Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

Socialism the problem? Seriously?


Guest Osaka Sun

Recommended Posts

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

for my part I have all day to talk about empathy compassions. I live in a neutral country, there are many fascism as in the others countries, but the poors are not left in the street because social is a right and that the richs pay for the poors.

Insurance is mandatory and is the state that pays can not citizens .

 

the country lives in luxury and the poors who are in the street because not want to be in social and not be integrated

. but the fundamental rights of human rights are inked since long time.

 

But a small country and is considered smart for the others countries and not so intelligent to learn how the laws of a country.

 

more :

 

Switzerland has a stable, modern and one of the most capitalist[citation needed] economies in the world. It has the highest European rating in the Index of Economic Freedom 2010, while also providing large coverage through public services.[74] The nominal per capita GDP is higher than those of the larger Western and Central European economies and Japan (and indeed one of the highest in the world).[75] The Swiss franc remains one of the world's strongest currencies with the lowest inflation rate (rising to an estimated 0.7% for 2011[update]

 

adjusted for purchasing power parity, Switzerland ranks sixteenth in the world for GDP per capita.[75] The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report currently ranks Switzerland's economy as the most competitive in the world.[78] For much of the 20th century, Switzerland was the wealthiest country in Europe by a considerable margin.[79] In 2010, the Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse Research Institute found that Switzerland has the highest average wealth per adult at $372,692, followed by Norway, Australia and Singapore at $326,530, $320,909 and $255,488 respectively, with wealth defined by the value of financial and non-financial (such as real estate) assets.[7] In 2005 the median household income in Switzerland was an estimated 95,000 CHF, the equivalent of roughly 100,000 USD (as of December 2010) in nominal terms.

 

Switzerland is home to several large multinational corporations. The largest Swiss companies by revenue are Glencore, Nestlé, Novartis, Hoffmann-La Roche, ABB and Adecco.[80] Also notable are UBS AG, Zurich Financial Services, Credit Suisse, Swiss Re, and The Swatch Group. Switzerland is ranked as having one of the most powerful economies in the world.[79]

 

Chemicals, health and pharmaceutical, measuring instruments, musical instruments, real estate, banking and insurance, tourism, and international organisations are important industries in Switzerland. The largest exported goods are chemicals (34% of exported goods), machines/electronics (20.9%), and precision instruments/watches (16.9%).[81] Exported services amount to a third of exported goods.[81]

 

Around 3.8 million people work in Switzerland. Switzerland has a more flexible job market than neighboring countries and the unemployment rate is very low. Unemployment rate increased from a low of 1.7% in June 2000 to a peak of 4.4%, as of December 2009.[82] Population growth from net immigration is quite high, at 0.52% of population in 2004.[81] Foreign citizen population is 21.8% as of 2004,[81] about the same as in Australia. GDP per hour worked is the world's 17th highest, at 27.44 international dollars in 2006.

 

Switzerland has an overwhelmingly private sector economy and low tax rates by the Western World standards; overall taxation is one of the smallest of developed countries. Switzerland is an easy place to do business; Switzerland ranks 21st of 178 countries in the Ease of Doing Business Index. The slow growth Switzerland experienced in the 1990s and the early 2000s has brought greater support for economic reforms and harmonisation with the European Union.[83][84] According to Credit Suisse, only about 37% of residents own their own homes, one of the lowest rates of home ownership in Europe. Housing and food price levels were 171% and 145% of the EU-25 index in 2007, compared to 113% and 104% in Germany.[81]

 

Agricultural protectionism—a rare exception to Switzerland's free trade policies—has contributed to high food prices. Product market liberalisation is lagging behind many EU countries according to the OECD.[83] Nevertheless, domestic purchasing power is one of the best in the world.[85][86][87] Apart from agriculture, economic and trade barriers between the European Union and Switzerland are minimal and Switzerland has free trade agreements worldwide. Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

 

For these reasons, I think that europ not stable neither the United States.

Switzerland does not enter in Europ, nothing is stable.

a country rich or very big take care his poors.

then I can say there is a huge advantage of domestic terrorism, fachists or communists in some big states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government can be hijacked by a corrupt wealthy minority, so who's wielding the baton behind the baton is one thing to question first. Regaining control of our governments is the question; removing the influence buying is what we need to do.

Government is the essential component of civilization. I don't want to live in a world of anarchy, but one of governments of, by, and for the will of we the people. Choose anarchy if you wish, but the rest of us would rather choose civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any government can be hijacked by a corrupt wealthy minority, so who's wielding the baton behind the baton is one thing to question first. Regaining control of our governments is the question; removing the influence buying is what we need to do.

Government is the essential component of civilization. I don't want to live in a world of anarchy, but one of governments of, by, and for the will of we the people. Choose anarchy if you wish, but the rest of us would rather choose civilization.

 

very well put... I agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoryABjerre, I think Switzerland has the best form of government of any country today. It is very decentralized, and there are ways the people can protect themselves from bad laws. Also, I think a smaller country is superior to larger countries (due to systemic resiliency).

 

Choose anarchy if you wish' date=' but the rest of us would rather choose civilization.[/quote']

 

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State."

 

~Rothbard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And do you have compassion for the people getting beaten with nightsticks in Spain and Greece? How about the millions imprisoned around the world for nonviolent crimes? Or the millions killed in unnecessary wars? If you want to talk about compassion, I've got all day.

 

I think this is one of your key points, as far as morality is concerned. I loathe the fact that people like to say a stateless society would be an immoral society, when all we have to do is do a quick search on google or youtube to see the atrocities committed by government on a daily basis. Hell, people in Barcelona can look out their bedroom windows to see the police beating the shit out of innocent protesters. People in Pakistan wake up in the middle of the night to the sounds of US bombs (if they're lucky enough not to be killed by one). Most of the greatest atrocities of this world are, and always have been, committed by armed groups of thugs collectively known as "the government".

 

Osaka Sun, if you want to argue the economics of it, that's one thing. But saying Saffire "lacks compassion" just sickens me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDFdwUY2Oks&feature=related]YouTube - ‪Carga Policial Plaza Cataluña‬‏[/ame]

 

So you'd think these protesters were doing something evil right? I mean, with the police beating them with metal bats, they must be violent protesters, right?

 

Wrong. This is a youth movement. They're (peacefully) protesting high unemployment rates. Does the government like that? No. Not one bit. So the police decide to treat them like animals :nice:

 

And this isn't in some poor, developing, third world country. This is in Western Europe. This is a society just like ours. If you don't think this can (and someday will) happen here, then you're insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoryABjerre, I think Switzerland has the best form of government of any country today. It is very decentralized, and there are ways the people can protect themselves from bad laws. Also, I think a smaller country is superior to larger countries (due to systemic resiliency).

 

 

 

"The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State."

 

~Rothbard

States are groups of citizens with a common framework and location in my mind, and while societies exist which either transcend states or are contained within states, I see it highly unlikely the near future will be stateless. To protect, enhance, and encourage societies to flourish states exist, and I really can't see us just becoming networks of individuals within various societies irrespective of states. At times I feel stateless, but I realize there is a common set of values, some shared history and a grounding in place that comes with state; and with that comes institutions that provide frameworks for citizens to engage constructively in promoting the common good - such as infrastructure, education, R&D, health, and safety for all who are citizens of that state.

Are states necessary, or independent of societies? I pondered that before you posted this. I think yes, and the reason I think this is because civilizations, composed of societies of citizens with common interests, are localized and centralized, and differ enough to want to impose their will on the other civilized areas surrounding their own. Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, - everybody wants to rule the world. Because all aspire to grow and from time to time may think they have the one right "formula" for society, this drive necessitates civilized states to form, to maintain borders, to protect the bee hive of activity within. And in maintaining and enhancing each civilized country, the necessity of militaries arose, as well as public sectors for communications, roads, water deliver systems, education, etc. In times past, lower population densities made it a tribal world, where tribes wandered here and there with individual societal frameworks and beliefs, but tribal fluidity is no longer the case. Add to that states have capitols that epitomize, reflect and seat the governance of the society having established them. But societies do exist irrespective of states, however most states are established around common principles of those societies contained within, forming what appears to be a super-society, a sort of tent that covers all within. Yes, I think Aristotle was correct in his assumption that the necessity of society and the necessity of state are both in play in the modern world.

Can we transcend this? Perhaps, who can read the crystal ball and predict the future? One of the great loves of ancient Greek philosophy was the love of place, the love of home. Planet earth is our collective home, but there will always be that innate tendency to see oneself in terms of a more localized order or group among the many. Although, who knows - there are so many threads connecting us all today, place is becoming less and less relevant as prosperity, communications, transportation, and our dreams become more common dreams. It's an open topic as to where we are all headed. It looks like new models and improvements on old ones will be the way forward, and more equity globally, as humanity is at a crossroads, and our collective survival is at stake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When corruption sets in, then yes, states do bad things (like clubbing protesters). It is up to us to be the final check on our own governments, for governments are established by our will and need to be responsive to our values. When they no longer do that, it is time to either revamp them or replace them.

I am reminded of two things. (1) in Madison, the beginning of the protests to the U.S. war in Vietnam was a protest against an overpowering corporation researching and producing the agents used in things like napalm and agent orange. Those protesters were struck violently, and all they did was hold a "sit in" in the chemistry building. (2) The U.S. arose from a rebellion against not only a tyrant, but mainly because of the unfair actions of a giant corporation, the East India Company.

Those who pull the strings running the government are the problem. When they have more pull than the citizens, it's time to make some real changes.

But statelessness still seems to me to be a ways away, if that ever happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is one of your key points, as far as morality is concerned. I loathe the fact that people like to say a stateless society would be an immoral society, when all we have to do is do a quick search on google or youtube to see the atrocities committed by government on a daily basis. Hell, people in Barcelona can look out their bedroom windows to see the police beating the shit out of innocent protesters. People in Pakistan wake up in the middle of the night to the sounds of US bombs (if they're lucky enough not to be killed by one). Most of the greatest atrocities of this world are, and always have been, committed by armed groups of thugs collectively known as "the government".

 

Osaka Sun, if you want to argue the economics of it, that's one thing. But saying Saffire "lacks compassion" just sickens me.

 

I agree with you a lot in terms of the fact that it is extremely wrong for those police officers as well as the government over the years to jail, beat, and kill innocent civilians for no reason other than to have a hold over people.

 

However I feel that although the state can do evil things, that the idea of a stateless society at least in this part is ridiculous to happen. I mean I think at least the people in this thread from their opinions would be caring and look out for their fellow man, but I think without laws that a large amount of of people would make the world more of an anarchy, so I think that a state is needed for less civilized and educated people.

 

 

 

 

States are groups of citizens with a common framework and location in my mind, and while societies exist which either transcend states or are contained within states, I see it highly unlikely the near future will be stateless. To protect, enhance, and encourage societies to flourish states exist, and I really can't see us just becoming networks of individuals within various societies irrespective of states. At times I feel stateless, but I realize there is a common set of values, some shared history and a grounding in place that comes with state; and with that comes institutions that provide frameworks for citizens to engage constructively in promoting the common good - such as infrastructure, education, R&D, health, and safety for all who are citizens of that state.

Are states necessary, or independent of societies? I pondered that before you posted this. I think yes, and the reason I think this is because civilizations, composed of societies of citizens with common interests, are localized and centralized, and differ enough to want to impose their will on the other civilized areas surrounding their own. Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, - everybody wants to rule the world. Because all aspire to grow and from time to time may think they have the one right "formula" for society, this drive necessitates civilized states to form, to maintain borders, to protect the bee hive of activity within. And in maintaining and enhancing each civilized country, the necessity of militaries arose, as well as public sectors for communications, roads, water deliver systems, education, etc. In times past, lower population densities made it a tribal world, where tribes wandered here and there with individual societal frameworks and beliefs, but tribal fluidity is no longer the case. Add to that states have capitols that epitomize, reflect and seat the governance of the society having established them. But societies do exist irrespective of states, however most states are established around common principles of those societies contained within, forming what appears to be a super-society, a sort of tent that covers all within. Yes, I think Aristotle was correct in his assumption that the necessity of society and the necessity of state are both in play in the modern world.

Can we transcend this? Perhaps, who can read the crystal ball and predict the future? One of the great loves of ancient Greek philosophy was the love of place, the love of home. Planet earth is our collective home, but there will always be that innate tendency to see oneself in terms of a more localized order or group among the many. Although, who knows - there are so many threads connecting us all today, place is becoming less and less relevant as prosperity, communications, transportation, and our dreams become more common dreams. It's an open topic as to where we are all headed. It looks like new models and improvements on old ones will be the way forward, and more equity globally, as humanity is at a crossroads, and our collective survival is at stake.

 

I really agree with what you have brought up. Ideally a world without any government would be great where people treated each other with respect and knew right from wrong. But I do agree that there needs to be at least some form of a state, though I feel that the role of government should be very limited to let the people for the most part control their destinies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you a lot in terms of the fact that it is extremely wrong for those police officers as well as the government over the years to jail, beat, and kill innocent civilians for no reason other than to have a hold over people.

 

However I feel that although the state can do evil things, that the idea of a stateless society at least in this part is ridiculous to happen. I mean I think at least the people in this thread from their opinions would be caring and look out for their fellow man, but I think without laws that a large amount of of people would make the world more of an anarchy, so I think that a state is needed for less civilized and educated people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really agree with what you have brought up. Ideally a world without any government would be great where people treated each other with respect and knew right from wrong. But I do agree that there needs to be at least some form of a state, though I feel that the role of government should be very limited to let the people for the most part control their destinies.

 

Kudos. And I agree on limiting government as well. Primarily on limiting the military related parts of it, for that has grown to epic proportions and is dangerous, since when the only tool in your kit is a hammer, one tends to use it when something else would fix the problems much better.

I think of all the better things we could do to promote the blessings of liberty around the globe and to improve our own country..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree with the military aspect. I mean just look at this graph

 

 

d160c8f740cad88bd41656f4e5b6b3ec.png

 

 

is that much spending really necessary? Also I feel it gives a bad impression of our country as well as our gun laws to basically show us as being a ruthless bloodthirsty nation.

 

 

I will at least say that regardless of all these discussion of how the police takes over and what not I feel very happy to live here. Because I feel many other countries and people around the world don't get as many opportunities or freedoms as we do (especially poorer nations and dictatorial nations in the middle east)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree with the military aspect. I mean just look at this graph

 

 

 

 

 

is that much spending really necessary? Also I feel it gives a bad impression of our country as well as our gun laws to basically show us as being a ruthless bloodthirsty nation.

 

 

I will at least say that regardless of all these discussion of how the police takes over and what not I feel very happy to live here. Because I feel many other countries and people around the world don't get as many opportunities or freedoms as we do (especially poorer nations and dictatorial nations in the middle east)

> Yes, our spending on the military is incredibly excessive. One sees the results too - that impression unfortunately in some ways fits a certain segment of our population.

That is a good observation about feeling happy to live here; I have to agree as well. We have incredible opportunities and freedoms, and need to do more to encourage prosperity in other nations in a real sense. Wresting control of our government from the corporate interests would really make the whole world a better place.. Often what holds back people in developing nations are policies run through our government but crafted by those interests who see profit and control over ethics and respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree... I also feel a lot of it has to do with intellect and the desire to learn. Like I don't want to stereotype, but I feel so much of the middle of the country is just so stubborn, uninformed, and ignorant that it kind of set backs the country. Like I hate to say it or sound elitist but I feel that the coastal states seem to be a lot more advanced in our way of thinking and I feel that it's more of the direction I wish the rest of the country would think... like more liberal ways of thinking socially, but hands off of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Osaka Sun
Chess-03-june.gif

:facepalm:

 

Every single country in the world that was deeply affected in the recession was forced to either apply government stimulus and/or increase banking regulations to treat the issue at hand. Saffire's advocating an radical theory that hasn't been considered anywhere, to just sit back and wait for the "invisible hand" to somehow pick the economy up, to put it simply.

 

In Canada, we just needed one round of this thing, and we've been fine. Inflation is low, and we're relatively managing our debt. And many economists here would argue here that bank regulatons (that hilariously was attempted to be removed by libertarian Reformers in the late 1990s in the name of "spurring more private investment") prevented the bulk of the problems. In Scandinavia and in Canada, we had it. In more social democratic/egalitarian countries that taxed higher incomes and supported the middle and lower class if capitalism had not ensured economic freedom. In the United States, Ireland, and Iceland, you could say otherwise.

 

The same neoliberals that say that the recession was caused because by more government were in political power when it was doing the exact opposite. That's the irony here. Saying that the "free market" will solve everything is simply asinine. Are you going to say that BP, listeria crises, toxins in water and food, and terrible health care, is thanks to overregulation? Where is your evidence to that?

 

I'm critical of government just as much as you are. What's going on in Spain is disgusting, and the military industrial complex in the United States is simply horrific. But to say that no state is the answer is just as dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question what is an alternative ??

Feck its bloody amazing to witness what is happening over here at the moment, even if it comes to nothing, its history.

 

Order could be the best thing of the day..

Spain may have to face a very painful choice again..

Just as much some of you will see the anti system protests spreading and this revoultion, there is an under current of felling torwards the far right... everyone is pissed of with the system and evetully overtime one is going to be stronger than the other, what is happening now will be eventully the same people that will be in power one day, a new system it will take time..Think 20 years ahead, everyone now will be older with no one intrested in political parties we have now... people from social network revoultions which gets to the everytday person will be in power

 

where are we all going ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree... I also feel a lot of it has to do with intellect and the desire to learn. Like I don't want to stereotype, but I feel so much of the middle of the country is just so stubborn, uninformed, and ignorant that it kind of set backs the country. Like I hate to say it or sound elitist but I feel that the coastal states seem to be a lot more advanced in our way of thinking and I feel that it's more of the direction I wish the rest of the country would think... like more liberal ways of thinking socially, but hands off of government.

> I think your observations hold a great deal of merit. Although there are intelligent, well educated citizens in places throughout the country, there are clear patterns and trends which lean in certain directions depending on the region. The center has it's stubbornness in places I agree, which is not all bad in the sense of firm grounding, but does have those issues that you mention. I think the same way at times, although I see the northern tier great lakes states are a broad swath of those with the desire to lean and progress. In some ways by extension we share a common language dialect and cultural roots - that of inland New York - and many of the same ways of seeing the world as well. It is a natural connection, via settlement patterns and common waterways, but the impetus for progress runs along the same veins in our culture here. Never mind the occasional hiccup - this is where east meets west, where Wild Bill Hickock meets Civilized East.

It all centers around education and advancement, certainly key elements to progress anywhere. Coastal states are definitely at the forefront, given global connections and centers for learning - liberal socially as a matter of progress, but I understand your desire for less government, given the past excesses of control over citizen's personal lives.

Obviously the answer is to keep settling in parts of the country which need advancement and enlightenment (here's my bias coming through as well) - for the world is depending on us to do the right thing, so they can breath a little easier too.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Cobalt, I love this stuff! Don't get mad.

 

But it makes me mad. :veryangry2:

 

Especially when:

 

:facepalm:

 

Every single country in the world that was deeply affected in the recession was forced to either apply government stimulus and/or increase banking regulations to treat the issue at hand. Saffire's advocating an radical theory that hasn't been considered anywhere, to just sit back and wait for the "invisible hand" to somehow pick the economy up, to put it simply.

 

In Canada, we just needed one round of this thing, and we've been fine. Inflation is low, and we're relatively managing our debt. And many economists here would argue here that bank regulatons (that hilariously was attempted to be removed by libertarian Reformers in the late 1990s in the name of "spurring more private investment") prevented the bulk of the problems. In Scandinavia and in Canada, we had it. In more social democratic/egalitarian countries that taxed higher incomes and supported the middle and lower class if capitalism had not ensured economic freedom. In the United States, Ireland, and Iceland, you could say otherwise.

 

The same neoliberals that say that the recession was caused because by more government were in political power when it was doing the exact opposite. That's the irony here. Saying that the "free market" will solve everything is simply asinine. Are you going to say that BP, listeria crises, toxins in water and food, and terrible health care, is thanks to overregulation? Where is your evidence to that?

 

I'm critical of government just as much as you are. What's going on in Spain is disgusting, and the military industrial complex in the United States is simply horrific. But to say that no state is the answer is just as dangerous.

 

This is the last post I'm making here.

 

OH HEY HELLO THERE YEAH HI I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONE?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree... I also feel a lot of it has to do with intellect and the desire to learn. Like I don't want to stereotype, but I feel so much of the middle of the country is just so stubborn, uninformed, and ignorant that it kind of set backs the country. Like I hate to say it or sound elitist but I feel that the coastal states seem to be a lot more advanced in our way of thinking and I feel that it's more of the direction I wish the rest of the country would think... like more liberal ways of thinking socially, but hands off of government.

 

Spanish is one who discovers the quota, is English who gave independence. in USA. they gave that name united states

But apparently, nothing is united in the sense that the U.S. has no identity. a country much young 1776 did not put up a real social system for the people.

there is no president who desides really. I have the impression that it is these people to power only respecting the benefit of their money. they can easely run the state.

So... Ben Laden was Buch family & business agreement ? then very easy to say we kill Ben Laden, but he was sick for a long time and had even made ​​a will ?

 

then I do not know how to criticize every time europ. I think we had better start learning the system of the others countries because the U.S is composed of Europeans.

And I do not want to talk about Americas destoy by the colonizations and epidemics given by the same European.

then it was their continent.

 

Learn the origin of a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A funny thing I see repeated here is this:

 

Whenever a socialist government gives the people "free" stuff (ie monopolizes a sector and extracts revenue coercively via taxation), you praise socialism as the ultimate method of delivering these services to the people.

 

But when you begin to see the inevitable result of monopoly - shortages, higher prices, lower quality services, endless red tape, government violence against complaining customers - you attribute this to infiltration by the rich and elite. It's always an external capitalist greed that ruins your socialist experiment!

 

Look, you guys can call a pile of sh!t a "rose" all you want to. But it doesn't change the fact it's a pile of sh!t. Governments are territorial monopolists of coercion.

 

This poses a huge cognitive dissonance problem for many people. When confronted with this fact, their brains trigger a fast shutdown and dismiss it as invective against their core belief structure. They buy into this religion of "democracy" and complete faith in a group of people who claim to be somehow outside of society, outside of the laws of economics. Governments are just groups of people. They are no wiser than us.

 

The story of human civilization is the story of production. How can we produce what we want? Governments produce nothing of value, because the only way to determine whether a thing is valuable or not is to subject it to the market, voluntary exchange. But you're so caught up in the government mythos that you attribute the peaceful prosperity you see in your everyday life to the violent monopolist acting behind the scenes to hinder trade.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50FZ0Sz2N6A]YouTube - ‪Market Anarchy Compilation I - Hans-Hermann Hoppe‬‏[/ame]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...