It can never work on its own, because it relys on human nature for its success.
And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.
A mixed system is the only way forwards for a civilised society.
[This message was edited by eek on March 20, 2004 at 07:56 PM.]
And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.
A mixed system is the only way forwards for a civilised society.
[This message was edited by eek on March 20, 2004 at 07:56 PM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
It can never work on its own, because it relys on human nature for its success.
And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i agree with what you said here...which is why socialism will never work. capitalism does work the best but, it is a far from perfect system.
greedy, self-center humans acting in there own best interest is what we have to work with. there are a few exceptions out there but, by and large, most people are selfish and act only in their best interest. the free enterprise system is the one that thrives the best with people acting in their own best interest.
my take is that, the only real chance the "have-nots" of this world has is the generousity of the haves. i am not talking about taxation...i am talking about charity.
It can never work on its own, because it relys on human nature for its success.
And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i agree with what you said here...which is why socialism will never work. capitalism does work the best but, it is a far from perfect system.
greedy, self-center humans acting in there own best interest is what we have to work with. there are a few exceptions out there but, by and large, most people are selfish and act only in their best interest. the free enterprise system is the one that thrives the best with people acting in their own best interest.
my take is that, the only real chance the "have-nots" of this world has is the generousity of the haves. i am not talking about taxation...i am talking about charity.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
eek, thats the very reason why socialism dosen't its against all human instincts.
Which is why capitalism does so well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
eek, thats the very reason why socialism dosen't its against all human instincts.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blue edwards:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
It can never work on its own, because it relys on human nature for its success.
And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i agree with what you said here...which is why socialism will never work. capitalism does work the best but, it is a far from perfect system.
greedy, self-center humans acting in there own best interest is what we have to work with. there are a few exceptions out there but, by and large, most people are selfish and act only in their best interest. the free enterprise system is the one that thrives the best with people acting in their own best interest.
my take is that, the only real chance the "have-nots" of this world has is the generousity of the haves. i am not talking about taxation...i am talking about charity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find it strange that you agree about humans within those terms of reference, and yet you want a system that relies on their benevolence and goodness..?
Knowing full well what you are dealing with, what are your chances from a betting perspective?
Is that not kinda naiive or un-christian even, because from reading your own post, it looks like you know darn well that charity is going to be a loser.
I'll take taxes over charity, they're a lot more reliable.
Charity is just a sticking plaster system to hide the worst poverty from the haves.
In Victorian times much of it was instigated by the amount of disease that was transmitted to the wealthier classes by the proximity of the poverty stricken masses.
i.e. Personal survival motivated 'benevolence'.
[This message was edited by eek on March 21, 2004 at 05:14 AM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by eek:
It can never work on its own, because it relys on human nature for its success.
And humans are a bunch of cheating lying scheming exploiting thieving backstabbing monkeys.
Which is why capitalism does so well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i agree with what you said here...which is why socialism will never work. capitalism does work the best but, it is a far from perfect system.
greedy, self-center humans acting in there own best interest is what we have to work with. there are a few exceptions out there but, by and large, most people are selfish and act only in their best interest. the free enterprise system is the one that thrives the best with people acting in their own best interest.
my take is that, the only real chance the "have-nots" of this world has is the generousity of the haves. i am not talking about taxation...i am talking about charity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find it strange that you agree about humans within those terms of reference, and yet you want a system that relies on their benevolence and goodness..?
Knowing full well what you are dealing with, what are your chances from a betting perspective?
Is that not kinda naiive or un-christian even, because from reading your own post, it looks like you know darn well that charity is going to be a loser.
I'll take taxes over charity, they're a lot more reliable.
Charity is just a sticking plaster system to hide the worst poverty from the haves.
In Victorian times much of it was instigated by the amount of disease that was transmitted to the wealthier classes by the proximity of the poverty stricken masses.
i.e. Personal survival motivated 'benevolence'.
[This message was edited by eek on March 21, 2004 at 05:14 AM.]
eek, i understand what you are saying. my personal belief is that charity is the only answer. humans are corrupt and self-centered. the same corrupt human nature that causes people to be selfish causes many different problems in a socialist state. if you tax them more, the ones being taxed find ways to lessen the burden and the ones benefiting from the tax abuse the benefits. not to mention that corrupt humans are in charge of both the taxing and the distributing of the tax monies.
it is true that charity goes against human nature. but, the few that have it in their hearts to give to the less-fortunate people give out of a pure motive. this results in a need getting met without the government. this is more effective and it produces two things taxes cannot:
1) it makes the recipient much more grateful
2) it makes the giver feel like he/she is making a difference.
now, i agree that to depend solely on charity is probably not practical. but, i think it is the only real answer. what we need is not more taxes...we need more charitable people.
it is true that charity goes against human nature. but, the few that have it in their hearts to give to the less-fortunate people give out of a pure motive. this results in a need getting met without the government. this is more effective and it produces two things taxes cannot:
1) it makes the recipient much more grateful
2) it makes the giver feel like he/she is making a difference.
now, i agree that to depend solely on charity is probably not practical. but, i think it is the only real answer. what we need is not more taxes...we need more charitable people.
Most charitable state in the US is Utah.About 80% conservative or republican...one of the least taxed states.
Least Charitable Mass. 80% democrat or or left wing.....one of thee most taxed states.
John Querry donated 0$ to charity in '91 and '95...he is skiing this week in his 5 million dollar shack in Idaho this week..."the 2nd black president".
Least Charitable Mass. 80% democrat or or left wing.....one of thee most taxed states.
John Querry donated 0$ to charity in '91 and '95...he is skiing this week in his 5 million dollar shack in Idaho this week..."the 2nd black president".
"If you want to live in a socialist country, you have a number of countries to choose from. Go and have fun."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not for now, thanks. There's enough of a socialist attitude here in the U.S. these days that I'd rather nurture it here and move my own country more that way in areas where it's needed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not for now, thanks. There's enough of a socialist attitude here in the U.S. these days that I'd rather nurture it here and move my own country more that way in areas where it's needed.
I noticed in your reply you used the word conservitive instead of right wing and left wing instead of liberal.Clever play on words,the bushies have taught you well.I am sure the republicans all live in tarpaper shacks and dont own a set of skis,and oh yes,Utah is the garden spot of the Americas.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barman:
Not for now, thanks. There's enough of a socialist attitude here in the U.S. these days that I'd rather nurture it here and move my own country more that way in areas where it's needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bullshit. You talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. That's my point.
Not for now, thanks. There's enough of a socialist attitude here in the U.S. these days that I'd rather nurture it here and move my own country more that way in areas where it's needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bullshit. You talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. That's my point.
American...of course not,a typical socialist,waits for sombody to do it for him.
Socialism is like a 5 man bicycle.2 guys do the peddleing while the other 3 bitch about how slow their going.
Like junkies feeding off everybody and everything until it devours themselves.
These fxckin assholes blame everything on corporations when they don't realise they are the corporations....their the ones who buy the cars,computers,oil,steel.big macs,nikes and coca cola...but do you think any of these dildos would go with out?...I don't think so...Corporations are only corporations because people buy their products...I remeber back in the early 70's we had a bunch of communes around....the sad part about it is these communist came to the realisation they had to get up in the AM and work in the gardens to feed themselves....woops! so much for reality.
Socialism is like a 5 man bicycle.2 guys do the peddleing while the other 3 bitch about how slow their going.
Like junkies feeding off everybody and everything until it devours themselves.
These fxckin assholes blame everything on corporations when they don't realise they are the corporations....their the ones who buy the cars,computers,oil,steel.big macs,nikes and coca cola...but do you think any of these dildos would go with out?...I don't think so...Corporations are only corporations because people buy their products...I remeber back in the early 70's we had a bunch of communes around....the sad part about it is these communist came to the realisation they had to get up in the AM and work in the gardens to feed themselves....woops! so much for reality.
The former Soviet Union is a perfect example how socialism doesn't work. The reason is that there isn't an adequate distribution of wealth. At the end, 98% of the population will receive an equal share while 2% composed of the ruling class have the opportunity to receive a lavish and luxury lifestyle with the best of everything.
Regarding Cuba and Castro and Che Guevara's revolution. If they fought for the people's best interest. Than why has their been a massive exodus of Cubans to the free world? The reason why is that they know that they can have a better lifestyle where they can succeed in life in a capitalistic society. They obviously cannot under Castro unless they become a member of his party or inner circle.
Regarding Cuba and Castro and Che Guevara's revolution. If they fought for the people's best interest. Than why has their been a massive exodus of Cubans to the free world? The reason why is that they know that they can have a better lifestyle where they can succeed in life in a capitalistic society. They obviously cannot under Castro unless they become a member of his party or inner circle.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Regarding Cuba and Castro and Che Guevara's revolution. If they fought for the people's best interest. Than why has their been a massive exodus of Cubans to the free world? The reason why is that they know that they can have a better lifestyle where they can succeed in life in a capitalistic society. The obviously cannot under Castro unless they become a member of his party or inner circle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is exactley the reason why the Cubans in Miami is a strong republican voting block.
Which is exactley the reason why the Cubans in Miami is a strong republican voting block.
A: Bullshit. You talk the talk, but won't walk the walk.
BM: What do you mean by that statement? What 'talk' do I not back up with 'walk'?
As for the notion that the Soviet Union 'failed' with socialism, their failures likely had much more to do with their imperialistic foreign policy than with economics.
When a country invades other sovereign nations, takes them over, and then attempts to maintain occupying military control, they are doomed. It can't be sustained economically.
No country in the past 100 years has successfully maintained military control of another for any appreciable length of time.
BM: What do you mean by that statement? What 'talk' do I not back up with 'walk'?
As for the notion that the Soviet Union 'failed' with socialism, their failures likely had much more to do with their imperialistic foreign policy than with economics.
When a country invades other sovereign nations, takes them over, and then attempts to maintain occupying military control, they are doomed. It can't be sustained economically.
No country in the past 100 years has successfully maintained military control of another for any appreciable length of time.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barman:
What 'talk' do I not back up with 'walk'?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The talk that you would prefer a socialist society, when you have never lived in one, therefore you don't really know what it is like and what you'd be sacrificing.
What 'talk' do I not back up with 'walk'?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The talk that you would prefer a socialist society, when you have never lived in one, therefore you don't really know what it is like and what you'd be sacrificing.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A mixed system is the only way forwards for a civilised society <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hahahahahahaha,
yea good one, still waiting for the last singnificant contribution made to mankind by a socialist country.
any day now eekie.
Hahahahahahaha,
yea good one, still waiting for the last singnificant contribution made to mankind by a socialist country.
any day now eekie.
