Talisker:
Socialisim is great in theory. However, in practice it simply dosen't work because human beings by nature always want a little bit more than the guy next door, this is particularly true of America, and if we all have the same that's not a possibility. This is where Democracy steps in. Democracy gives people an oppertunity to have their say by voting but it also allows people to have more that the guy next door if they want it enough to earn it. Thus giving everyone something to aspire to.

Democracy and Socialism aren't mutually exclusive, e.g.: Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist[/quote]

My bad, I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that Democracy was a more practical approach to Socialisim in that it lets the people have thier say but dosen't impose absolute equality on people. Humans aren't all equal. No, thats not a hint of racisim. Nobody can honestly say they want the exact same as the next person you just need to look at the amount of different opinions on here to know thats true. Democracy works as a compromise it cant please everyone but it pleases enough to keep society in order(mostly). It can, however, go the other way and end up with Facisim. Whereby the minority tells the majority what they are getting and won't take any argument ie. a Dictatorship.

My apologies, I hit post twice. Sorry folks.

Larenxis:
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but just in case I'm wrong Razzle, are you serious?

About as serious as Stephen Colbert, though nowhere near as funny or clever. We live in a strange time when people can (and do) actually believe someone could possibly say such things seriously. It's a difficult time for satirists.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Okay. So these laws are 'imposing morality' because the ESRB was 'perceived' to have 'failed' to do so.
I still don't see why you responded to me to talk about the ESRB, other than the fact that you misunderstood what I was saying.

Okay, I still think that your idea of 'imposing morality' is a load of bull shit.
More heavily 'imposing' it is all that attaching a penalty is going to do if it were 'imposing morality' anyways (it is only in the sense that it is taking the country's general moral set and applying them where the same types of people did before to get the rating system and make it more strict did in the first place).

Manta173:
I say take away his BMW and give it to me... I'm sure he can afford a new one.

Stop whining about what you don't have because you weren't as lucky as him (or possibly he got it for working hard, there's always that chance). Since we aren't *communist* (and by that I mean actual communism, not Stalinist communism which is totalitarian socialist) we can't force everyone to have equal or shared property. Even if we were *socialist* and forced to be economically equal-ish then he still might have a better car than you because you said that you were not good at managing money.

A social healthcare system with a base level of care to help those who need it most may not be a terrible idea. It would be but a patch on a rotten and leaking boat however. Although I am all for people making money for their services, the health care system is broken at the source; the providers of the care themselves. For example, I went to a med check with a sinus infection. I paid $30 for the visit as determined by my insurance. My insurance paid for about $150, and there was about $50 more that wasn't covered by my insurance. So, $230 was the charge for: 5 min for a nurse to get my hight and weight, 5 min for my Dr to look at eyes, ears, and throat also for me to list my symptoms. He used 1 little plasticy thing on a funny flashlight/magnifier to look into my ears, and 1 wooden stick to look at my throat. Then, another 5 min to tell me my issue and to write me a script for an antibiotic. So.. Where the F! did $230 happen? say even $10 for the stick, $20 for the plasticy thing, that leaves an average charge of $800 an hour. Why? Because they can. Why not? The insurance company pays for it right?... Wrong. The truth is I STILL pay for it. Each paycheck. YOU pay for it. WE ALL pay for it ALREADY. I see complaints that no one wants to pay taxes to pay for someone else to get health care... What do you think you do now? Medicare/Medicaid is paid by both you and your employer. There is already a metric ass-load of $ being taken to pay for those less fortunate, unemployed, or just plain lazy. Now we see talk of MANDITORY health care? WTF? Seriously? How about mandatory JOBS. How about mandatory LOW COST MEDICAL CARE. Make the medical costs we have reasonable, and make it harder to get state/federal assistance UNLESS YOU HAVE A FUCKING JOB. At least an *attempt* to work.. Instead of state funded food and free money to pay for kids (have more, get more!), how about this: State funded child care so the kids get fed, and watched while the parents go to WORK. Then, if it's proven that this STILL isn't enough, government funded assistance that doesn't involve giving cash or the equivalent to a person.

While I am very against being told what I can and cannot do as a citizen in my own domicile, and protect what little freedoms we have left, including businesses (usually), some regulation coming into play to keep the medical world from the violent raping that takes place would be a great 1st step in truly reforming our health care system into something acceptable. THEN we could look into the rest.
Damned soap box keeps slipping under my feet!
[/soapbox..again]

Contrary to popular opinion, a country can introduce a state-funded healthcare system and not become a totalitarian dictatorship in the process. Likewise, the funding for such a system can come from taxes, and not bankrupt the entire population.

Think of it like this- you're paying for it in your taxes, but you no longer have to pay health insurance bills.

How anyone can agree to a healthcare system based on insurance companies is beyond me. Insurance companies are businesses'. A business' main target is to chase profits. They're not paying for your medical bills out of the kindness of their hearts. They're doing it for the money you've got in your wallet.

And those saying democracy and socialism can't go hand in hand: ??!? Democracy and socialism go together great- democracy is after all doing what Society as a whole wants, not the privileged elite. Democracy is the system that gives the working classes a say. Socialism is the system that makes sure the working classes are treated fairly.

Mostly people [EDIT](of the United States as far as I know)[/EDIT] think that socialism and a "democratic" society aren't compatible because of all the anti-communist sentiment from the Cold War. People think that socialism is one step away from communism (when it is actually several dozen steps away (i.e.- on the opposite side of the spectrum (although not communism in the Cold War sense (since that is really totalitarianist-socialist (they are mutually exclusive, though))))) and that communism means dictators and the whole idea of the United States was to get away from that and we got this huge-ass phobia of anything non-"democratic" when it comes to our own policies, so something that is associated with something that was associated with something like communism isn't looking at a very easy ride to the top.
Standardized healthcare is only a "socialist idea" in that it tries to create an overhanging over everyone just like the socialist economic system. However, this really is only because the two act in similar manners, surely both have been around for much longer in different forms and with different names.
I also kept quoting "democratic" and "democracy" when referring to the United States because everyone (including virtually all United States-ians) think that the United States is a democracy. This is false. The United States is a Republic through and through. We elect people to represent us and on the rare occasions that we do vote on something as a populuce, that's only because the majority of the people we elected to represent us think it's a good idea.

Socialist rhetoric really does sound wonderful in theory but it falls into totalitarian communism for one simple reason. As stated by the blogger Lum the Mad aka Scott Jennings :"People are broken."

The primary issue with socialized health care is one of finite resources. Let us say that everyone in a 4-person America were to pay $50 per pay period for health care (a tax for healthcare, if you will). George makes 400$ a pay period, Len makes $200 a pay period, Ralph makes $100 a pay period and Homer makes nothing, living on the government dole. So, let us look at 6 months. That's 12 pay periods making the total amount for available health care come up to $1800. In the first 4 months, Lee never uses health care, because he leads an active lifestyle and eats healthy. George breaks his legs while helping his sister move and Ralph develops a upper respiratory infection and has to visit the ER to solve it. Because health care is "free", Homer goes to the ER 4 times for a cold, twice for a bump on his ass, 3 times in a week for a nasty cough he has, 6 times to address some genital leakage and a final time when he fell down 2 steps and scraped his knee. George uses $200 of the available health care, Ralph only uses $50, but Homer -who pays nothing, uses a total of $1550 on his myrial of often frivolous visits. This means that for the remaining 2 months, no one has remaining coverage, because there is no oversight on the process.

This may sound quite extreme and simplistic, but it's (1) remarkably similar to what is being proposed by both major Democratic nominees and (2) already being tested in a number of American cities.

While the aim is commendable, the truth is that without a fundemental change at the foundation of how America addresses health care -starting with doctors, nurses and hospital administration and extending to medical education and student loan financing- a bandaid on the system for levying taxes against citizens will only salve the issue to a limited degree. The bills are paid either by the user or by the body politic and no matter which, eventually the finances will run out.

We see this in places like Canada and Britian (in potentially alarmist news stories) where people are forced to wait for health care for several days and for surgeries up to several months.

For all the rhetoric being spewed by the left about corporate greed and by the right about rampant socialism, the truth falls firmly in between. America needs a more well-developed, egalitarian system for health care. Levyinf taxes alone won't do the job and doesn't effect real chane in the process, simply executing the example I made above. Leaving the reins firmly in the hands of incorporated medical businesses (pharms, chain hopsitals, etc) will simply perpetuate what we already have: health care for the rich and for the poorest, but not for the middle.

I make $12 an hour in upstate NY. I am lucky that I only have a wife and not children as well. My proposed health care equates to about $400 per month, which is roughly 1/3 of my final take home pay. I am definitely not rich, nor am I demonstrably poor. As such, I (and people like me) bear and will continue to bear the full brunt of proposed legislation.

We need something better, something that discards rhetoric, discards partisanship, discards historical referendums. I grow tired of the drivel I always hear online (and am particularly dismayed to see on the Escapist) raging about the Maoist Left and the Fat-Cat Fascist Right. When I hear talk in those terms, rampage and flame using the most crude of stereotypes and the most uninformed and generalized of viewpoints, I remember WW2 cartoons of Popeye and Bugs Bunny, where Germans and Japanese (and even Africans) were lampooned using the most crude of racial stereotypes. It was a crude, broad stroke then and it's no less offensive or simplistic now. And I expect better on these boards, to be honest.

And, in closing, since it was asked: my rose-tinted view of America is the middle-class conceit that a hard day's work equates into a chance for success. It's tragic that this hope, that viewpoint can be so casually and thoughtlessly discarded with a smirk and a chuckle these days. That's the promise we've made for the past century, if anyone has forgotten. I haven't.

Raan_Amano:

That may not be the case, but the thought had occurred to me. That type of thinking tends to occur to me every time someone makes the "I don't believe in forcing everyone to pay for the "floor" healthcare system. I believe in paying for my own healthcare." argument. That's like saying "I'm rich and I don't want to have to pay for YOUR healthcare."

But, if I'm rich, why should I have to pay for the welfare of another person? What right do they have to my earnings. By what right? If I can make myself succesful, why should I help make others succesful? I just don't see the reason that I should pay to help others. If I don't want to, then I shouldn't have to.

Also, Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. You can have a system in which the government enforces equality via force. Hell, the Nazis were "National Socialists". I just think that when you give a man the power to control people in any way, it will bring out the worst in them.

Socialism is not about controlling your thoughts. It's about taking care of your fellow American.

And there are socialism going on in USA already! I'm talking about the police, mail service and the fire department! The military? Now why not socialized health care? Sharing is caring. Don't you care about your fellow American?

Not a big supporter of welfare though. But police and health is pretty important. The government is a necessary evil no matter what or where.

Saskwach:

As for a mix of the three, many would say that you can have liberty or equality (and sometimes neither) but not both, as to enforce equality is to deny liberty and to permit liberty is to let others take more from the swag because of what they DID with their liberty.

Depends on what sort of "equality". I'm not saying people are equal and entitled to all the same privileges (socialism), I'm saying people should have an equal say, even if that means the opinion of people who watch Fox News if weighted the same as people who have a degree in the topic at hand. There probably needs to be debate over political control of the media.

Reading Manta173's post: I always find it amusing about the talk of Americans living in poverty. Compared to Bill Gates, sure, even I live in poverty. But compared to most of Africa, a large chunk of Asia and much of South America we all got it easy. Let's face it if you can post here, you don't live in poverty.

Scubamike1978:

Saskwach:

As for a mix of the three, many would say that you can have liberty or equality (and sometimes neither) but not both, as to enforce equality is to deny liberty and to permit liberty is to let others take more from the swag because of what they DID with their liberty.

Depends on what sort of "equality". I'm not saying people are equal and entitled to all the same privileges (socialism), I'm saying people should have an equal say, even if that means the opinion of people who watch Fox News if weighted the same as people who have a degree in the topic at hand. There probably needs to be debate over political control of the media.

Reading Manta173's post: I always find it amusing about the talk of Americans living in poverty. Compared to Bill Gates, sure, even I live in poverty. But compared to most of Africa, a large chunk of Asia and much of South America we all got it easy. Let's face it if you can post here, you don't live in poverty.

Compare to Norway and a lot of Americans live in poverty. Oil-drilling fishing bastards...

John Galt:

Raan_Amano:

That may not be the case, but the thought had occurred to me. That type of thinking tends to occur to me every time someone makes the "I don't believe in forcing everyone to pay for the "floor" healthcare system. I believe in paying for my own healthcare." argument. That's like saying "I'm rich and I don't want to have to pay for YOUR healthcare."

But, if I'm rich, why should I have to pay for the welfare of another person? What right do they have to my earnings. By what right? If I can make myself succesful, why should I help make others succesful? I just don't see the reason that I should pay to help others. If I don't want to, then I shouldn't have to.

Also, Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. You can have a system in which the government enforces equality via force. Hell, the Nazis were "National Socialists". I just think that when you give a man the power to control people in any way, it will bring out the worst in them.

I'd bunk the nazies over with capitalism, one super race of people who rule the nation with money! MUAHAHA!! Making these kind of arguments doesen't bring the discussion forward you're just trying to make the other side look bad so more people go over to your side..

MaraN88:
I'd bunk the nazies over with capitalism, one super race of people who rule the nation with money! MUAHAHA!!

Fine go live with your fascist government. See if I care.

MaraN88:
Making these kind of arguments doesen't bring the discussion forward you're just trying to make the other side look bad so more people go over to your side..

What sides are you talking about? Do you actually want to go live in a communist controlled country?! I could think of better places to live. What you are saying, is call propagander. Most forms governments do that. Even the National Socialists that you love so much do that. Hell, that's what basically fuled the whole of world war 2!

John Galt:

But, if I'm rich, why should I have to pay for the welfare of another person? What right do they have to my earnings. By what right? If I can make myself succesful, why should I help make others succesful? I just don't see the reason that I should pay to help others. If I don't want to, then I shouldn't have to.

I guess the question there is, are you rich through your own merits, or through circumstances outside your control? See something worth reading here.

Vice versa, are the individuals that are suffering, doing so by their own merits (lack thereof), or through circumstances outside their control?

I'm not going to attempt to answer either of those questions, because I think they're largely a matter of opinion. But, I will say that I find it hard to take all the credit for my success, and similarly, I find it difficult to place all of the blame of poverty on the poor.

The reason I feel that capitalism is superior to socialism, MaraN88, is because I find socialism to be a modern-day form of slavery. Under a socialist government, those who have are forced to give to those who have not, regardless of the poor actually earning it.

What I like about capitalism is that it is essentially natural selection. Competition fosters adaptation to the market which will better suit the customers. When you control something remotely, you remove the public's ability to dictate what it wants to the economy. Even the most democratic socialism is still more ham-handed than the so-called "invisible hand" when it comes to changing the market.

PurpleRain:

MaraN88:
I'd bunk the nazies over with capitalism, one super race of people who rule the nation with money! MUAHAHA!!

Fine go live with your fascist government. See if I care.

MaraN88:
Making these kind of arguments doesen't bring the discussion forward you're just trying to make the other side look bad so more people go over to your side..

What sides are you talking about? Do you actually want to go live in a communist controlled country?! I could think of better places to live. What you are saying, is call propagander. Most forms governments do that. Even the National Socialists that you love so much do that. Hell, that's what basically fuled the whole of world war 2!

Woooow..... I was criticizing your way of linking socialist to nazies and communists, I never said I wanted to live in a comunist country, I'm not a "propagander" my comment was not intended to be in anyones favor, I don't love socialists and i'll let you read up on the causes of ww2 on your own.

When reading your comment I can't help to think that you might have been "propagandered" by your goverment a little.. (I'm just guessing US) Mostly since your just saying "Those are the bad guys!" Believing one side has all the awnsers. I'm not saying Socialism is the way to go but I'm not fully supporting Capitalism either.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

General Ma Chao:
Socialist rhetoric really does sound wonderful in theory but it falls into totalitarian communism for one simple reason. As stated by the blogger Lum the Mad aka Scott Jennings :"People are broken."

How many countries have turned into totalitarian communist regimes after embracing socialist rhetoric? Can you name any healthy democracies that, after drinking the socialist Kool-Aid, turned into totalitarian communist regimes?

I'm not necessarily advocating for socialism here; I'm just asking about what happens in the real world, not in hypotheticals of a blogger named Lum the Mad. Socialist rhetoric has been around for a while now and embraced to some extent in a lot of countries. If things are as they say you are, can you give me some examples where this slide from socialism to totalitarian communism has happened?

More importantly: did it ever happen in a stable democracy? I assume we both live in stable democracies, so, isn't that the question we should really be concerned with?

I think I read into this discussion incorrectly. My bad.

John Galt:
The reason I feel that capitalism is superior to socialism, MaraN88, is because I find socialism to be a modern-day form of slavery. Under a socialist government, those who have are forced to give to those who have not, regardless of the poor actually earning it.

What I like about capitalism is that it is essentially natural selection. Competition fosters adaptation to the market which will better suit the customers. When you control something remotely, you remove the public's ability to dictate what it wants to the economy. Even the most democratic socialism is still more ham-handed than the so-called "invisible hand" when it comes to changing the market.

Free market is good for everybody and it's the best thing about capitalism. But it can never be really free. There are things that the free market can't and shouldn't touch such as the Police, illegal drugs etc. There are also thing we don't want people to be able to spend their money on such as dog fights, hobo fighting etc. Enviromental issues also needs to be calculated into capitalism. If a company makes a product that is enviromentaly dangerous but costs half of it's competitors prices it will be the most sold product. Here I do think the goverment needs to stabilize the market with taxes. Someone needs to "force" big company's to listen to the planets needs as well as the people.