Choking On Socialism

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Greece does not report racial breakdowns, but the vast majority of people are ethnically Greek (well over 90%).

All the caveats about Wikipedia (although the quote is sourced to a text book):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorities_in_Greece

Interesting. Thanks.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I've never seen conservatives add that caveat when saying the US is on course to be like Greece or Spain.

Good question. Are Greece and Spain homogeneous? In culture as well as race?

I do not know.

However, I do know this; socialism has very, very few success stories. If lack of cultural and racial homogeneity is not the right reason for it usually not working, then there are some other explanations.

The point is that it rarely seems to work

[Burke]

Socialism is a system in which productive people are forced to serve unproductive people.

Essentially, just another kind of slave society.

Where would all these supposedly successful nations be without all the innovations and advances made in capitalistic nations?

Not bragging about much, you can be sure.

[108]

Originally Posted by Burke

Socialism is a system in which productive people are forced to serve unproductive people.

Essentially, just another kind of slave society.

Where would all these supposedly successful nations be without all the innovations and advances made in capitalistic nations?

Not bragging about much, you can be sure.

and what was the economic system with the real kind of slavery?

its hard to take your shtick seriously when you speak no ills of Capitalism

there is a balance to be met between the socialistic aspect of Government, and a Capitalistic economy...some are doing it quite well, but i'd say we have neither side right at this current time

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

Socialism is a system in which productive people are forced to serve unproductive people.

Essentially, just another kind of slave society.

That's sort of interesting, since you basically just described the system created by the Founding Dads. Think about it. Productive negro slaves were forced to serve wealthy, old, unproductive men on their farms and plantations. After all, if these old men weren't unproductive, they wouldn't have needed negro slaves to do their work for them and there wouldn't have been an economic need for legalized chattel slavery. The Founding Dads essentially replaced the slave society of the English Crown with their own version of a slave society, which they were in a position to derive full benefit of.

By the standard you've set here, the United States of America was founded as a socialist slave-state nation, right?

[Burke]

Actually, Charts, the slave system the Founders created was more a case of very unproductive people being forced to serve far more productive ones.

Otherwise, I've expressed my views on this here many times before.

Why don't you tell us why there would be no slavery in your anarchical society?

And what would be done about it if there were.

[Burke]

No fuel for busses in Naples, Italy.

http://wap.myfoxny.com/w/main/story/83863917/

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Good question. Are Greece and Spain homogeneous? In culture as well as race?

I do not know.

However, I do know this; socialism has very, very few success stories. If lack of cultural and racial homogeneity is not the right reason for it usually not working, then there are some other explanations.

The point is that it rarely seems to work

First, we have already gone over the fact that Greece is fairly homogeneous, with over 90% of the country being listed as "Greek." The only major minority group appears to be Albanians at approximately 5% of the population.

Second, define a socialist system then. To some extent, you are relying on grouping together vastly different systems. As with most things, economic systems are not dichotomous but are closer to a spectrum, in which some markets are designed with no profit motives and others are designed with profit motives. As I pointed out, Sweden, a country with a fairly even income distribution and a substantial social safety net is also home to very large corporations with a profit motive.

The United States is also on this spectrum, as we have non-proft motivated education, transportation, and single payer health systems for elderly and the poor.

So define socialist versus non-socialist.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

First, we have already gone over the fact that Greece is fairly homogeneous, with over 90% of the country being listed as "Greek."

I'll bet 90% of the citizens in the US ar elisted a "Americans!"

Second, define a socialist system then.

Any simple google search can supply that

To some extent, you are relying on grouping together vastly different systems. As with most things, economic systems are not dichotomous but are closer to a spectrum, in which some markets are designed with no profit motives and others are designed with profit motives.

I will agree with that. That said, as government is able to exert more and more control over an economy, the more socialistic it becomes. And history tells us, then the economy in that country usually becomes less effective and less vibrant.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I'll bet 90% of the citizens in the US ar elisted a "Americans!"



Any simple google search can supply that



I will agree with that. That said, as government is able to exert more and more control over an economy, the more socialistic it becomes. And history tells us, then the economy in that country usually becomes less effective and less vibrant.

I think you need to clarify gov't "control." The Chinese gov't has much control over its capitalist economy. Increased control would only be evidence of socialism if that control put production or assets in common/public control rather than private hands.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Burke

Actually, Charts, the slave system the Founders created was more a case of very unproductive people being forced to serve far more productive ones.

Otherwise, I've expressed my views on this here many times before.

LOL, you can't be serious, man. If plantation owners were so "productive", why did they need slaves at all? If plantation owners truly were "productive", they could have easily compensated free laborers to do their work for them.

Your views don't make any logical sense.

Why don't you tell us why there would be no slavery in your anarchical society?

And what would be done about it if there were.

Under anarchy, there would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to protect the institution of slavery. Under anarchy (i.e., "no rulers"), men would know they are free. It would be impossible to justify slavery under anarchy, just as it would be impossible to justify rape and murder. Free men would come together in self-defense against slavers.

Under government, it's far easier to justify enslaving a population. Just look at the income tax, for example.

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LOL, you can't be serious, man. If plantation owners were so "productive", why did they need slaves at all? If plantation owners truly were "productive", they could have easily compensated free laborers to do their work for them.

Your views don't make any logical sense.



Under anarchy, there would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to protect the institution of slavery. Under anarchy (i.e., "no rulers"), men would know they are free. It would be impossible to justify slavery under anarchy, just as it would be impossible to justify rape and murder. Free men would come together in self-defense against slavers.

Under government, it's far easier to justify enslaving a population. Just look at the income tax, for example.

Uh, what if there are more slavers than those dedicated to the eradication of slavery? And what if they have more and better guns? There would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to prevent the institution of slavery either.

PS Are you really an anarchist?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

Uh, what if there are more slavers than those dedicated to the eradication of slavery? And what if they have more and better guns? There would be no legal mechanism or legitimate enforcement arm to prevent the institution of slavery either.

Under that scenario you'd have government.

PS Are you really an anarchist?

Yes, why, are you a statist?

[CHFG8R]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Under that scenario you'd have government.



Yes, why, are you a statist?

No, but I believe people will always congregate in something resembling civilization, will elect leaders, follow said leaders, etc. Just human nature. What you describe, IMO, sounds a little unrealistic and ultimately, again IMO, would just lead to some feudal type system.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by CHFG8R

No, but I believe people will always congregate in something resembling civilization, will elect leaders, follow said leaders, etc. Just human nature.

Voluntarily congregating, choosing legitimate leaders, and following their guidance if competent doesn't necessarily mean you need to create a government with a legal monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

What you describe, IMO, sounds a little unrealistic and ultimately, again IMO, would just lead to some feudal type system.

The system we live under is the feudal system, you just don't realize it.