAZI

Two sides of the same coin. Two wings of the same bird. However you want to say it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Communism vs Nazism = Socialists with conflicting ideals. That's all.

The immensity of your ignorance is causing me physical pain.

[valta4065]

Cause Soviet Union was socialist of course

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union


Damnit some of you guys are very illiterate about your own beliefs, you should research it more before supporting it.

Let's also not forget the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party aka NAZI

Two sides of the same coin. Two wings of the same bird. However you want to say it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

Communism vs Nazism = Socialists with conflicting ideals. That's all.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH xD

Stop that! You going to kill me xD

You can't seriously be thinking this are you?

You can't have that amount of ignorance!

I'll try to help you. Even if you clearly don't deserve it.

Oxford definition of socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Ok now try to explain me how USSR or Nazis were socialists.

[Laosai]

America kept up with many inventions since the 50's and there was 0 corruption because it was done from private money. But when it's done from public money, then usually half of it is stolen.

Of course there was no corruption in science. You can't corrupt people who are already corrupted.

But you can make your whole population pay for it that's for sure!

Anyway, as long as you don't care seeing 80% of the next generation enable to get an education, I suppose capitalism is the best thing that can happen to you. You'll have cheap tv and food. And your new Iphone. What a glorious invention! True symbol of capitalism success! A useless 4 years late phone that is sold to everyone for 8 times the fabrication price.

[RealBitcoin]

Oxford definition of socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Ok now try to explain me how USSR or Nazis were socialists.

Your oxford definition fits exactly to gulags. Sorry but socialism is a mental ilness , or just plain evil people support it.

All the gulags and genocide that happened under those evil regimes is exactly the fruit of it.

People are dumb and support every kind of crazy idea: from UFO idiots ,to believers in shapeshifters, to ghost hunters, all kind of crazy people.

Socialists are the same kind of people.

[RealBitcoin]

America kept up with many inventions since the 50's and there was 0 corruption because it was done from private money. But when it's done from public money, then usually half of it is stolen.

Of course there was no corruption in science. You can't corrupt people who are already corrupted.

But you can make your whole population pay for it that's for sure!

Anyway, as long as you don't care seeing 80% of the next generation enable to get an education, I suppose capitalism is the best thing that can happen to you. You'll have cheap tv and food. And your new Iphone. What a glorious invention! True symbol of capitalism success! A useless 4 years late phone that is sold to everyone for 8 times the fabrication price.

I`m not specifically a supporter of consumerism, that is just a byproduct of dumb people.

Yes i`m capitalist, but i havent changed my phone in 6 years, i dont give a crap about trends, those are only for dumb people.

So it's not my fault that a dumb person meets capitalism and reacts to it accordingly.

It's like if you get a caveman and send him into a supermarket, of course he will behave dumb.

So it doesnt matter what system you have if you have dumb people everywhere, but at least make sure that the system itself is not evil.

[Laosai]

America kept up with many inventions since the 50's and there was 0 corruption because it was done from private money. But when it's done from public money, then usually half of it is stolen.

Of course there was no corruption in science. You can't corrupt people who are already corrupted.

But you can make your whole population pay for it that's for sure!

Anyway, as long as you don't care seeing 80% of the next generation enable to get an education, I suppose capitalism is the best thing that can happen to you. You'll have cheap tv and food. And your new Iphone. What a glorious invention! True symbol of capitalism success! A useless 4 years late phone that is sold to everyone for 8 times the fabrication price.

I`m not specifically a supporter of consumerism, that is just a byproduct of dumb people.

Yes i`m capitalist, but i havent changed my phone in 6 years, i dont give a crap about trends, those are only for dumb people.

So it's not my fault that a dumb person meets capitalism and reacts to it accordingly.

It's like if you get a caveman and send him into a supermarket, of course he will behave dumb.

So it doesnt matter what system you have if you have dumb people everywhere, but at least make sure that the system itself is not evil.

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

[valta4065]

Oxford definition of socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Ok now try to explain me how USSR or Nazis were socialists.

Your oxford definition fits exactly to gulags. Sorry but socialism is a mental ilness , or just plain evil people support it.

All the gulags and genocide that happened under those evil regimes is exactly the fruit of it.

People are dumb and support every kind of crazy idea: from UFO idiots ,to believers in shapeshifters, to ghost hunters, all kind of crazy people.

Socialists are the same kind of people.

No. Absolutely not. I don't even understand how you can say something like this. USSR was a dictatorship nothing else. the means of production weren't in the hand of the community but of a small elite!

[RealBitcoin]

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

And with regulation it encourages bribery and special privileges for the elite that bribe them.

Which will be a detriment to all other folks who have to follow the regulations that the bribed regulators give out.

[RealBitcoin]

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

Ok so which one is worse:

An unregulated bitcoin with a few scams here and there, probably not losing more than 1 million $ /week.

Or a heavily regulated fiat economy, that still manages to build up the largest central bank ponzi scheme ever, losing people trillions of $ /day.


Which one is more preferable?  Your very regulated ponzi pension scheme being wiped out in a few years after the next economic collapse, or having a few scam bitcoin investments that only lose a small % of money for investors.


I think it's obvious, an unregulated market is not perfect because humans are like that. But when you start regulating things, you are putting the same evil rules to be followed, just that now it becomes mandatory.


Sorry bur regulation is evil, things have to be free as they are, because wherever humans put their dirty hands on, it becomes more fucked up than before.

[RealBitcoin]

No. Absolutely not. I don't even understand how you can say something like this. USSR was a dictatorship nothing else. the means of production weren't in the hand of the community but of a small elite!

Ok tell me 1 single workers union or any other labor association that has not become eliticized.

I want to hear only 1 example where a bunch of people got together and could vote equally without anybody taking over or taking charge of the association.


Even when I was in college, when we had group decisions to take we all voted on it, but it has become clear that some more dominant voices quickly took charge of all of it.

The rise to power is instinctive in all humans. It cant even work in a small scale with 10 people, so how do you think it works out in large scale with billions of people?

Sorry but democracy as it is, is heavily flawed, and socialism is just an abomination of a few wishful thinkers who think they know better things.

[jaysabi]

What I meant that you didn't understand is that property is unique to the human species. Man is the first species that has had the capacity to understand the concept of property, therefore is the first species on Earth capable of owning property. The Earth is therefore man's for the taking. Wealth is not assigned by position of birth in non-caste systems. In America, you have the ability to move up. More can be done to lessen the obstacles, but trying to create equality through the use of force is immoral. When socialism can achieve its ends without the use of force, it will be a morally acceptable system, but of course, it cannot by its very nature.

If you are born rich you are born rich, caste is irrelevant.

In any capitalist society your caste is determined by birth, but not totally so,
your life choices are overwhelmingly limited by your birth caste. If you are born poor and for some reason you are not the victim of poor dietary habits, exposed to hideous psychological traumas, educated in a lacklustre way maybe you might grow up to be rich.
(children are victims, they cannot control their environment).

Morally acceptable force is everywhere.
Police is a socially acceptable community based force. Community based force is not inherently moral/immoral.

Ownership does not rely on inequality, if everyone has a toothbrush there is no issue.
But when ownership = inequality it becomes immoral.

To use community force to correct an immoral reality is not immoral.


your idea of force is poorly presented. It is a highly ambiguous concept that is portrayed in a one dimensional way to suggest it is immoral.
We use force when we chew our food.
We use force to protect our communities.
We use force to protect our personal being.
Force has no necessary moral/immoral position.

In some cultures, castes are almost a physical barrier. Certain members of of society are not permitted to interact with higher status members, and are not permitted to hold certain jobs. That system doesn't exist in America. America does not have a caste system. You can make an argument (unconvincingly) that our economic system is a type of defacto caste system, but that's 1) not the same, and 2) not an overly interesting debate to me because I've had it so many times.

So moving on to what I do find interesting:

The initiation of force is unjustifiable. The only morally acceptable force you will be able to list will be responses to people who unjustifiably initiate aggression. Police do not initiate force, they respond. When police are the ones who initiate force, the public rightly throws a conniption over it. Community-based force is immoral when it is initiated against life, liberty, or property, but never in defense of innocents.

The initiation of "community force" to correct an "immoral reality" (and I'm using quotes on that term because it's highly subjective) is indeed immoral. In every instance, the initiation of force is immoral.

Your example about using force to chew food is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you would even write that. As for your other examples, using force to protect a community is reactionary, not initiation. Force to protect a person is defensive, not initiation. And force by it's nature carries a moral position, you cannot use force without assigning a moral value to it. And most of our laws carry the implicit understanding that using force is only morally acceptable in defense of life, liberty, and property. It is the initiation of force that is immoral.

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

[jaysabi]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

[BARR_Official]

The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them. 

What land do you live on?

All your own property must be stolen too.

[pitham1]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

The government still cares about what happened 200 or 400 years ago. Why do you have affirmative action? It is because of slavery which existed in America a long time ago.

[Kingno.1]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

[Laosai]

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

And with regulation it encourages bribery and special privileges for the elite that bribe them.

Which will be a detriment to all other folks who have to follow the regulations that the bribed regulators give out.

Not with direct democracy as there is no longer an elite...

[Laosai]

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

Ok so which one is worse:

An unregulated bitcoin with a few scams here and there, probably not losing more than 1 million $ /week.

Or a heavily regulated fiat economy, that still manages to build up the largest central bank ponzi scheme ever, losing people trillions of $ /day.


Which one is more preferable?  Your very regulated ponzi pension scheme being wiped out in a few years after the next economic collapse, or having a few scam bitcoin investments that only lose a small % of money for investors.


I think it's obvious, an unregulated market is not perfect because humans are like that. But when you start regulating things, you are putting the same evil rules to be followed, just that now it becomes mandatory.


Sorry bur regulation is evil, things have to be free as they are, because wherever humans put their dirty hands on, it becomes more fucked up than before.

Or maybe a third choice of a currency regulated by its own users? Seems rather good to me...

[Laosai]

As far as I read, none of you capitalists/free market/whatever defenders have managed to propose a way to give free education to new generations. Which is the greatest victory of socialism with universal health care.

Free education means that children will be able to get highly educated independently from their parents situation. It's the guarantee of the future of a country. Even if it's hard to imagine in countries where you take a 250k$ loan to go to college...

[btcbug]

As far as I read, none of you capitalists/free market/whatever defenders have managed to propose a way to give free education to new generations. Which is the greatest victory of socialism with universal health care.

Free education means that children will be able to get highly educated independently from their parents situation. It's the guarantee of the future of a country. Even if it's hard to imagine in countries where you take a 250k$ loan to go to college...

There is always some mysterious sector of the economy where Socialists just cannot fathom a market solution. They claim certain things are "rights" that others shouldn't be allowed to profit from.

This is silly nonsense. If you're for healthcare and education being provided by government, why not food and shelter too? Would it not be a terrible thing for somebody to make a profit from someone's hunger or their need for shelter? There is no consistency in Socialism in this regard. If profits are greedy and therefore evil, then shouldn't it apply to every sector?


In a free market...

The only thing that matters to me is that it's done VOLUNTARILY.

There are many solutions to educating the poor. Just use your imagination. The only requirement is that you can't do it through taxation.


Either your idea is good, in which case it's easy to persuade people to help, donate, etc.

OR

Your idea sucks, in which case you need to resort to a system of taxes where people are forced to pay and unable to opt-out.


BTW... government student loans and excessive regulation of universities are responsible for todays outrageous tuitions. It's simple supply and demand. If everyone goes to university (demand increases), price must necessarily go up! Nothing is free! Government needs to stay out of education. Legislating that somebody needs 5 years of university to be working in Education is completely ridiculous. Fortunately access to information is so cheap now that practically anybody can learn anything on the Internet for next to nothing and now it's a matter of letting the market determine a persons qualifications, not some arbitrary standard set by government.

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid...the more dollars they issue to pay us for our work, the larger that debt becomes and the more we have to work to pay that debt off.  And who's reaping the rewards?  How is that not indenturement?

[cjmoles]

The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them. 

What land do you live on?

All your own property must be stolen too.

I came from a little tiny Indian reservation that has been deforested and mined before it was granted back to us....Come visit one of these reservations talking about "what is" and "what is not' owned by whom and see what people think in the real world.

[Farma]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

yes, with socializing we might be able to make people interested in bitcoin, and make them use it so as to make bitcoin prices rise, other than that we can multiply our friends to socialize

[GamingBro]

How much countries now living with socialist system? Are they rich? Here is a key.. Why everybody think that's socialism is good? but IMO it's so devitalized system

[Barnabe]

How much countries now living with socialist system? Are they rich? Here is a key.. Why everybody think that's socialism is good? but IMO it's so devitalized system

Most european countries define themselves as socialist without any problem. When you speak about socialism in US, people only think of goulags, communism and big old shoe factories ...

[MedaR]

Most european countries define themselves as socialist without any problem. When you speak about socialism in US, people only think of goulags, communism and big old shoe factories ...

I can't say this is only propaganda, but actually lot of these stories are fabricated from the west.
And main cause is to stop spending communism further. That is why America had more wars the any other
 country on the world.

[valta4065]

Most european countries define themselves as socialist without any problem. When you speak about socialism in US, people only think of goulags, communism and big old shoe factories ...

I can't say this is only propaganda, but actually lot of these stories are fabricated from the west.
And main cause is to stop spending communism further. That is why America had more wars the any other
 country on the world.

Ahah! I like this illustration ^^

[RealPhotoshoper]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

socialism is the key because people cannot life lonely,i saw on other thread that uploaded link about video on japan,and that video shown us how socialsm in japan built from child,from elementary school,that look awesome,i forget on what thread it was.

[jaysabi]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid...the more dollars they issue to pay us for our work, the larger that debt becomes and the more we have to work to pay that debt off.  And who's reaping the rewards?  How is that not indenturement?

Let's first just take your sentence and try to get you to reach a conclusion. "All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid." Let's just assume everything about that is true. So what? What exactly do you think that means? How do you think that makes you an indentured servant? Do you think the job you work is because of the central bank and not because you need to perform something of value to the economy in order to eat? Are you under the delusion that you work directly for the central bank, and that you don't have a choice in the matter? Do you think this "debt" means the money in your wallet is owed to someone, or is going to be called in to pay the "debt?" Do you think that the central bank issuing fiat is the reason you have to work or that the work you do is to pay back the central bank's debt? You must think these things, otherwise I can't wrap my head around what you think is the implication for this statement.

Now let's follow through on your premise to a conclusion. Money is issued by debt that cannot be repaid, according to you. So I guess first you're assuming that it needs to be, which isn't true. Fiat is issued through debt, and if they the issuer wanted to collect on the debt, all they'd be doing is devaluing the money they collect. Fiat money is a zero sum game because it is simply a representation of the value of the goods and services in an economy. So it doesn't matter how much money is issued, it doesn't change how much goods and services exist in an economy. If the "debt" can never be repaid, it doesn't matter. Fiat is only representative value anyway. So call in all the loans on the "debt," all the issuer would be doing is collecting worthless paper, and the more they collect the more worthless it is. This is why the debt never has to be repaid, or actually, can't be, and why it doesn't mean anything sinister for the economic system. Goods and services have value independent of fiat. Fiat doesn't give goods and services value, goods and services give fiat value, because fiat is just the means of trade.

[Oscoda]

The best thing is that you can do is tell people or friends or family that you can easy use Bitcoin and that it is also very safe.
I hope later that more people will have some Bitcoin and that they are going to use it. That will be so nice later.

[btcbug]

This is why the debt never has to be repaid, or actually, can't be, and why it doesn't mean anything sinister

I agree with most of what you're saying. The debt was never meant to be paid, nor will it ever be paid.

But the sinister part is that fiat money is highly centralized, the opposite of crypto-currencies. The currencies are left and trusted in the hands of government central banks who manipulate the supply and interest rates based on their own (Keynesian) ideas of how the economy should work. You can't just keep recklessly spending money and printing more of it without facing the consequences.

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid...the more dollars they issue to pay us for our work, the larger that debt becomes and the more we have to work to pay that debt off.  And who's reaping the rewards?  How is that not indenturement?

Let's first just take your sentence and try to get you to reach a conclusion. "All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid." Let's just assume everything about that is true. So what? What exactly do you think that means? How do you think that makes you an indentured servant? Do you think the job you work is because of the central bank and not because you need to perform something of value to the economy in order to eat? Are you under the delusion that you work directly for the central bank, and that you don't have a choice in the matter? Do you think this "debt" means the money in your wallet is owed to someone, or is going to be called in to pay the "debt?" Do you think that the central bank issuing fiat is the reason you have to work or that the work you do is to pay back the central bank's debt? You must think these things, otherwise I can't wrap my head around what you think is the implication for this statement.

Now let's follow through on your premise to a conclusion. Money is issued by debt that cannot be repaid, according to you. So I guess first you're assuming that it needs to be, which isn't true. Fiat is issued through debt, and if they the issuer wanted to collect on the debt, all they'd be doing is devaluing the money they collect. Fiat money is a zero sum game because it is simply a representation of the value of the goods and services in an economy. So it doesn't matter how much money is issued, it doesn't change how much goods and services exist in an economy. If the "debt" can never be repaid, it doesn't matter. Fiat is only representative value anyway. So call in all the loans on the "debt," all the issuer would be doing is collecting worthless paper, and the more they collect the more worthless it is. This is why the debt never has to be repaid, or actually, can't be, and why it doesn't mean anything sinister for the economic system. Goods and services have value independent of fiat. Fiat doesn't give goods and services value, goods and services give fiat value, because fiat is just the means of trade.

I don't have the patience to explain how fractional reserve banking works.  I just assumed that it was an understood practice when I entered this discussion. Here is an animation that does a pretty good job of illustrating the process in an easy to understand format: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM


Those who admire our Federal Reserve Banking system but hate the Internal Revenue Service would probably be surprised to know that the same group of bankers were behind the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1981/5/cj1n1-9.pdf) as were responsible for the creation of Fractional Reserve Banking (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-3).  Note the years they were signed into law, 1913.

[john2231]

for me socializing is the key to success because when we are socialising. we can be walktrought with someone thats not the same whith our standars. and also socializing is like being part of the 21st century.

[RobinHoodster]

Socialism is so important is this world getting to know new people and make your network even bigger. Without socialism most of us would not even have friends.
It is always good to getting to know new people because you will never know what that person can do for you.

[mrhelpful]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

If anything it burdens the state with that load of taxation..

Something which I dont think most people are willing to see a increase over.. vs capitalism you pay based on the bracket earned based on certain category youre suited.

[MedaR]

I don't know what people think when they think about socialism. Probably they are scared of work camps and living in communities. But this is not true, this is propaganda. We can see many US movies from 80s about communist Russia and in every movie communists are bad and, more like heirs of Fascist..

[Lokfar]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

If anything it burdens the state with that load of taxation..

Something which I dont think most people are willing to see a increase over.. vs capitalism you pay based on the bracket earned based on certain category youre suited.

With talking and promoting you can indeed tell your friends to use them Bitcoin and that will be good because they are also going to trust you and that is quite nice.
We have to promote Bitcoin more also and that would be nice for you and Bitcoin itself.

[Vaskiy]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

If anything it burdens the state with that load of taxation..

Something which I dont think most people are willing to see a increase over.. vs capitalism you pay based on the bracket earned based on certain category youre suited.

With talking and promoting you can indeed tell your friends to use them Bitcoin and that will be good because they are also going to trust you and that is quite nice.
We have to promote Bitcoin more also and that would be nice for you and Bitcoin itself.

Halving will be surely good this year as most of the bitcoiners are expecting the value to be hitting near $800 and even more, hoping bitcoin will cheer up all users and won't leave them in vain.

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

What happened 200 years ago does matter because systems based on corruption are ultimately corrupt....just like logic which is based on unsound reasoning.  One who benefits from the rewards of theft must someday reap the consequences of their actions in return....Those people who were stolen from are still with us, even in the face of attempted genocides....so, will somebody care when they stand up to take back what's theirs?

[mOgliE]

I just find it incredible how some people seems to really believe that "solutions can be found to educate the poors"...

No, or find a solution. Go on, try...

Regulation is not responsible for high price. You know what happens when you open a market and get rid of regulation? Price rises. That's exactly what's happening in whole Europe as we lower regulation. BEcause companies have no interest in lower prices, so they just get together and agree on a very high price that's all!

BElieving anything else is just denying reality...

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

And, may I ask: what is the state of Julius Caesar's empire today?  That is exactly my point!  If society ceases to care about their social structure, then their social structure will decay as a result.

[valta4065]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

And, may I ask: what is the state of Julius Caesar's empire today?  That is exactly my point!  If society ceases to care about their social structure, then their social structure will decay as a result.

Though I understand your point, there is still an amount of time from which nobody cares.
Otherwise should we all feel concerned about the genocide of the Neandertals? ^^

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

And, may I ask: what is the state of Julius Caesar's empire today?  That is exactly my point!  If society ceases to care about their social structure, then their social structure will decay as a result.

Though I understand your point, there is still an amount of time from which nobody cares.
Otherwise should we all feel concerned about the genocide of the Neandertals? ^^

Well, that's a whole other topic of debate.  But, I would maintain that the extinction of any species negatively decreases the diversity of our planet in ways which are only just recently being understood.  It may prove to be a big mistake in earth's future developments to have been unsympathetic to the state of the planet's biosphere.  That's a major portion of the problem with today's society.  We are much more concerned with personal short term gains than the long term effects of our actions.  We may be killing our planet, but we don't care because we'll be long dead before the effects of our greed are realized.

[valta4065]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

And, may I ask: what is the state of Julius Caesar's empire today?  That is exactly my point!  If society ceases to care about their social structure, then their social structure will decay as a result.

Though I understand your point, there is still an amount of time from which nobody cares.
Otherwise should we all feel concerned about the genocide of the Neandertals? ^^

Well, that's a whole other topic of debate.  But, I would maintain that the extinction of any species negatively decreases the diversity of our planet in ways which are only just recently being understood.  It may prove to be a big mistake in earth's future developments to have been unsympathetic to the state of the planet's biosphere.  That's a major portion of the problem with today's society.  We are much more concerned with personal short term gains than the long term effects of our actions.  We may be killing our planet, but we don't care because we'll be long dead before the effects of our greed are realized.

Well, the best way to deal with this is to not make children. Cause all that won't really affect us, it will affect only the next generations.
And you know, what's funny is that all major extinctions until now have proved to be extremely positive. Without major extinctions we would have much less diversity in the current biosphere!

[craked5]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

If anything it burdens the state with that load of taxation..

Something which I dont think most people are willing to see a increase over.. vs capitalism you pay based on the bracket earned based on certain category youre suited.

Hmm... No, that's socialism. It means people pay tax depending on their revenue. That's the base of socialism on the contrary!

[DashCoinDark]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

If anything it burdens the state with that load of taxation..

Something which I dont think most people are willing to see a increase over.. vs capitalism you pay based on the bracket earned based on certain category youre suited.

You can tell your friends and family about Bitcoin and than they will also use it because they trust you and that is prefect for Bitcoin and you are making it also more popular.
So we have to promote it more also so we can make Bitcoin more popular and also more acceptable and so we can spend it more.

[FabioDelcatto]

Socialism is key because without it you would not have any friends and I am sure that you would get fired at your job because you are not social.
Being social and interacting with people is so important these days.

[cr1776]

Well, if you like slavery, you'll love socialism. Just because you think you are going to be the master holding the whip over everyone else, doesn't mean it is true and certainly doesn't make it moral.

[OROBTC]

...

"Venezuela" is really all you need to know, just that one word, about Socialism.

Socialism works great until you run out of other people's money, as Margaret Thatcher once said (not exactly, but pretty close).  Socialist systems tend towards larger government, and a large government in almost all cases works very poorly.

Even Socialist paradises like Sweden and France are having problems, as their .govs have no problems about letting in so many Muslim rapefugees...

And I will scream if I hear that term Democratic Socialist again, Vladimir Lenin invented that term, Bernie.

[MingLee]

Socialism is far from being the key, and anyone who has actually taken a decent course in economics knows that it simply doesn't work.

Plus, in a capitalist system, there is far more innovation and people eager to seek higher educations where their work means that they do more and get paid better overall. In a proper socialist or communist society, mediocrity is rewarded, and the outliers are punished. Those with better educations or better and more advanced systems of working do more work yet receive roughly the same amount as everyone else, and the guy down the street giving out your bread gets maybe slightly less than someone with a Ph.D in astrophysics. In a pure socialist system, both would receive exactly the same amount.

Socialism and communism stagnate society over time, and merely drain the resources of the Earth and significantly slow down technological progress. Unless there are people (and a fair number at that) willing to receive a higher education and try to innovate (solely for the good of the state) and do more work than their comrades, socialism and communism being the only systems in the world would literally end up causing the extinction of the human race. At least with the desire to be better with capitalism, there is a higher chance of some sort of continuation of humanity.

[zimmah]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

eh no,

innovation would be spread more freely, and instead of worrying about "how can i make a profit out of this, and how can i protect my ideas without having someone steal them" scientists and engineers would work together for the greater good.

socialism has its problems (mostly because of corruption and greed of the controlling parties, mind you. but it's still better than capitalism in many regards.

and standstill of innovation is absolutely not one of the problems of socialism.

[trollercoaster]

Lmao socialism is ALL about stealing, you complete fucking imbecile.

[btcbug]

Lmao socialism is ALL about stealing, you complete fucking imbecile.

LOL! Very well said sir.

Socialism needs to be laughed out of the room in the same way as religion.

[Altynbekova]

Socialism means stagnation and a standstill of innovation.

Socialism is key because getting to know new people and share your ideas with each other is what it is about. You will need to talk to some people in order to come on the same level of thinking because of this many great things happened like partnerships being created.

[Jordan23]

Socialism uses the force of government. Force is immoral. That's it kiddies.

[Barnabe]

Socialism uses the force of government. Force is immoral. That's it kiddies.

They consider the state as a "big daddy", always acting for your own sake because you might not know what you are doing.
In their logic, it's not a power play, they are helping you.

[hermanhs09]

Lmao socialism is ALL about stealing, you complete fucking imbecile.

well i think you are  just simply over-excited with capitalism.
Socialism isn't about stealing but it is about spreading the good all over the people,but being fair at the moment.
The idea is good,but unluckily this cannot work in the modern days.

[alplaxxx]

yes socialism is the key, if the people in the government are not corrupt, can give the benefits of equality for the people of there countries, socialism as “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” Socialist systems have a number of policy tools to help them achieve these goals
Socialism is a type of economic system that is highly controversial all around the world. In a socialistic society the government owns all of the industries, which means that they completely control them as well. They determine prices, amount of production that happens, and just about everything else that has to do with the economy. The main goal of this is to bring equality to the people, help manage the uneven distribution of wealth, and take away the class divide.

[Mauser]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

A democracy with people voting on every law and constitution would not work. How can you expect a voter to be informed and form an opinion about every topic? Imagine you have a long day at work, just tired to get home and then you should vote on the future of the country?

If you have  referendum every day people would be even more subject to populism, extremist and lies.

[wiked1]

How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.Any "ism" ends the word despotism and are usually reserved only for the ignorant masses who live in the herd and think like pack animals looking for their next great leader to tell them what to do.Think for yourselves and face the consequences but know them in advance.We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken,or a system fails society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker or the decisionmakers or legislators.Each individual is accountable for his actions and freedom doesn not come without risk.

[Barnabe]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

A democracy with people voting on every law and constitution would not work. How can you expect a voter to be informed and form an opinion about every topic? Imagine you have a long day at work, just tired to get home and then you should vote on the future of the country?

If you have  referendum every day people would be even more subject to populism, extremist and lies.

Well If the population was informed and smart, they would not vote on subjects they don't understand. But we all know that people having the most opinions are the more ignorant ones. 

[Laosai]

Socialism uses the force of government. Force is immoral. That's it kiddies.

Cause capitalism isn't?
What's the difference between the state using force and people using force?

[th3nolo]

I'm From Venezuela who is a socialism.. country and what i get all is a corruption and my money has no value, You want to know the bad thing most of the people are working for like..  30$ usd at month, yeah this is the slave country of the 21 century, socialism is the key holy shit man, how you can steal the largest income from petroleum and you make your country worse and worse every year ?

Stop taking that shit, i'm no saying capitalism is the key but socialism isn't.

[groll]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

In any kind of government the only thing that's makes it a failure is the attitude and morality of leaders. It's the same with socialism, if it becomes a tool for greed then a country will become more poor and have a huge debt while the corrupt get richer. Even if we change the world's currency into bitcoin and all countries become one, as long as greed and selfishness is present still the people will suffer.

[wiked1]

There is no one solution because all human beings are individuals who differ in many ways so one persons upopia may be one persons idea of dystopia.Systems of conformity/uniformity should never be forced upon either through subversion,coercion or through force because the world is not made in this way.Diversity is the key to and all cultures,races,nations etc etc should plot their own course but their citizens should have the freedom of movement to choose by either staying or leaving.This is freedom of choice and there may be those who disagree with freedom of movement but explain that to a soul who flees tyranny and is told they cannot enter.Nation states should adopt their own policies autonomously without interference but they should not be allowed to engage in international affairs if they do not have freedom of movement that protects those who flee tyrants.

[Barnabe]

I'm From Venezuela who is a socialism.. country and what i get all is a corruption and my money has no value, You want to know the bad thing most of the people are working for like..  30$ usd at month, yeah this is the slave country of the 21 century, socialism is the key holy shit man, how you can steal the largest income from petroleum and you make your country worse and worse every year ?

Stop taking that shit, i'm no saying capitalism is the key but socialism isn't.

Since you are from Venezuela, I have a question for you.

Is bitcoin useful in your country ? Is it easy to use them/change them ? Is it legal to do so ?

[xht]

I'm From Venezuela who is a socialism.. country and what i get all is a corruption and my money has no value, You want to know the bad thing most of the people are working for like..  30$ usd at month, yeah this is the slave country of the 21 century, socialism is the key holy shit man, how you can steal the largest income from petroleum and you make your country worse and worse every year ?

Stop taking that shit, i'm no saying capitalism is the key but socialism isn't.

Since you are from Venezuela, I have a question for you.

Is bitcoin useful in your country ? Is it easy to use them/change them ? Is it legal to do so ?

Do you ask about legalized so in your country bitcoin is legal, I mean government not banned or telling to their civilian to beware when use bitcoin.

[toptek12]

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

that why im posting in it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Socialism is about to happen in the US come Nov there is nothing wrong with Socialism ....

[toptek12]

groll exactly . look at what trump is doing to the US an now he got Kavanaugh in the high courts who will cover trumps ass and the protests are not so much about Kavanaugh sexual assault charges, it's his lying and what he can do to the US that is the Problem he maybe the one to stop trumps investigation so if that happens we will never know how bad off the US is or get ready for a shit storm that is about to start the world has never seen no one can stop but god unless we the people which btw is socialism get control back in Nov. The US is capitalism no mixing the two . to me the US is most Corrupt country in the world including Venezuela if you must Venezuela as a excuse to knock socialism, the US has been a full capitalist country sense President Reagan don't any one go there the US isn't a full capitalist country when it is . and has been sense and Bash JR .  declared the US a capitalist country, they just haven't been able to take out a few things yet because of a few Honest loving people that still live in the US that out number the evil.
 
Ive meet a few trump follower they are so clueless .
The other worry and this could happen they could make socialism illegal and then take away SS medicare etc which is socialism sigh . because socialism can work in the US and it did/does to some extent before President Reagan an still does to some extent.

In any kind of government the only thing that's makes it a failure is the attitude and morality of leaders. It's the same with socialism, if it becomes a tool for greed then a country will become more poor and have a huge debt while the corrupt get richer. Even if we change the world's currency into bitcoin and all countries become one, as long as greed and selfishness is present still the people will suffer.

[PlusOne88]

Actually even how you would like socialism to be considered good, it will still fail. Look at how socialist countries have become? It is not that socialism is bad but there will always be inequality among people. People are have a tendency to be greedy and this makes them do what is not good. No single government works successfully even democracy fails, but what makes it good over socialism is that people are always free to deviate from the other such that they can do what they want and live as free as they want. Rather than make thing so absolute just letting things be, is the spirit of democracy. In a socialist country the blockchains you say may no longer be so much needed. Because everybody is to be equal we don't have to trade and no need for cryptocurrency. Do really intend it to be like these? I think many would surely like the fun of trading cryptocurrencies.

[maculeth]

socialism is very important. imagine if all the rich people in the world have a high social spirit, all poor people will be helped. and also corporations from natural disasters, will certainly be helped. precisely the country will be destroyed if there is no socialism. if the government says that socialism is nonsense, then are they able to help all the poor in their country? not. they have never been able to. then those who have an obligation to help are people who are rich and have a high social spirit.

[spongegar]

I'm also very partial to socialism. I like the idealogy of us almost having a hive mentality on any hiven country. But the fact still remains that everyone is corruptable and we are prone to looking out for ourselves and only ourselves. I also would like to see everyone in the community to be actually working and not just asking the government money.

[Robbio]

You should not complain about your country's physique. Any form of physique has its own flaws. You must know how many people envy French socialism. The so-called democracy is wrong. This is the result of a group of people fighting against another group. Politics has always been the brightest and darkest. You should reflect on yourself, not blame your country. You must know that peace is the most stable state. Is your Mark Long too young? Maybe it is more able to get the support of young people. In France, where it is not as good as Italy, French culture has split.

[squog]

When we are first taught about socialism, I thought it was way better than capitalism. But it will be ideal if everyone actually works hard to achieve a single goal. If not, and some of it's citizens become lazy or corrupt then this economic system will collapse. I guess any economic system be it dictatorship or what not, if the execution fails then it will ultimately be doomed.

[Faeton]

Socialism plays on beautiful slogans about peace, fraternity, mutual aid, justice. However, as a rule, double standards always arise in socialist countries. There, in the name of the people, a lot of restrictions are introduced for a free person, moreover, in the name of the people, there, as a rule, they destroy a lot of ordinary people. I lived under socialism — enough, I don’t want to return to it anymore.

[Spaffin]

Lmao socialism is ALL about stealing, you complete fucking imbecile.

well i think you are  just simply over-excited with capitalism.
Socialism isn't about stealing but it is about spreading the good all over the people,but being fair at the moment.
The idea is good,but unluckily this cannot work in the modern days.

If we take the USSR as the main socialist state, then it collapsed partly due to the fact that even in the economy there were official statistics on how well socialism was developing, and unofficial statistics, which approximately corresponded to reality. And so it was in everything. Double morality, for the public one thing, but for their surroundings another. And how many millions of people were shot in the name of the spread of good and justice? And how many millions are destroyed by hunger? I lived under socialism in the USSR and I know what I write. You just need to develop a society and spread good and justice, and the ideological superstructure is not needed for this.

[Hydrogen]

Under capitalism every person in society has freedom to start their own business, innovate, patent an idea and otherwise change civilization for the better. Under socialism an extremely limited number of people in government have the freedom to do things like start businesses. Capitalism is intrinsically a more effective and efficient system in terms of its greater capacity to harness the collective intelligence, imagination, resourcefulness and creativity of a population.

Unlike capitalism, socialism does not reward qualities like intelligence, competence or efficiency. In socialist states, the most intelligent, talented or capable individuals do not wind up running things, contrary to competitive free market business in a private sector.

In the final analysis, socialism has intrinsic shortcomings which make it an inferior system to capitalism. Socialism also is less effective at distributing wealth or property in a fair and impartial manner.

The advantages of capitalism could be illustrated in the trade war between china and the US. America's economy will be empowered by its citizens having freedom under capitalism to start businesses like google, apple, microsoft and so on. China will have issues there due to its hard socialist authoritarian policies. An example of this is china's government making an attempt to oppress imagination and the type of out-of-the-box innovative thinking which leads to progress. An example of this is one of their recent policies where they tried to discourage stories relating to science fiction. A polar opposite to this policy is japan which has increased its technical ability by encouraging science fiction, anime and having a culture that has many different stories which make youth interested in engineering, science and technology.

I think china will serve as a good example of how socialism and socialist regimes do not reward intelligence or good decision making in determining its leadership roles. Already one might say they have made many mistakes in negotiating trade tariffs with the united states and china's economic growth will suffer significantly as a result.

[dlhezter]

I'm also very partial to socialism. I like the idealogy of us almost having a hive mentality on any hiven country. But the fact still remains that everyone is corruptable and we are prone to looking out for ourselves and only ourselves. I also would like to see everyone in the community to be actually working and not just asking the government money.

I agree, most of the time, Socialism helps me to determine which people I must join with to make myself comfortable and versed with the present market , also there is a fact that by socialism can contribute to your decisions towards your goals in crypto investments.

[Iwillgotothemoon]

Socialism is not the key, here is why:

1. There is no incentive for there to be any entrepreneurship or incentive to want to get better and higher-paying jobs if you are only going to receive a marginally better salary and get the majority of the rest of it taxed.

2. Technological and economic progress is stagnated, France is currently 6-8th largest GDP in the world (Over the past century), clocking in at roughly $2 Trillion in 2015, yet the IMF projects it falling off further to the #10 spot by 2020. The french have also made only a few technological innovations that are useful for the world, many "innovations" during the last 60 years have been beauty/fashion related or merely an improvement on an existing idea.

3. Back to point #1, socialism rewards mediocrity. Everyone gets a pat-on-the-back and gets money (In some form) for not being exceptional or striving ahead of everyone else. It is like kindergarten, socialism is giving everyone a participation award, and those who place first get the same trophy.

4. Capitalism doesn't tell you what to do. The richest people in the world don't force you to buy anything, do anything, or make anything. Everyone is free to their own interests, and can achieve whatever they want to with work and actually trying to strive ahead.

5. Free market, or, at least, a more open market. Resources are far more efficiently used in a free market, as the people can adapt to the changing needs and wants of the population. Centrally planned economies (A product of extreme socialism) are very inefficient, as the Soviet Union shows.

6. The goal of socialism is to create a utopia, but every personal has a different perception and thus it can never really be achieved. The person who must determine what this utopia is would be the state, with a theoretical consensus. This infringes on other people's capacity to fulfil their own interests, and if the state decides that video games are an illegal source of entertainment because they hurt productivity, that wrecks someone else's view of utopia.



Now for all the hate I'm giving socialism, it does have a place in the right situation.



For example, if/when AI takes over most jobs, basic incomes distributed by the state will be a necessity because we cannot have >4 billion people all working white-collar jobs, or, at the very least, there is very little infrastructure to support that for right now.

As the current world economy goes, however, socialism is not the best system. More things have to change for it to be the best system.

It is agreed that this socialism has nothing to do with it. We must know that democracy must be false. Democracy is only a contradiction of the bourgeoisie.

[perfect999]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

Some people don’t know what they are saying here. Socialism is really good and has lots of advantages, but we are also aware of the fact that anything with an advantage will also have a disadvantage, but the question is which would be worst, so we go for the ones with lesser disadvantages. Socialism is one of the reasons why workers are longer being exploited and it also helps to eliminates poverty.

[astik1]

well I have to agree with your opinion about socialism, especially the part of greed and corruption which will end socialism. Living in a socialist country, I have to say corruption is at its worst. Everything needs some money to get it done fast and billions are stolen by corrupted officials

[jademaxxiss012]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

With all the explanations I read about socialism to which the country where you live in stated as an example is not that convincing. It is not a form of government that affects the countries economy but instead the decision making of a leader and how to eradicate corruption. Corruption is the number 1 reason why a country will go down. There are always greedy people everywhere but there are some countries also to where corruption was minimize and that is Japan. I should be hoping one day I could go transfery residency to that countey especially in tokyo. The number  safest city in the world.

[Naida_BR]

Socialism plays on beautiful slogans about peace, fraternity, mutual aid, justice. However, as a rule, double standards always arise in socialist countries. There, in the name of the people, a lot of restrictions are introduced for a free person, moreover, in the name of the people, there, as a rule, they destroy a lot of ordinary people. I lived under socialism — enough, I don’t want to return to it anymore.

I can see what you mean, but you have to admit that the truth lies somewhere in between. Both Socialism and capitalism have some advantages and disadvantages. I think that the best way to create a system based on the advantages of both socialism and capitalism and not just stick with the one system or the other.

[biskitop]

because to start something, requires extensive knowledge. so socialization is very important to avoid misunderstanding in doing something. for example traffic information, so road users never make the same mistake. it also applies to anything, including the crypto industry.

[fauzan Ichsan]

because to start something, requires extensive knowledge. so socialization is very important to avoid misunderstanding in doing something. for example traffic information, so road users never make the same mistake. it also applies to anything, including the crypto industry.

by joining a group, we will easily get information, so there will be a lot of news that we can receive. besides that by sharing with friends, it is useful to determine our steps. but remember, decisions remain in your hands, there must be a reason for an action

[Tervelatuk]

because to start something, requires extensive knowledge. so socialization is very important to avoid misunderstanding in doing something. for example traffic information, so road users never make the same mistake. it also applies to anything, including the crypto industry.

by joining a group, we will easily get information, so there will be a lot of news that we can receive. besides that by sharing with friends, it is useful to determine our steps. but remember, decisions remain in your hands, there must be a reason for an action

we can share each other by joining in multiple telegram group.there will much people that have more knowledge than us.and that's good place for us to improve our knowledge.