• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Socialism Fails

<alt>doxygen said:
Okay, I'll bite.

What democratic socialist domino will go the way of Mao or Stalin next?
Click to expand...

I don't know that we'll see that level of political force again. The rest of the world has seen how that works and, likely, won't allow thing to go that far again.

We have seen Venezuela collapse and nations such as Guatemala and El Salvador, both coming out of civil wars and still trying to find their feet, are likely to become more problematic in the coming years instead of less. The most likely government to become the biggest problem, however, is South Africa. My guess is that the desire to correct social wrongs of the past will manifest themselves in new social wrongs.
 
devildavid said:
1) If you refuse to pay for insurance, why should society pay for any catastrophic health issues you may encounter? 2) What would happen if everyone did as you do?[/b]
Click to expand...

1) What is the difference between that and expanded Medicaid or Medicare For All? Why is it a better idea to have taxpayer funds paying a 'private' insurance company (aka PPACA subsidies) rather than pay the actual care provider(s) instead?

2) The same thing that happens with any other goods/services provider - they accept what the customer can pay, get help from a charity (or government program) and/or turn them away.
 
veritas1 said:
Hilarious. The libs want to take over healthcare and energy for starters and you think it's a good idea. Yea, what could go wrong? Sheesh...:roll:
Click to expand...

I don’t believe I actually said that. Could you show me where I said that was a good idea? And could you point out what that has to do with your ignorance of history and what words mean?
 
veritas1 said:
Who said anything about removing them? No doubt, some are overly burdensome and should go but the idea that we will ever, ever be anywhere near laissez faire capitalism again, is a rather ludicrous one.
Click to expand...

So you want more capitalism and you point out that laws and regulations hinder capitalism but you don't want to remove them. So how do you get more capitalism?
 
Redress said:
I don’t believe I actually said that. Could you show me where I said that was a good idea? And could you point out what that has to do with your ignorance of history and what words mean?
Click to expand...

I know a lot more history than you, I'm sure. Hey, maybe you can step up where the other guy ran away. Define "social ownership of the means of production".
 
devildavid said:
So you want more capitalism and you point out that laws and regulations hinder capitalism but you don't want to remove them. So how do you get more capitalism?
Click to expand...

No, I said that some hinder it. You don't need 10 laws where 5 will do. Government has a tendency to think more restrictions are always better. They are not.
 
Phys251 said:
So Sweden is about to literally become Communist! The sky is falling! :lamo
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that if you looked at Sweden you'd find that it's nowhere near as socialist as you imagine it to be.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) What is the difference between that and expanded Medicaid or Medicare For All? Why is it a better idea to have taxpayer funds paying a 'private' insurance company (aka PPACA subsidies) rather than pay the actual care provider(s) instead?

2) The same thing that happens with any other goods/services provider - they accept what the customer can pay, get help from a charity (or government program) and/or turn them away.
Click to expand...

Do you understand how insurance works? The government does not have an insurance department.

And if they turn them away they could die.
 
veritas1 said:
No, I said that some hinder it. You don't need 10 laws where 5 will do. Government has a tendency to think more restrictions are always better. They are not.
Click to expand...

So that means moving toward laissez faire. But you really are just guessing as to why there are laws and regulations. It isn't just coming from the government, it is coming from what actually takes place in the economy and issues that arise and are then brought to the attention of the government through its branches.
 
Lutherf said:
I don't know that we'll see that level of political force again. The rest of the world has seen how that works and, likely, won't allow thing to go that far again.

We have seen Venezuela collapse and nations such as Guatemala and El Salvador, both coming out of civil wars and still trying to find their feet, are likely to become more problematic in the coming years instead of less. The most likely government to become the biggest problem, however, is South Africa. My guess is that the desire to correct social wrongs of the past will manifest themselves in new social wrongs.
Click to expand...

I agree those places are messes, however, I don't think the USA will devolve like any of those.

SA is really a sad case. We have friends that emigrated from there, and they are afraid to even go back for a visit.
 
Lutherf said:
I don't know that we'll see that level of political force again. The rest of the world has seen how that works and, likely, won't allow thing to go that far again.

We have seen Venezuela collapse and nations such as Guatemala and El Salvador, both coming out of civil wars and still trying to find their feet, are likely to become more problematic in the coming years instead of less. The most likely government to become the biggest problem, however, is South Africa. My guess is that the desire to correct social wrongs of the past will manifest themselves in new social wrongs.
Click to expand...

New social wrongs in South Africa?

South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms - News.com.au
[url]https://www.news.com.au/.../south-africa...seizing-whiteowned-farms/.../8937f899bd3f1...[/URL]
Aug 21, 2018 - THE South African government has begun the process of seizing land from white farmers.

Why Land Seizure Is Back in the News in South Africa: QuickTake ...
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/...south-africa.../a37ea92e-a6b1-11e8-ad6f-080770dc...[/URL]
Aug 23, 2018 - The ruling African National Congress has vowed to step up wealth ... South Africa's government “is now seizing the land of white farmers” and ...

South Africa begins seizing white-owned farms - Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../south-africa-begins-seizing-white-owned-farms/
Aug 20, 2018 - The South African government has begun the process of seizing white-owned farmland, reportedly filing legal papers seeking to expropriate ...

South Africa farm seizures BEGIN: Chaos as first expropriation of white ...
[url]https://www.express.co.uk › News › World[/URL]
Aug 21, 2018 - SOUTH AFRICA's government has begun seizing land from white farmers, targeting two game farms in the northern province of Limpopo after ...

South Africa FARM SEIZURES: Government policy could DESTROY ...
[url]https://www.express.co.uk › News › World[/URL]
Aug 26, 2018 - SOUTH Africa's policy of seizing privately-owned land from white farmerswithout compensation could destroy the country for years to come, ...

South African White Farmers' Land to Be Seized in Controversial Land ...
https://www.newsweek.com/south-africa-begins-seizure-land-game-farmers-1081286
Aug 20, 2018 - The South African government has begun the process of seizing land from owners in cases where the negotiation for compensation has stalled.
​

Already happened I think.
 
Last edited:
Phys251 said:
Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.
Click to expand...

It’s socialism.

Socialism fails everywhere. Trying to polish the turd by claiming it’s Democratic is laughable.

Socialism is tyrannical.
 
zimmer said:
It’s socialism.

Socialism fails everywhere. Trying to polish the turd by claiming it’s Democratic is laughable.

Socialism is tyrannical.
Click to expand...

How is socialism tyrannical?
 
devildavid said:
The government does not run an insurance company or have an insurance department. It is contracted out. Everything goes through insurance companies.
Click to expand...

That seems quite efficient. ;)
 
veritas1 said:
I know a lot more history than you, I'm sure. Hey, maybe you can step up where the other guy ran away. Define "social ownership of the means of production".
Click to expand...

Dodging again I see. Why are you trying so hard to avoid responding to what I actually write?
 
bongsaway said:
And all the right keeps saying is I agree with the transfer of money from the bottom to the top. It's all wonderful until the 'free markets' crash and government has to step in to save the same thieves who caused the crash of the 'free markets' with taxpayer money.
Click to expand...

Who said anything of the sort? The Left makes up s*** when they know they are wrong, just as you just did. And PLEASE learn some Economics before you spout off.
 
Mach said:
So you accept that you were wrong to claim it was class envy.
Now you're claiming that I should "write a check to the IRS", rather than promote change to the tax system, for no apparent reason.

This is why I feel compassion (and pity, sorry), for so many.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that high and mighty of you? All I said was for you to put your money where your mouth is. That shut you up about how much money you make, but if you are so fired up about stealing from those who earned it, turn yourself in to the police for Grand Larceny. Now go away.
 
devildavid said:
It is expensive. And people without medical insurance make it more expensive for the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Insurance is primarily to protect assets and most of those now without it have few assets to protect mostly because they also have very low incomes. The basic idea behind UHC is that some folks (above some income level?) should pay some (as yet unstated) percentage of their income so that all (US residents?) are insured by a single payer (the federal government). Bills to enact such a UHC system should be written so that their specifics may be evaluated and discussed.
 
Phys251 said:
Could the article be any more obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue about the difference between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism? This isn't rocket science. This is a distinction that a child can learn.
Click to expand...

Bernie just invented the term Democratic Socialism in 2016 and people really still don't know what it means. Don't they have elections in Venezuela? So, I guess that is Democratic Socialism.
 
Phys251 said:
And there it is. A point-blank admission that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Let me help you. There is a massive difference between the authoritarian socialism of the USSR and China (which has become more capitalist) and the democratic socialism of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. Notice how the article completely left out any mention of the latter examples? It's as if you and the article writer don't want us to experience more wealth parity, less poverty, more education parity, a greener economy, a healthcare system that doesn't bankrupt people when they get sick, and other such horrible things. Makes one wonder why you don't want that.
Click to expand...

Well, The US economy is 77 times greater than Finland and similar times greater than your other so called European socialist countries. There's a reason for that, our system works better than theirs does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom