Your Political Stance?
- Thread starter schockergd
- Start date
First off, making half a million in NY means you made less than 250k after taxes. Hard to live in Manhattan on that. Second, it is not the job of the government to take care of those who ACTUALLY cannot work. It is the job of individuals. We are responsible to one another. And coercing people into caring through taxes is more wrong than letting people who don't care to their own devices. Congratulations on coming up with an example of 1 person who might need government care. We should all pay 15% to government because of anomalies.
Anecdotes are stupid.
Anecdotes are stupid.
According to this test, I'm closest to Gandhi. Not sure if I see how that's possible for a ninja.
Heh, I did that test too,
I'm also like Gandi/Mandela
Could you explain the reason why "the rich" wouldn't help because their low wages were making them rich?" It sounds like you're trying to say that when you are rich you can't help but become evil... If that is what you believe, then please explain Gates and Buffet.
I disagree. We're talking about trade here. There is even a well-made youtube vid floating around this forum somewhere that explains exactly how when a dollar is traded for a dollars' worth of service, the outcome creates more than two dollars sum for that economy. There doesn't have to be a loser, but of course the greediness of the few villians often enough creates one in this day and age.
Now we've hit the root of your problem with capitalism... You feel (and who can blame you) that it's too easily perverted. On this I think we can all agree, but so is any social engineering (or any socialist tinkering at all) through the government. I'd argue that the perversion done with socialism is far more harmful than the perversion done with capitalism. Look at it this way:
Capitalism is too easily made to serve the smartest, less scroupulous ppl at the top. I get it... But:
Socialism is too easily made to CREATE a huge class of less scroupulous ppl at the bottom. (Like welfare families)
They both are meant to do good, but then get used for evil by a minority.
In the real world you have to weigh the benefits of each versus the costs, and see which system allows you a net gain over the other.
Clearly, the cost of turning a percentage of your population into mindless fools that contribute nothing and suck all of the spare money out of your system so nothing positive ever gets funded, is unsupportable. As long as there are unscrupulous ppl in the world who would take advantage of a handout, then socialism cannot work. It's a failure. Even the small amount of socialism we have in our 'capitalist' government is failing us this way today.
Which brings us to the other reason to choose capitalism over socialism: Socialism allows you, nay, supports you to be; stupid.
If you don't have to work for a living, you'll basically not learn as much as you would if you had to. Then when your little utopic bubble pops, (remember the system doesn't work so it will one day) you won't have the knowledge nor skillset to feed your family anymore. Competition or just plain lack of skill will do you in quickly.
I'd prefer to support a system that encourages you to learn more than one that encourages you to sit around and accept free stuff.
That way you get a world full of smart people to talk to, not just people who are well taken care of.
The problem with this is that those people, a world away, have their own politics and frankly warlords or dictators that get in the way and use the money for something other than what you intended it for.
It's PURE FANTASY, nothing less, to believe you can send a quid to feed a bunch of starving kids in africa. (To use a common example.) You can't possibly know how that money is being used, more likely than not a local dictator will intercept it and use it to buy guns or drugs with.
And even if you do effeciently send your daily quid over and satisfy a village's hunger, look at the long-term ramifications here... Now you are keeping a villiage alive that couldn't properly look after itself and they are artificially thriving for your deed...
So they'll spit out more babies who also feel they can live easily because food is always given to them... And then after a few years you'll find that you can't afford to feed them all, because their population has tripled since you started sending them the cash...
Guess what happens next? You become a mass murderer simply by not sending more money. Way to go, Hitler!
The moral here is that sometimes survival of the fittest is necessary, and shouldn't be fucked with. Mother nature doesn't like it, and she will punish everyone involved in time.
Sounds cool. As previously stated, I'm all for fairness and since this isn't government intervention I would purchase fair trade foods too... If I knew which ones were fair trade foods... I certainly don't see any labels stating such at my local grocery.
Do you have to go to a special type of store for them or can you pick some up at any safeway?
We just have to do a tale of two brothers on this now...
Brother A is a smart, hard-working achiever. Brother B is a lazy slob.
In capitalism, A can work as hard as he wants to build up a fortune, or not. He's free.
In capitalism, B will find himself in debt and live a hard life for enjoying his laziness. He's not as free.
In capitalism, society will benefit from the extra work brother A put into it somehow.
In Socialism, A won't work harder because he has no reason to. When he tries he gets unfairly taxed. He basically is not free and is forced to be more like his brother.
In Socialism, B will flourish. Likely producing offspring just like their dead old lazy dad.
In Socialism, society will strain under the weight of little hard work being done and everyone forced to recieve their "fair share."
So basically you have to choose now between a society that helps hard working people or a society that helps deadbeats... And keep in mind that natural selection is going to work on the outcome of your descision, either creating a world full of hard workers or a world full of couch potatoes in time.
You've simply got to choose one; is A more deserving or is B? There doesn't seem to be any way to reward them both... Either you monkey with the government or not. Please answer this question for us; A or B.
No one can be free in reality. If you have a trillion dollars you're going to have responsibilities out the wazoo just keeping it from being stolen from you. Freedom is almost a total myth, and certainly not everyone can be equally free... Asking for that is asking for nothing less than Utopia.
They don't work today for reasons stated above, it's true. We know the "system" is broken in our country.
But don't blame Capitalism itself because America is doing it wrong. America will keep striving to gain better control over their oppressors in time, and eventually get capitalism right.
Again, both systems have weakpoints. The only question you should be considering is which system's weakpoints are worse?
If your a capitalist you're free to make the cash to give to charity.
If your a socialist you're not. All you can do is donate an afternoon or something tiny to help a far smaller segment.
Plus, even if you aren't a kind-hearted capitalist that doesn't want to give to charity, you're still likely to create jobs with your money and others can benefit anyway.
Could you explain the reason why "the rich" wouldn't help because their low wages were making them rich?" It sounds like you're trying to say that when you are rich you can't help but become evil... If that is what you believe, then please explain Gates and Buffet.
No in this case it was because many of the rich were exploiting the poor for cheap labour. A bit like the chinese labour of today. There were of course exceptions, Rowntree started a survey to show the huge levels of poverty in the country. It was Liberal thinking from him and others that got the country out of that mess. So no I do not believe that all the rich are "evil", I just believe that many of them make their money by exploiting others. The majority in fact.
I disagree. We're talking about trade here. There is even a well-made youtube vid floating around this forum somewhere that explains exactly how when a dollar is traded for a dollars' worth of service, the outcome creates more than two dollars sum for that economy. There doesn't have to be a loser, but of course the greediness of the few villians often enough creates one in this day and age.
Unfortunately this doesn't work economically. Imagine that there is a finite amount of value in this world, the only thing that can change that is finding new resources but these resources would do next to nothing to change that number (As in the change in value because of the resources would be insignificant) especially when you notice that other resources are running out. Every time one country earns an extra $1 then that $1 is taken from another country. This is why it is in the West's best interests to keep wages around the rest of the world relatively low because if they improve countries like China or India, the UK or USA would do worse. On a micro-economic scale, look at the bankers who bailed with 100's of millions. Could have been pensions, could have been wages, SHOULD have been money to other people.
Now we've hit the root of your problem with capitalism... You feel (and who can blame you) that it's too easily perverted. On this I think we can all agree, but so is any social engineering (or any socialist tinkering at all) through the government. I'd argue that the perversion done with socialism is far more harmful than the perversion done with capitalism. Look at it this way:
Capitalism is too easily made to serve the smartest, less scroupulous ppl at the top. I get it... But:
Socialism is too easily made to CREATE a huge class of less scroupulous ppl at the bottom. (Like welfare families)
They both are meant to do good, but then get used for evil by a minority.
In the real world you have to weigh the benefits of each versus the costs, and see which system allows you a net gain over the other.
I agree to a certain extent. Firstly I would say that despite the modern view of "work hard, get rich" that in a capitalist society it really does help to come from a rich family.
I disagree with your view of socialism however. Yes you may be supporting people at the bottom and yes some may use this to their advantage however that is the minority. The main aim to to improve education and living standards of these people. There will ALWAYS be poverty, it's the way of the human being. Communism didn't work because it limited people at a certain wage. What I would prefer however is instead of some people earning 100 million a year and others earning 10,000, that the spectrum of wealth should be closer. As in the middle wealth expands, the upper and lower wealth areas contract. This would be more fair while not having the same kind of authoritarian situation like communism. This should be done through investment in education, health care (Jesus America, far behind the rest of us) and improvements in infrastructure etc. All of these things are also important for increasing efficiency and productivity of a country and would make a stronger economy.
I was discussing a similar point with a few economists recently. The basic idea is that if you have a country full of poor people at the bottom, eg capitalism, then they may make the goods for cheap but they won't buy them because they don't have the disposable income. If you have a country where the people earn good wages, yes your products will cost more but you can then sell to the same people. This is the circular flow of income. This is a CORRECT economic theory.
Clearly, the cost of turning a percentage of your population into mindless fools that contribute nothing and suck all of the spare money out of your system so nothing positive ever gets funded, is unsupportable. As long as there are unscrupulous ppl in the world who would take advantage of a handout, then socialism cannot work. It's a failure. Even the small amount of socialism we have in our 'capitalist' government is failing us this way today.
Honestly when you look at the figures of the people abusing the system then it's much smaller than you think, it tends to be all hype when our newspapers cover it. I agree that there are problems with benefits, the government is inefficient, benefits arnt means tested enough. Something needs to be done.
Which brings us to the other reason to choose capitalism over socialism: Socialism allows you, nay, supports you to be; stupid.
If you don't have to work for a living, you'll basically not learn as much as you would if you had to. Then when your little utopic bubble pops, (remember the system doesn't work so it will one day) you won't have the knowledge nor skillset to feed your family anymore. Competition or just plain lack of skill will do you in quickly.
I'd prefer to support a system that encourages you to learn more than one that encourages you to sit around and accept free stuff.
That way you get a world full of smart people to talk to, not just people who are well taken care of.
Well Britain is socialist by nature, perhaps not fully economically but very much so by nature. People thought the NHS wouldn't work and despite people complaining about the cost of it (Typical British complaints), it is one of the best healthcare systems in the world. There have been huge, huge improvements because of it. I disagree about the education part, socialism is all about educating the people. Capitalism leaves it so that very few intelligent people are able to control a vast amount of people that can't get access to education.
The problem with this is that those people, a world away, have their own politics and frankly warlords or dictators that get in the way and use the money for something other than what you intended it for.
It's PURE FANTASY, nothing less, to believe you can send a quid to feed a bunch of starving kids in africa. (To use a common example.) You can't possibly know how that money is being used, more likely than not a local dictator will intercept it and use it to buy guns or drugs with.
And even if you do effeciently send your daily quid over and satisfy a village's hunger, look at the long-term ramifications here... Now you are keeping a villiage alive that couldn't properly look after itself and they are artificially thriving for your deed...
So they'll spit out more babies who also feel they can live easily because food is always given to them... And then after a few years you'll find that you can't afford to feed them all, because their population has tripled since you started sending them the cash...
Guess what happens next? You become a mass murderer simply by not sending more money. Way to go, Hitler!
The moral here is that sometimes survival of the fittest is necessary, and shouldn't be fucked with. Mother nature doesn't like it, and she will punish everyone involved in time.
How about nike adds a few pence to their shoes and it goes straight to the kids? I know for a fact that fair trade does well and supports lots of people. Yes there is corruption but then it doesn't always have to be sent to foreign countries. The charity I was supporting this year was Multiple Sclerosis Scotland, I really doubt there was much corruption there. It's a big problem in my country and yes, even a pound does help. In regard to the babies, the more money you invest into education then the less people reproduce. Hence why there are often more children in poorer families.
I thought your bit about survival of the fittest was a bit, erm, extreme? In that case, why did we go to war with the Nazi's? (You brought up Hitler first) We should just have let them mass murder Jews, survival of the fittest right?
Part 2 next.
I actually think the only difference between how me and you think is that I have been brought up in a predominately socialist country whereas you have been brought up in a capitalist country.
So you think, without the government that people who needed care would get it? Wow, some people haven't learnt from the last few thousand years of history. Oh and this definitely isn't an anomaly, I know plenty of cases like this.
There you go again. They are called Corporations, not Rich People, and they quite literally have no souls. Corps are 100% of the problem here, not the few, insignificant selfish millionaires who would not chose to do any charity... I kind of doubt that any such people even exist at all. If they do they are too few to be significant to form your world opinions around.
If you could make the lowlifes at the bottom truly believe that education would benefit them, then you'd have a point. As it is, you do not. These arrogant, lazy, literal bastards wonder why they should learn anything at all if you're going to keep providing a roof over their head and money in their bank account to buy food with... The majority of welfare recipients in the USA at least see education as a burdon and our dropout (of primary school) rate among welfare children is staggering.
Only a few choose to learn and get out. FAR MORE Choose crime... So welfare creates more criminals than it helps; while stealing my money to create them.
Correction: Socialists WANT to educate the people. Sadly, the people don't want to be educated, and the socialists are stuck with their bill.
Yes capitalism unfairly pushes up the most intelligent and rich but can you afford to enroll at Oxford right now? Even in socialist countries it takes money to have the best education. -So that part really isn't too different as long as you're not a lazy bum who would take advantage of a handout.
The good news is that the price of education for all who want it is dropping like a lead ballon thanks to the internet. Soon it will be a given that anyone who wants a decent education can afford it. Startups like Piazza and kno will make sure that future generations don't give money for educations that wind up as drugs... Because noone will ever have to give money for education again.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! How about unicorns feed the kids with their magic milk intead?
That isn't just unlikely; it is ILLEGAL! Nike is a public corp and in all civilized countries such corps have a fiscal responsibility to make the most of their SHARE PRICES to their stockholders... Nike simply cannot do this without breaking the law.
It's thinking like this that is exactly what conservatives and capitalists feel is so unrealistic and alien about socialism and liberalism. It's like your head is in a cloud and you can't see the real world at your feet for want of a utopic vision to be realized.
You know, the more I think about it the more you only have ONE SINGLE enemy in this world: The corporations. We're completely together on that front.
Mother Nature isn't a nazi.... But she's already made 99.999% of every speices that ever existed on this planet extinct.I thought your bit about survival of the fittest was a bit, erm, extreme? In that case, why did we go to war with the Nazi's? (You brought up Hitler first
You so want to believe that brother B and anyone else you offer a free education to would take it... But what do you do when they turn around and buy drugs/guns/hoes/etc with the money meant for their education?
You can lead a fool to school but you can't make him learn.
Both of my older brothers are high school dropouts. Both have used up their entire welfare allotment. Both are white and would be mistaken for an upper-class person if seen on the street. Both have children and both are divorced. Both are alcoholics, one is even a heroin addict. I know what I'm talking about when I say that you can't "be less of a cunt and worry about your brother" when he doesn't want to learn. All you can do is give them money that they immediately go and spend on more alcohol and drugs. The real world simply doesn't work like the way you're describing.
Sure, there are people out there on the bottom who do get motivated and move up like myself. We're rare though. Certianly not 50%, more like 10%. -And that leaves 90% of them to breed and multiply and concentrate their evil. -And yes, I am calling my neices and nephews 'concentrated evil.' I've seen their evil deeds firsthand at the ages of 5 and 7. They'll be worse than their parents for sure.
That's an extremely communist attitude. It leads to (and only to) government-mandated charity.
You may feel that only evil people would disagree, but what if they souly disagreed on the grounds that they don't trust their government or the effeciency of the charitable organization? -Would you then require them to donate anyway?
A far better solution is to TRUST that your fellow many would give to a charity of his choosing. Forcing him to do so creates extremes like war, and still wastes most of your charitable dollars. Yes, fewer people MAY get help this way, but it is far better for us all if the few lazy slobs go without than the hardest working people.
Perhaps, but I have spent a bit of time in England, (where my wife is from) and I'd argue the benefits of your healthcare system over ours to anyone. (You guys get awesome drugs that cure disease, we only get the kinds that prolong your life in the most expensive way possible.) I also truly appreciate how when I walk into a department store in London sales clerks leave me alone instead of flocking to me to try to sell something because they are on commission.
In short, I see benefits to the British form of socialism that the USA should learn from... But many other parts of socialism, especially welfare, are too broken for me to want. They seem to be based on the faulty logic that you can make a person raise their standards and nothing is further from the truth.
Yes, the last thousand or so years of history have proved that governments help their citizens. Governments are benevolent. I remember 50 years ago when that wonderful government in Germany got rid of all those pesky Jews. Oh, and remember Pol Pot? Thank God he forced all the educated people out of Cambodia... well, killed, not forced. Remember way back in the day when the US government, approved by FDR, that hero of American socialism, put those gay ass Asians into internment camps? Too bad they didn't get to stay there. Remember when those terrible Indians were forced to march across the country by that freedom loving Democrat Andrew Jackson? They called it the trail of tears because the Indians were crying tears of joy as they collapsed and died under the pressure of the difficult march. Remember way back in the day when the American government allowed people to be owned by other people? Wasn't that awesome? Remember that movie Hotel Rwanda? Wasn't it awesome how those black people were killed by their government? Wasn't that fun to watch? How about back in England when Protestants and Catholics (depending who was king) were burned at the stake for their beliefs. Remember that? Remember Greece last week? Like their government believed the stupid things that you believe. They gave their citizens tons of free shit. Then they went broke. At least they cared for their citizens. We should be more like them.
Man, there is no reason for me to distrust my government. You're right. Governments are the reason people are helped. Like, Mother Theresa, for example. Remember when the government sent her to India to take care of all those people? How about when the government required Pulitzer to establish a prize for peace? How about that government that created Doctors without Borders? If you think the government helps much of anything, then your brain has probably fallen out the back of your head.
@sixthcutuan, If you love your brother, and you want him to be provided for, you should go start a company, give him a job, and either pay him enough that he can have health care or pay for it with money that your company has. The beauty of capitalism is that you have the option of helping care for your brother. It's soooo fucking arrogant for you to think I should be burdened with caring for your brother. I should have the option to do it. And I choose not to. Not my problem. You know why I don't care about your brother? Because I have a brother who needs to be cared for. Guess who takes care of him? I do, his other brothers do, my parents do, his sister does. We're not going to steal from our neighbors to take care of our own. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE UNETHICAL. But if the government steals from your neighbor to help your brother, then it's fine... right?
I wan't lukep back. He can give interesting arguments and he isn't a sick fucker. I feel sorry for your children having to grow up with you inhumane ideals.
@sixthcutuan government is the least efficient way for anybody to be helped. And since they achieve their goals through coercion and stealing the very principle that allows them to help is evil. If you've ever read the story of Robin Hood, it's a tale as old as time. Steal from the one with authority to tax to give to the poor. Pretty much the same thing applies today.
Also how is it sick to think that no one is helped by government? I just gave you like 4 examples of private interests ACTUALLY helping people.
And man, again, anecdotes are stupid. We don't make rules that help every weird ass case. You know the kid whose mom has a weird problem, you make a good income. If you care about the kid and you know his mom can't take care of them, help them out. If you don't want to help them out it's your prerogative. Also, I highly doubt that if it weren't for government care, she'd be dead. She'd probably get helped by doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath, and she'd be taken care of just as well...
It's interesting that I'm the one advocating that you as an individual can choose to get your hands dirty and help your fellow neighbor, you're the one washing your hands of helping others by thinking that your taxes are good enough, and I'm the one being called a sick fuck.
Also how is it sick to think that no one is helped by government? I just gave you like 4 examples of private interests ACTUALLY helping people.
And man, again, anecdotes are stupid. We don't make rules that help every weird ass case. You know the kid whose mom has a weird problem, you make a good income. If you care about the kid and you know his mom can't take care of them, help them out. If you don't want to help them out it's your prerogative. Also, I highly doubt that if it weren't for government care, she'd be dead. She'd probably get helped by doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath, and she'd be taken care of just as well...
It's interesting that I'm the one advocating that you as an individual can choose to get your hands dirty and help your fellow neighbor, you're the one washing your hands of helping others by thinking that your taxes are good enough, and I'm the one being called a sick fuck.
Then you haven't thought it through well enough.
Corporations are a protective shell that harbors all kinds of evil from being brought to justice. I have one so I'd know. They cost as little as $200 in some states to register. If a SMART person (we are talking about the rich ones, right? They tend to always be smart unless their richness is very temporary.) wants to make more money, in this day and age he has to register a corporation to protect it.
This gives us what some would call an unfair advantage. If we do something wrong it's the corporation that gets sued, not the person anymore. It's completely lawful, and pretty much required in this day an age, with crazy lawsuits being so rampant.
So even a small little one-man show can do the "evil" you speak of... But he can't get away with it without registering a corp or LLC or some other protective device to reduce liability.
Takeaway: Without a corporation, someone doing something wrong will get him stuck in the dock, and americans all know it... So without a corp, they wouldn't dare.
Correction: They are a product of 20th century Western capitalism, and continue to exist because most world governments have laws which give them power to exist. Although I know their grasp of our lawmakers it too strong for them to be destroyed or declawed now; they could have been born from other systems, even socialism.
Again, it's not captialism you should be concerned with; it's specifically the evil contained within a corporation. I don't care if capitalism directly gave birth to slavery; It's not doing the evil itself, and is often used for the good of mankind. It should not be blamed for the evil of some of its' followers.
Agreed to a degree, but that takes two things and two things exactly that nobody in america has:
1. TIME. It takes a generation of RADICAL action towards this to bring this about. We don't have that but I'd rather it start now so we're not worse off in 30 years than we would be otherwise.
2. Lack of an Entitlement attitude. I admit this is far worse in the US than it is where you live, (most likely because your country already has pumped so much into education years ago) but we have a large percentage of our nation, usually black people living in inner cities but also plenty of rednecks and idiots scattered about too, that feel ENTITLED to their welfare check or medicare or other government handout.
Entitlements are pretty much the whole problem stopping america from being a real capitalist society. Here is a short WSJ article from last month that explains the entitlements issue better than I can. It's just an opinion piece but it sounds like fact to me.
They simply don't want to learn, and we literally have to stick a gun in some of their faces to get them into school. And why should they go? They're entitled to my tax dollars anyway.
lukep said:
I don't think you're getting my point here, bro.
Mother nature isn't some chick in a green dress with dirt under her fingernails. She is a metaphor for the laws of the universe, and in our planet's case the specific way that our planet keeps itself healthy.
This includes a NATURAL cycle (you know, where the word Nature comes from) of things being born and dying. It is UNNATURAL to get in the way of this NATURAL cycle... And that includes sending your quid to an african villiage.
Sure, doing so can make you feel like you have saved a life today, and you did a "good" thing, but in fact if you fast forward 20,000 years and see the ramifications of your actions, such as all the millions or billions of people born to live in suffering because this person didn't die, then you'll want to hit rewind and slap yourself hard in the face today.
Who are you to decide which starving child lives and dies? That's ms. natures' job.
We've argued this one to death in another thread here somewhere, but I'll just concede that on this you are kind of right; I'm a gun owner because I feel I'm forced to own it... All the criminals here have them, so the "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak in America. -You guys are very lucky that your genie is still (mostly) tucked inside.
The reason you just called it an american trap is because things are very different here in america. Mainly it's our shitty educational system that makes these deadbeats by the boatload... But it's NOT a "Trap" here... The real trap here is trying to help an american adult that grew up without a decent education. You'll find yourself up shit creek without a paddle real fast that way... They won't ever accept your help here unless it's monetary. They'd literally rather die first.
And why don't they die then? Entitlements like welfare. That and really bad charities like our Churches here sponsor. These bums get their cash, even when not in school, and the cycle continues.
This is getting a little personal and making me a bit angry, but I'll humor you this once, so you can see the difference between an educated society and an uneducated one.
The first few were born when I was still in primary School (not even high school yet) so obviously I couldn't do much yet. My oldest brother, the heroin addict, is a decade older than me and we honestly don't know how many kids he's had... At least a dozen across 3 states. Needless to say I can'd find them all and don't have any contact with many of them.
The later ones that I was closer two while they were still young I would have offered to pay for private school, but there are many problems... Such as:
1. Their mother found Jesus. (My brother could make anyone go that crazy, no suprise really.) So she would only consider a christian-only school, and those are far away and more expensive.
2. Their father (my brother) has the standards of an opossum. Yes, I've seen him literally eat out of trash cans. Any raising of his son's standards will cause a lot of strife there and so my brother doesn't even like me TALKING to his son much less sending him to some "uppity" school...
3. They wouldn't last a minute anyway. I once saw my nephew stick a firecracker in the anus of a cat and light it. His dad was present and laughing the whole time. (He Brags to everyone about it in fact!) The cat had to be put down. This kind of mentality is only fit for prisons. Any school that is worth my money would kick him out in minutes!
Believe it or not, my parents are well educated, my dad has a masters degree, and both were in high-level government jobs. Their main downfall was moving us all out "into the country" where people with severely low standards were our peers. I somehow escaped absorbing all of these problems from my society there, but both brothers didn't.
So the problem is, like the problem remains with pretty much all socialist solutions for america; YOU SIMPLY CANNOT INTERVENE WITH SHITTY PARENTING.
Not without killing their shitty parents first. (And then paying for each child's food & board & education & therapy, etc... Not EVER possible in fact.)
So the cycle continues.
Well they don't.
Face facts. They simply do not.
Not until they are far more educated, and they are very effectively fighting the education here.
So what can you do about it other than make it a law?
I am the only human I have ever heard of who has made such an internal change, and it was so damn hard to do I can't believe that more than a handful of other people in the world were able to do the same... If any at all.
You just don't know what socialism/liberalism is up against. At least here, in america, it's too difficult a struggle.
That's why I plan on using capitalism to the fullest to get very rich and then retire in northern Europe.
And here we find another traitor in our midst. I hear Socialist Cuba is an awesome place to live, might we suggest relocation plans?
Really? We're going to concede that English people are better educated and aren't as entitlement prone as the US? WHAT? All of Europe can't get off their entitlements, much less England. Oh, and let's be honest, the more educated you get, the more condescendingly you believe entitlements ought to be bestowed upon those who aren't as good at life as you.
First of all, I don't live in England. And no, I dont believe that anyone on benefits are less good at life than me. Also yes, there are a lot on Job seekers allowance right now here, mainly because of mass unemployment and no jobs in some areas. You seem to have a laissez faire attitude. That died out in the early 20th century here.
Laissez-faire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's been long proven that their Medical facilities are far superior to ours.
Then again, so are their schools and lots of other things that could have helped you turn into a proper human being.
I'm one of Capitalism's biggest fans, as you can tell by my many pages of argument here, but the fact is that when you travel the world, especially northern Europe, you come to really appreciate some of the huge benefits of socialism there.
Personally I wish for the two to work hand in hand, without any government regulation either way. Still trying to figure that one out.