Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:Wut. What implementation of socialism have you come across where doctors and fast food workers are paid the same?

Follow the Troll Logic, below:

1. Immigrant doctors from crappy third-world countries whose diploma isn't recognized in Canada and so must wait on tables,*
2. US citizens consider Canada a socialist country,
3. therefore, Canada is a socialist country where a doctor earns the same as a fast-food worker.

Do I get a prize?

FL

*I knew such a doctor from Mexico. He no longer waits on tables, he teaches at a local university.

Prejudices... Prejudices everywhere...

Reactionary wrote:Prejudices... Prejudices everywhere...

What are you talking about, my socialist friend?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Prejudices... Prejudices everywhere...

What are you talking about, my socialist friend?

I'm saying, some people think that having universal healthcare is socialist. Yet nearly entire Europe has it. And some think that in (real) socialism everyone is paid the same salary. Fear of the unknown, if you ask me.

By the way, I'm not a socialist. But I'm a proponent of welfare. Big difference.

Reactionary wrote:I'm saying, some people think that having universal healthcare is socialist.

Oh..OK. I don't think that, but most Americans would. Heathcare isn't any more ''socialist'' than a public utility such as water or electricity or natural gas in your home.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Reactionary wrote:I'm saying, some people think that having universal healthcare is socialist.

Oh..OK. I don't think that, but most Americans would. Heathcare isn't any more ''socialist'' than a public utility such as water or electricity or natural gas in your home.

FL

It's actually quite different. At least the healthcare Obama proposes. My family pays for the water, electricity, and gas WE use. In universal healthcare, my family pays for the healthcare everyone else uses. You all know Americans are fat, lazy, and unhealthy. So, paying for the fat, lazy, and unhealthy, can be quite expensive, in obama's socialism.

I think we need to adopt a healthcare system like Russia's. Each adult there is given free bottles of vodka every week, and most die from liver failure, at a young age. Voila! No healthcare expenses for the elderly, because there are no elderly.

In an ideal world, socialism would work great,
We do NOT live in an ideal world.

Reactionary wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Prejudices... Prejudices everywhere...

What are you talking about, my socialist friend?

I'm saying, some people think that having universal healthcare is socialist. Yet nearly entire Europe has it. And some think that in (real) socialism everyone is paid the same salary. Fear of the unknown, if you ask me.

By the way, I'm not a socialist. But I'm a proponent of welfare. Big difference.

Actually there isn't all that much difference, depending on the form of socialism you're talking about.

Social democracy is the form of government that is practiced to varying levels in a lot of European states, and is often referred to in shorthand as socialism. Social democracy is markedly different from a Marxian view of socialism (it isn't revolutionary, and doesn't hinge on the idea of fundamental incompatibilities between working and capitalist classes), and has as a central tenet allowing for universal access to certain services.

You might not be an ur-Socialist, but I don't think it's unreasonable to call someone who is a proponent of welfare a socialist, at least in some sense of the word.

RickD wrote:My family pays for the water, electricity, and gas WE use. In universal healthcare, my family pays for the healthcare everyone else uses. You all know Americans are fat, lazy, and unhealthy. So, paying for the fat, lazy, and unhealthy, can be quite expensive, in obama's socialism.

I think we need to adopt a healthcare system like Russia's. Each adult there is given free bottles of vodka every week, and most die from liver failure, at a young age. Voila! No healthcare expenses for the elderly, because there are no elderly.

Who paid for the water, gas and electricity infrastructure to be installed? I'd be shocked (shocked!) if not a cent of public money had been spent on getting those utilities delivered to where your family are.

Private healthcare works great for certain conditions. Your knee flares up, and you've seen a GP, consultant and surgeon within a matter of days, and everyone is happy. Good luck getting what you think your insurance entitles you to if you pick up a progressive and difficult to treat condition.

It's the same story whenever services that are fundamentally loss-making are opened up to private finance and profiteering. People seem shocked (shocked!) when private enterprises skim the cream, cut their costs and lump the state with the most expensive to run services. Look at rail privatisation here in the UK - since the networks have been opened up to private enterprise, ticket prices have soared and service quality has tanked, especially on low-volume rural lines.

RickD wrote:It's actually quite different. At least the healthcare Obama proposes. My family pays for the water, electricity, and gas WE use. In universal healthcare, my family pays for the healthcare everyone else uses. You all know Americans are fat, lazy, and unhealthy. So, paying for the fat, lazy, and unhealthy, can be quite expensive,

Not necessarily your family. There are several models of healthcare. In the Bismarck model (a similar version is used in Croatia as far as I know) healthcare funds are financed by both employers and employees, but mostly employers (this increases the cost of labor for them though). Doctors can work privately in their own clinics, and many of them have a contract with the country's institute for health insurance - this means that the patient can be partially or fully exempted from paying the costs of treatment, yet the doctor still earns his/her money.
http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resour ... models.php
http://healthmatters4.blogspot.com/2011 ... model.html

Some here seem to think that Socialism has little or nothing to do with a constriction of individual liberty, but that simply is not the case-- no matter what "type" of socialism we are talking about. Socialism, to some degree or another, is fundamentally a circumscription of economic freedom. "Capitalism" is simply a word we use to describe a system in which people are econimically free (or at least relatively so). As Milton Friedman said, economic liberty, while not a sufficient condition for political freedom, is nonetheless a necessary one.

As individuals we are ultimately responsible for our own well-being. Whenever we relinquish a responsibility (e.g. the responsibility for our own medical care, or our own health generally, or for housing), in so doing we also forfeit a corresponding freedom. Those to whom we relinquish the responsibility may not collect on that freedom immediately, but they can and eventually (when times are tough) they will. By way of anology: If, after graduating from University, we find it difficult to obtain a job and suitable housing and we therefore move back in with mom and dad, we are (for the time being) relinquishing the responsibility for our own housing, etc. In so doing, however, there is also the understanding that we are submitting to mom and dad's rules once again; "My house, my rules." Mom and Dad may be the particularly libertine sort with their now-adult child and allow him or her to do what he/she wishes-- but that usually comes to an end if the child is unruly, has loud parties late into the night, or otherwise disturbs what mom and dad are trying to do. Mom and Dad will then put their feet down, insist on some particular rules (i.e. constrictions of freedom), and say "My way or the highway." Of course, when it's mom and dad and their housing, the adult offspring can simply choose to leave. When it's the state, things get a little more difficult.

Now, certainly, the institution of any government must necessarily circumscribe some basic liberties; government always has a monopoly on the use of force, after all, and the institution of civil law and a police force to enforce it generally proscribes vigilantism. The founding principle of the United States, though, was that the purpose of government was to establish a basic framework wherein the individuals most basic, God-given liberties were protected, and little more; it was to protect those natural rights of life, liberty and property. The founders of the United States believed that fundamental liberties, given to each individual by God and therefore predating government, could not be legitimately taken away. Many Americans still agree with this, which is why there is so much distaste for the extent to which we already have a socialist government, and a fear of going any farther in that direction. Yes, Americans value freedom.

Socialism, at its core, is based on the idea that the state is the political manifestation of the people, and that the care of all individuals is therefore the business of the state. It is, inescapably (too often literally so), a statist position. It is true that many Western and Central European countries are socialist, and that citizens therein retain a fair degree of individual autonomy. I don't mean to deny that at all. When things are going well, which they generally have been for the many decades since social democracy has been implimented, this situation can remain and most people go humming along their merry way. So too with mom, dad, and their live-in adult offspring. When things start going poorly, however, that is when you start to understand just how much power the socialist state has, and how little interest bureaucrats have in individual liberty when the fate of the "collective" is at stake.

As far as socialism being consistent with Christian teachings: Christ didn't just say "give stuff to the poor." Christ said the greatest commandments were to love God, and to love others as yourself-- that all other commandments would flow naturally from those two. The government CANNOT love you. It can't. Being forced to give money to the government that might be used in part to help others is not a fulfullment of God's commandments; it is not love. Voting to confiscate the wealth of somebody else in order to give it to a third person is also neither charity nor love. There is a reason Furstentum Liechtenstein noticed such a generous spirit among Americans: its culture was based upon a Judeo-Christian ethic, and its charitable ideals haven't been sapped by a century of cradle-to-grave socialism. When it comes to helping the poor, I think, Americans are less likely than others to say that it's the governments job.

Protector,

I realize that we are responsible for our own well-being, but some services are in the community's best interests, and it makes sense for the State to take care of them. You can't say, for instance, that we are ultimately responsible for our self-defense - that's why we have law enforcement. In the same way, there are institutions which work to make sure that the citizens live a life worthy of a human being. Public education system, public healthcare system, and as someone pointed out - infrastructure that enables electricity, plumbing, gas etc. You can't trust the private sector to build that - it's something that the State gets done. And here's why:

Imagine if there was one, single electricity provider owned by one, single person. This person could raise the prices of electricity as high as (s)he wants - because a good as crucial as electricity has very inelastic demand due to its invaluability. Would that be just?

Another thing - a country needs a skilled and efficient workforce. That's why you can't say that we shouldn't care about literacy and education of the people, or their health. More educated workers earn more money and make a country more advanced. Healthy workers are more efficient. Maternity leave and child benefits encourage a higher birth rate and consequently more workers in the future. Being ensured in such a way means less stress - again a healthier life. So the point of welfare state is to make its society more efficient, and not to be a charitable organization as some apparently think.

Regarding liberties - I don't know of a country that doesn't have a taxation system. Paying taxes is not having your wealth confiscated. It enables the State to function - it pays for the military and police that protect us, it pays for infrastructural and other projects, environmental protection, bureaucrats, teachers, and other employees in the public sector. In my opinion, your views are very selfish. What would happen if a country faced foreign invasion, there's no organized army and everyone defends their own house? Capitulation within days. What would happen if nobody built the infrastructure that brings water to our homes? Would each of us walk to a nearest river with a bucket, or would we wait until someone rich builds it, then collects extra profit because we depend on "their" water? What if all the roads had been built and owned by wealthy individuals, and you'd have to pay toll to each of them? Finally, would it be just that someone exploits the basic needs of the population?

I disagree with your saying that a "socialist" state (that's how you call it, I wouldn't) fails when things start going poorly. In fact, it's the crises when the importance of the State becomes even more obvious. A good example would be bailing out banks or companies that are hit by an economic downturn. There are dangers in letting such businesses collapse - that causes a chain reaction that spreads to the citizens (who have deposit accounts in the bank in crisis or are employed by the company in crisis) and to other companies (who are owed money by the company in crisis). There are rules and regulations that have been made in order to prevent or reduce the significance of such scenarios, but again, someone has made them universal. Experts who are probably on the State's payroll. Again, that stresses its importance. If we are to be each for ourselves, we could just as well return to caves and hit all potential intruders with clubs.

Reactionary wrote:
I disagree with your saying that a "socialist" state (that's how you call it, I wouldn't) fails when things start going poorly. In fact, it's the crises when the importance of the State becomes even more obvious. A good example would be bailing out banks or companies that are hit by an economic downturn. There are dangers in letting such businesses collapse -

Reactionary, you just used, probably the worst example possible, to try to convince an American that socialism is good. Government bailing out banks. After what happened in the US, with the govt bailout to big banks, let's just say, worst example you could have used.

Oh, by the way, were you educated in government schools?

RickD wrote:Reactionary, you just used, probably the worst example possible, to try to convince an American that socialism is good. Government bailing out banks.

Oh my goodness... What socialism? I'm a proponent of welfare state, not socialism.

Governments bail out banks. It is estimated that in the 1990s, nearly one-third of Croatian annual GDP was spent on bailing out banks. It doesn't mean giving money to a bank. Often "old" shares are replaced by new ones, owned by a special agency which will manage those investments and placements which are risky, and may even appoint a new board which should make sure that the situation doesn't repeat itself.

I've already explained why it's dangerous to let a bank collapse. Last year one bank went bankrupt - according to the article below, it made only 0,44% of the Croatian banking system, yet there was a concern among depositors about whether they could get their money back. In Croatia, only deposits up to 400,000 HRK (cca. $65,000) are secured. Those who have more than that on a savings account, risk a loss of their financial assets if their bank collapses.
http://www.tportal.hr/biznis/novaciulag ... irala.html

RickD wrote:Oh, by the way, were you educated in government schools?

Of course. Not only that. My college studies are also financed by our Ministry of Science, Education and Sports. That is, as long as I pass my exams regularly. The only thing I pay for is books. Even meals at college restaurants are heavily discounted. That means I pay $1-2 for a cooked, healthy lunch. Along with appetizer, drink, dessert...

Cool, huh?

Reactionary, Croatia ain't the USS of A. Please do some research about what happened here with the big bank bailout. I think you'll change your tune.

Oh my goodness... What socialism? I'm a proponent of welfare state, not socialism.

Yikes, here in the US, the two terms are pretty synonymous.

Governments bail out banks. It is estimated that in the 1990s, nearly one-third of Croatian annual GDP was spent on bailing out banks. It doesn't mean giving money to a bank. Often "old" shares are replaced by new ones, owned by a special agency which will manage those investments and placements which are risky, and may even appoint a new board which should make sure that the situation doesn't repeat itself.

Well, that certainly isn't what happened here.

Please do some research on the bailout of the mega banks here in the US. Greed, power, and control, are the keywords.