Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ CBJ 6 years, 6 months ago
    Now if they would only do something about their "free" health care system . . .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 6 years, 6 months ago
      They already have. It's the inevitable outcome called rationing. They recognized the problem several years ago and are now creating official policies to deal with it such as this one: http://www.dailywire.com/news/19204/h...

      What they just don't realize is that there is a far more effective and just method of rationing, and it is called the free market. Gotta love it when reality just bites you in the posterior.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 6 years, 6 months ago
        The free market is not a form of rationing. They are opposites. The concept 'rationing' identifies the prevention of freedom by limiting what you can buy or sell.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 6 years, 6 months ago
    England is long known for making bad decisions. They gave Marx his soapbox. They gave us outcome based education, even though they ultimately cautioned Clinton that it caused a "brain drain" in Britain. Not to worry, Clinton embraced it. None of them realize "there is no free lunch", as we Objectivists know. Edcation is not as valued by students if they have no stake in it. When I was in college, those getting government grants which included gas money, often failed to show up for classes.No tuition, less money for professors, so the quality declines, worse than what we have now in US colleges. Brits have us proper English, it went downhill after that. Now even those with supposedly good educations, can't speak the Queen's English.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 6 months ago
      Every society that has an aristocracy at the top fails. Pull always fails. Meritocracy usually succeeds.
      The movie Longitude shows the productivity of Britain's aristocracy pretty well.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 6 months ago
    Even with their recent free tuition kerfuffle, they still can't recognize that there is no such thing as a free anything.Even the Universe doesn't allow it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 6 months ago
    Socialism is designed to backfire, but the designers rarely admit it when the eventual backfire is in their faces going "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
      I would define socialism as a system of transferring wealth from the earners to the freeloaders. When most or all the wealth is taken from the earners, the system collapses. In the meantime, it serves the government people, who were the real beneficiaries in the first place. They are the ones living the good life, while the earners try to stay afloat, and the freeloaders only get enough to survive really.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 6 months ago
        There is some danger in redefining concepts in terms of non essentials. Your definition would define any family as socialist since the earner in the family produces wealth while the freeloaders, the children and possibly a non working wife and any helped relatives along with charities, etc., would get the redistribution of wealth.
        Socialism is usually defined in terms of a society where production and distribution is centrally determined, sometimes democratically and other times dictatorially, though democratically, in most cases, has the same affect on the minority.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
          I would agree that the usual definition of socialism is as you say. But what we have here in USA is more like- go ahead and make money any way you can and then we take it and give it to social programs determined by the government
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 6 months ago
            That is a problem of citizens wanting government to act in ways that interfere with the actions of others and not some kind of general freedom to produce and a directive to give a part of the production product to others. If citizens want to have governments to fulfill their altruistic desires due to religious or philosophical beliefs, then you get a very mixed economy at the best and dictatorship at the worst. It is not that government takes from the producers to give to others that is the evil part, but that most of the citizens want government to do that with feedback from government spokespeople giving feedback to increase the desire by citizens for the direction of production and distribution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
              Of course government panders to the desires of the citizens, while getting a big cut of the pie for itself and its minions (employees and supporters). The crumbs actually go to the mass of citizens that foolishly grant the power to the government.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
          I would agree that a family is socialist in terms of how it operates, except that the breadwinner freely gives his wealth to the family- at least until the children get out on their own (hopefully). My dad sat me down and asked me if I had thought about where I was going to live when I graduated from high school- making me address the issue. I think a lot of parents today just let the kids continue to feed off the families- encouraging the children to stay as children
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 6 months ago
            Nowhere did I indicate that a family is socialist. You gave a definition of socialism that was contrary to the usual definition. As I wrote, "There is some danger in redefining concepts in terms of non essentials." So I just applied your definition to various groups which all could fit it as being socialist by your definition. What do you think the difference between Capitalism and Socialism is? It is not how wealth is transfered. It is about how production is controlled, whether by free producers or by some centralized means such as by government decree, democratic vote, or by some decree by a religious system or even by some misdirected philosophic system were mankind is not considered individualistic.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
              Isn’t the real method of production under capitalism and socialism the same? It’s the work of the producers that generates the wealth. Under capitalism the wealth stays with the producers. Under socialism it’s transferred to the non producers. That’s why I am thinking these -isms are really , in the end, methods of directing where the wealth goes
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 6 months ago
                It is not a question of the method of production or producers but how production is directed. Is it directed by free persons making individual decisions or is it directed by directives from those who, usually governments, are willing to use force to enforce the directives on how, why, how much, how to trade, etc., about the production. The concept of system is so general that it should be avoided. It fits nearly all natural actions including humans who are all natural despite the tendency to consider that consciousness is somehow not a result of natural physical processes. So terms like capitalist system, socialist system, religious system, philosophical system, and untold billions of other systems gives little information other than that there is some group that performs or believes some types of actions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
                  How would you characterize the USA? I feel free to make money subject to the rules and allowances of the various governments (especially here in Las Vegas where its illegal to start a business that is NOT on the approved city list, and then to operate it until its officially approved by the city). Once I make money, its taxes in so many ways its hard to even keep track of- business license fees for city, county, state- property taxes, sales taxes, business gross receipt taxes, payroll taxes
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 6 years, 6 months ago
                    I would characterize the USA as having a mixed economy where production is freely done, though after gauntlet of many busybodies has to be first run through. Then there is a layer of thieves who who threaten in order to be given a cut of the production. The citizens vote for those who will continue and increase the attempt to make production into an altruistic endeavor due to their religious and philosophical beliefs. I recall that Rand had said that the two worst emotions are pity and envy, the judgment that someone is unworthy of living and that one should have the unearned. Those are the emotions of the majority of citizens whom I deal with and that drive most everything in the USA. The few women that I knew who admired Objectivism have all died. I never met an admirer, other than the guy who told me about Atlas Shrugged back in 1965, who was a male. I do not see Capitalism getting stronger for a long, long, long time, perhaps after hitting bottom like a drunk.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
                      I agree with you. If they cant stop you from making money, they want to shame you into giving it to them because you dont deserve it. No wonder I am feeling its not worth it to even expend the energy to make it in the first place ! Its a difficult position to be in, because I am a producer by nature, and I do want some of the things that are still available and I need money for those (things like Iphone 10...). I am really torn up of this dilemna actually.

                      I think the USA will devolve slowly into a south american banana republic like Venezuela over time. Its going to take too long for me to see a collapse and rebuilding in my lifetime though. I will just see a slow agonizing decline.

                      Trump was I think our last attempt at at lease slowing down this decline, although I think the swamp will prevent him from doing any significant change. He will lose in 2020 to some socialist idiot who will start up the decline even faster.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Riftsrunner 6 years, 6 months ago
      Well, their usual retort is 'that wasn't true socialism'. It soooo funny watching the various proponents of Venezuela backpedaling recently. But they all fall back on this old chestnut. If only they did it correctly it would have been a people's paradise. Until everyone who has money has been robbed by the government. Socialism never rises anyone up, it pulls everyone down.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 6 years, 6 months ago
        "True" socialism is where the earners keep on sweating and earning while the fruits of their work form a never ending stream of money to the government and its minions, as well as a trickle to the freeloaders.

        True socialism can survive longer if there is a money tree that never dries up- like in Venezuela until the oil-based money tree DID dry up
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Riftsrunner 6 years, 6 months ago
          The problem is there is no such thing as a never ending stream of money. If I have to work just to give it to the government, what incentive do I have to keep working as I am going to be in the same sinking boat tomorrow as today. Those in power never see past their current give away, so when the financial stream starts drying up, they just feel the business is holding out. Well, they cannot let that happen because all these poor people depend on their handouts, so they just take the tree even if they have no method of keeping it growing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 6 months ago
        In this country socialists evidently think the USA has the "good 'ole Yankee ingenuity" to do socialism better than anyone else.
        I'd like to put the above into a question form for Bolsheviki Bernie.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo