Why I'm a Liberal

Rationalist

Rationalist

Hail Voltaire
My wife and I went to see Elysium last week. The most striking thing was the sheer plausibility of the storyline: a world consisting entirely of the haves (<1%) and have-nots (>99%), lack of corporate oversight, lack of worker protections, etc.

This is an issue I've been giving much thought, as I'm beginning to realize that whether they realize it or not, this is precisely the sort of world desired by many Republican politicians. It also occurs to me that what they call "socialism" actually works pretty damned well in most western countries. Australia has a $16/hour minimum wage and single-payer healthcare, and they completely dodged the recession. Denmark has a de facto $19/hour minimum wage, the highest taxes in the western world, and a government twice the size of ours per capita, but they also have full employment and are one of the happiest and healthiest countries. Virtually every western country offers universal healthcare - they spend less, their people are healthier than ours, and the vast majority of their people support this system. How the fuck am I supposed to argue against any of that?

I'm not an ideological person. I don't think government programs are always the answer. I'm for whatever works. There are certainly times when cutbacks are necessary, and that is where fiscal conservatives can play a role. But if a government program is the answer to a particular problem, so be it.

Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and as it currently stands, liberalism offers a much more plausible, testable, and proven model.
 
Rationalist said:
My wife and I went to see Elysium last week. The most striking thing was the sheer plausibility of the storyline: a world consisting entirely of the haves (<1%) and have-nots (>99%), lack of corporate oversight, lack of worker protections, etc.

This is an issue I've been giving much thought, as I'm beginning to realize that whether they realize it or not, this is precisely the sort of world desired by many Republican politicians. It also occurs to me that what they call "socialism" actually works pretty damned well in most western countries. Australia has a $16/hour minimum wage and single-payer healthcare, and they completely dodged the recession. Denmark has a de facto $19/hour minimum wage, the highest taxes in the western world, and a government twice the size of ours per capita, but they also have full employment and are one of the happiest and healthiest countries. Virtually every western country offers universal healthcare - they spend less, their people are healthier than ours, and the vast majority of their people support this system. How the fuck am I supposed to argue against any of that?

I'm not an ideological person. I don't think government programs are always the answer. I'm for whatever works. There are certainly times when cutbacks are necessary, and that is where fiscal conservatives can play a role. But if a government program is the answer to a particular problem, so be it.

Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim, and as it currently stands, liberalism offers a much more plausible, testable, and proven model.
Click to expand...

So give me some areas you think the government should not be involved in? You obviously love that they arbitrarily set wages and want them involved in your health decisions. Housing? Food?

I love when people say "I don't think government is the only solution" only to turn around and always call for government solutions.

Australia doesn't have a high minimum wage for everyone. It is tiered by age. Odd huh?

Many of the other countries you cite have two fundamental differences. The country is roughly the size of Maine and they strictly control immigration. Crazy huh?
 
I Love America said:
So give me some areas you think the government should not be involved in?
Click to expand...

Let's start with Amtrak, which should have been privatized decades ago.

You obviously love that they arbitrarily set wages and want them involved in your health decisions.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do love it, because it ultimately leads to a more equitable society, and everyone that lives in those societies seems to like it. I assure you very, very few Australians want the American healthcare system.

Housing? Food?
Click to expand...

In some cases, yes. A minimum income is my preferred method of delivery, however. I certainly don't think government should own housing.

Australia doesn't have a high minimum wage for everyone. It is tiered by age. Odd huh?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'd support a similar system for the US. If I remember correctly, they start getting the full minimum at age 21, which seems pretty fair.

Many of the other countries you cite have two fundamental differences. The country is roughly the size of Maine and they strictly control immigration. Crazy huh?
Click to expand...

Do you have any excuses as to why they're so wildly successful aside from their size? Are you admitting that "socialism" works on a smaller scale? Interesting. At any rate, many of them do not strictly control immigration. Some of them are 5 - 10% Muslim. This is a problem, but they're beginning to realize that.
 
pisskop said:
Why the discrepancy?
Click to expand...

I'm a realist. People employed by taxpayers cannot receive unsustainable benefits and raises far beyond inflation, and we cannot allow Muslims to enter our country without being cleared. How many Theo van Goghs do we need before you'll finally "get it"?
 
You? Outside of what, 3 days ago we had 1 other correspondence. And I had to think reeeeeal hard to determine whether I knew you from the winter.

Go play with your trolls, lass.
 
pisskop said:
You? Outside of what, 3 days ago we had 1 other correspondence. And I had to think reeeeeal hard to determine whether I knew you from the winter.

Go play with your trolls, lass.
Click to expand...
Go play with your tiny little wanker moron. We all know more than enough about you, and you know nothing whatsoever about Poet, or you wouldn't have called him lass, you fucking ignorant child. Fuck off.
 
Rationalist said:
I'm a realist. People employed by taxpayers cannot receive unsustainable benefits and raises far beyond inflation, and we cannot allow Muslims to enter our country without being cleared. How many Theo van Goghs do we need before you'll finally "get it"?
Click to expand...

Social Security is socialism. Fire and police departments are socialism. Interstate Highways are socialism Public schools are socialism.
It is as simple as you laid out in your first sentence.
1% of the population are haves and will do anything to keep it that way. They do not care who lives or dies from starvation, lack of medical care, or their wars.
In spite of these facts, somehow they manage to get nearly 50% of the downtrodden, the paupers, to vote for them, in elections with pre-determined outcomes.

Eliminate the electoral college and we can start talking about democratic principles.
Until then, be happy with your oligarchy, since you voted for it.
 
Rune said:
Social Security is socialism. Fire and police departments are socialism. Interstate Highways are socialism Public schools are socialism.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. What you're talking about it nationalization - the transfer of ownership to the government. Socialism, or socialist socialization, is the process of democratizing that ownership. Government ownership would be socialism if this said government was wholly democratic. But that isn't the case in the United States.
 
Rationalist said:
In some cases, yes. A minimum income is my preferred method of delivery, however. I certainly don't think government should own housing.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Although, I'd add that there need to be measures taken to ensure that jobs are of a quality where folks will choose to take them. That would probably mean democratic ownership of some sort, and a central authority setting wage controls.
 
Rose said:
Incorrect. What you're talking about it nationalization - the transfer of ownership to the government. Socialism, or socialist socialization, is the process of democratizing that ownership. Government ownership would be socialism if this said government was wholly democratic. But that isn't the case in the United States.
Click to expand...


Oh my mistake and apologies I misread what you wrote.

Had a couple of minutes to kill and was in too much of a hurry.


I get your point
 
I do believe we are still a Democracy though just one under attack from within by the very sources who have bought republican party out
 
Rationalist said:
Let's start with Amtrak, which should have been privatized decades ago.


Perhaps your unaware of what has happened to this type of industry when it has been privatized in the past?



Yes, I do love it, because it ultimately leads to a more equitable society, and everyone that lives in those societies seems to like it. I assure you very, very few Australians want the American healthcare system.



In some cases, yes. A minimum income is my preferred method of delivery, however. I certainly don't think government should own housing.



Yes, I'd support a similar system for the US. If I remember correctly, they start getting the full minimum at age 21, which seems pretty fair.



Do you have any excuses as to why they're so wildly successful aside from their size? Are you admitting that "socialism" works on a smaller scale? Interesting. At any rate, many of them do not strictly control immigration. Some of them are 5 - 10% Muslim. This is a problem, but they're beginning to realize that.
Click to expand...


It only works when used in certain areas and coupled with a strong capitalist market.
 
Rose said:
Incorrect. What you're talking about it nationalization - the transfer of ownership to the government. Socialism, or socialist socialization, is the process of democratizing that ownership. Government ownership would be socialism if this said government was wholly democratic. But that isn't the case in the United States.
Click to expand...

The roads, police, fire were never privately owned, so would nationalization fit? When I think of nationalization, I think helthcare or like Venezuala and their oil, which went from private ownership to nationalization.

Our pooled resources pay for roads, etc, so socialized seems more accurate.
 
evince said:
I do believe we are still a Democracy though just one under attack from within by the very sources who have bought republican party out
Click to expand...

Our industry is owned by a small class, barring entry to ordinary folk. Our workplaces are organized as dictatorships, with capitalists owning the bulk of workers' time. Candidates need to be vetted by monied individuals upon deciding to run. The bourgeoisie has formed an ideological bloc, privately owning our sources of information. We have two parties which, through financial dominance, limit ideological outsiders from entering politics.

You really want to call this a democracy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top