Jump to content

Because The United Kingdom?


Mr King

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DB said:

Also, Ryan demonstrates yet again that he's not interested in learning anything, he has his own narrative to push and damn the torpedoes.

I am quite willing to learn so long as the lesson being given is done so with an honest intent and not with any sort of mealy mouthed, disingenuous obfuscation and nebulous morality. 

Yes, I have a narrative. Individual rights matter. That means property rights as well as all of the other canon of rights that we in the west have been determining as being significant since the Glorious Revolution. But in this conversation we've seen how free speech and freedom of religion are being placed as secondary to 'a woman's right to choose' which is itself part of that mealy mouthed obfuscation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Rick said:

Bolden part, which industrialized countries are these?

The Imperial Germany at least initially. They staved off the development of Unions and Social parties for years, by engineering one of the most extentive welfare systems in existence. Even today, they mandate that Unions have to sit on the board of every major company. The logic being, they are forced to thrash out the problems before it ever gets to the point of striking.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/bismarck-tried-end-socialisms-grip-offering-government-healthcare-180964064/

Sweden had Socialists in power for years. Rather than just throwing money at the problem, they engineered decent social housing. I was rather amused to read a book talking about Soviet architecture, and the authors girlfriend, a Pole, was deeply annoyed walking around Sweden. She couldnt understand how the Swedes had engineered at core a Socialist state, with Socialist architecture, and somehow also had high living standards, without any of the negatives of it that she had experienced in Poland. Sweden hasnt voted for Socialists for something like 5 decades now. From a documentary on the subject, my impression is they feel they no longer need them.

This seems to be common around the Baltic, its called the Nordic model I gather.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

And that to me is the point. You address the problems Socialism is ostensibly there to fix, they goes away. You dont fix them, they will keep coming back till you do. They are the dripping tap of politics. Fix the problem without calling them, there is inherently no reason for them to exist. Early industrialists clearly understood this, we seem to have contrived to forget it by offshoring the jobs and the problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I too am sick and disgusted with the "Colonial Power"  "White Privilege" , "patriarchy" etc, etc, etc that the woke BS left forces on people.  I am to the point of if I hear those buzzwords, I automatically tune out anything else the person is saying.  It becomes meaningless noise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism works if everyone works and doesn't sit on their ass. This works reasonably well with a good work ethic.  The more you build it to support those who cannot AND those who will not, the more you bake problems into the cake . 
 

The more involuntary it becomes to fix those problems, the more you step towards enslavement and authoritarianism. 
 

The more authoritarian you make it, the more unable the system is able to self correct problems. (How do you say RBMK in British English?)
 

The US has government facilities that are filled with staff who barely work. I can't profess to on bad that problem is in the UK but its endemic in many government offices in the US and with the advent of more DEI programs, its more so in the private sector. 
 

Pitching everything about socialism brings a lot of baggage and likely harm. 
 

Also, those problems that you present, that socialism fixes. Does it really? Or does it hide it behind paperwork? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I am quite willing to learn so long as the lesson being given is done so with an honest intent and not with any sort of mealy mouthed, disingenuous obfuscation and nebulous morality. 

Yes, I have a narrative. Individual rights matter. That means property rights as well as all of the other canon of rights that we in the west have been determining as being significant since the Glorious Revolution. But in this conversation we've seen how free speech and freedom of religion are being placed as secondary to 'a woman's right to choose' which is itself part of that mealy mouthed obfuscation. 

Like any good, hot blooded American, you refuse to believe the state can ever be right about anything, because in your minds its always Boston Harbor and 1776, and hence you must all be believers in Small Government. And thats fine, the problem is you cannot conceive that anyone else may have a system that doesnt work on exactly the same principles as yours and yet intelligently functions.

Look at Japan, they have prided themselves on a cradle to the grave system. They have no socialists worth a damn, and are still one of the worlds leading economies, third largest economy in fact. According to small statist or pure capitalist  believers, this should be impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_capitalism

Collective capitalism's influence can be seen elsewhere in modern Japan. Workers, particularly those who work for large businesses, become involved in their firms in ways unlike other capitalist systems. In return for loyalty and hard work, workers traditionally expect more from their employers than their western counterparts, including job security - often for life - pensions and social protection. This system of collective cooperation and the domination of the worker in corporate policy led to the Japanese system being dubbed "peoplism" by some critics.[4]

Which to my mind, sounds remarkably close to the efforts of those early British industrialists. Which has costs, sure, in that it results in a high suicide rate. That said, I dont think anyone could suggest Japans living standard for the vast majority of people, and indeed their economic capability whilst delivering it is anything less than remarkable. Something in fact the Anglo American nations could, and indeed should, have learned something from long ago.

As for the rest, I cannot conceive how you can elevate property rights and individual rights on such a high pillar, and at the same time seemingly denegrate a womans right to choose, which is after all individual rights (including property rights) if ever there were any.  You condemn Government protecting the rights of the many over the rights of the individual, and fail to recognise, in your own country not least, enfranchising the rights of the individual should mean you are on the side of women, not the protesters that would remove their rights. 

Or do you think removing rights is perfectly acceptable, as long as they are not your rights?

As for putting  religion below a womans right to choose, you said several pages ago that you dont even believe in God. So how about we leave it to God to decide and punish whether Britains policies are ethical and stop the pretence that you really give a toss about any of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Like any good, hot blooded American, you refuse to believe the state can ever be right about anything, because in your minds its always Boston Harbor and 1776, and hence you must all be believers in Small Government.

In the background of a woman being arrested for silent prayer, it's not. 

However good an initial stab may be, the moment the state becomes partisan in an issue among the people, you're asking for a giant failure of limits. It's like giving a kid the keys to the car AND the liquor cabinet AND the credit card. Sure, initially it's great, but if you can't take it all back if there's any failure of judgement you have a more serious problem. 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And thats fine, the problem is you cannot conceive that anyone else may have a system that doesnt work on exactly the same principles as yours and yet intelligently functions.

No, it's human nature that power engenders corruption and malfeasance. 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Look at Japan, they have prided themselves on a cradle to the grave system. They have no socialists worth a damn, and are still one of the worlds leading economies, third largest economy in fact. According to small statist or pure capitalist  believers, this should be impossible.

The difference is that there's a giant work ethic there and they don't just let any person who wants into the country, into the country. That immigration thing you and I have been arguing about, you know how many refugees Japan has knocking around living off that cradle to grave system? In 2018, they had 10,500 refugee applications. You know how many they accepted? 42. 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_capitalism

Collective capitalism's influence can be seen elsewhere in modern Japan. Workers, particularly those who work for large businesses, become involved in their firms in ways unlike other capitalist systems.

Yes. That's part of the benefits of having a good economy and facilitating a good economy. The extent that MITI did to constrain corporations looked nothing like what gave the UK British Leyland. Strangely enough, Japan, also an island nation, bombed to near total ruin, came out of the post war period in far better shape than the UK. 

Why are Japanese Cars vaunted for reliability? Why are British cars notorious for unreliability? Why do they have a semi-conductor industry? 

Why are the British and Japanee 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In return for loyalty and hard work, workers traditionally expect more from their employers than their western counterparts, including job security - often for life - pensions and social protection. This system of collective cooperation and the domination of the worker in corporate policy led to the Japanese system being dubbed "peoplism" by some critics.[4]

Japan also expects a great deal of conformity out of their population. You certainly see that in their corporate culture. westerners are allowed some latitude because the catalyzing effect of a gaijin is seen as useful. 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Which to my mind, sounds remarkably close to the efforts of those early British industrialists. Which has costs, sure, in that it results in a high suicide rate. That said, I dont think anyone could suggest Japans living standard for the vast majority of people, and indeed their economic capability whilst delivering it is anything less than remarkable. Something in fact the Anglo American nations could, and indeed should, have learned something from long ago.

I've spent much of my life looking to Japan for useful nuances. Same for the UK in fact. 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for the rest, I cannot conceive how you can elevate property rights and individual rights on such a high pillar, and at the same time seemingly denegrate a womans right to choose, which is after all individual rights (including property rights) if ever there were any.

Because it's not just a woman's right to choose, it's also a fetus' right to life. It's a balance test. Do we frame our RKBA as a citizens right to choose? Do I get to shoot my gun when ever and where ever I desire regardless of the effect upon someone else? No. Decisions have consequences. 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

  You condemn Government protecting the rights of the many over the rights of the individual, and fail to recognise, in your own country not least, enfranchising the rights of the individual should mean you are on the side of women, not the protesters that would remove their rights. 

The individual is the smallest minority. 
 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Or do you think removing rights is perfectly acceptable, as long as they are not your rights?

I've clearly stated multiple times, it's a balance test between the two parties. It's not like a fetus implanted into a woman is a surprise. There's some thing that need to happen that are part of the causal factors. Thus the decision to have sex has potential consequences of having a kid. If you're going to abort that you best make that decision quickly and not wait a long time because it's not convenient between trips to the pub or club. 
 

3 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As for putting  religion below a womans right to choose, you said several pages ago that you dont even believe in God. So how about we leave it to God to decide and punish whether Britains policies are ethical and stop the pretence that you really give a toss about any of it.

Religious views drive much of our ethics. Those views can be described entirely secular and conform with the religious views as well. The rights of individuals are grounded in that thinking. I fully expect that British people have a stake in figuring out if other British people who are as yet not born have a right to exist at all. 

If you feel that the rights of the individual are not to be concerned about then I can't think of anything more condemnatory of your position than the inherently fascist view that takes. The rights of the individual in a fascist state are nearly non-existant, they only matter if they matter to the needs of the state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2023 at 7:08 AM, Sardaukar said:

I was thinking that Finns moving to Canada were not that religious but Commies... But might be mistaken in that...

happened prior to Communism 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such god damn wokeness ..... I allways said allowing in these anglo-saxon asylum seekers would lead to trouble, all these small boats coming across ... I mean I tried to tell the comes littoris Saxonici per Britanniam, but did he listen..no, such is the establishment, all they want is cheap mercenaries undercutting our good native warriors, but I'm hearing good things about ths guy ambrosius aurelianus he will sort it out  #MakeBrittaniagreatagain #stopanglosaxoniliegalimmigration #anglosaxonillegals #softonanglosaxons

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Murph said:

Socialism murdered more human beings than any other forms of government in recorded history.  Socialism brings death, murder, and genocide.  

Communism / Fascism / Maoism / Kyher-Rouge-ism (they are virtually indistinguishable from one another) are not the same as socialism. 

Not everyone who believes in a fair go for both workers and capitalists are amongst those aforenamed groups. 

In terms of a per capita percentage, the Roman Empire - which is arguably a capitalist, even fascist, empire, killed a huge proportion of the world's population.

And if you really want to get down to it:  One estimate is that about 11% of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions, around 37.75–60 million people in Eurasia.[7] These events are regarded as some of the most deadly acts of mass killing in human history.

The Mongols were not exactly socialists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the fuck has a socialist government got to do with the voluntary actions of industrialist, before Marx was even born?

Get a life, Ryan, or at least a primary school English language comprehension certificate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, DougRichards said:

Communism / Fascism / Maoism / Kyher-Rouge-ism (they are virtually indistinguishable from one another) are not the same as socialism. 

Not everyone who believes in a fair go for both workers and capitalists are amongst those aforenamed groups. 

In terms of a per capita percentage, the Roman Empire - which is arguably a capitalist, even fascist, empire, killed a huge proportion of the world's population.

And if you really want to get down to it:  One estimate is that about 11% of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions, around 37.75–60 million people in Eurasia.[7] These events are regarded as some of the most deadly acts of mass killing in human history.

The Mongols were not exactly socialists.

In the U.S. and using U.S. terms, Communism and Socialism are just slightly different shades of red. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick said:

In the U.S. and using U.S. terms, Communism and Socialism are just slightly different shades of red. 

Around here, Socialist politicians are very friendly with Communist non-Democratic regimes.

Edited by sunday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DB said:

What the fuck has a socialist government got to do with the voluntary actions of industrialist, before Marx was even born?

Why is Stuart justifying socialism with that then? What DOES it have to do? 

3 hours ago, DB said:

Get a life, Ryan, or at least a primary school English language comprehension certificate.

Get an argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DougRichards said:

Communism / Fascism / Maoism / Kyher-Rouge-ism (they are virtually indistinguishable from one another) are not the same as socialism. 

From Marx himself Communism is the late stage form of socialism where the state no  longer needs to exist and can melt away leaving the people in charge. We've never had that late stage because the state in actual effect IS a socialist state where the government owned the means of the production. 

4 hours ago, DougRichards said:

Not everyone who believes in a fair go for both workers and capitalists are amongst those aforenamed groups. 

Then call it a fair go with words like free market economy with substantial pay/benefits for the working class. 
 

4 hours ago, DougRichards said:

In terms of a per capita percentage, the Roman Empire - which is arguably a capitalist, even fascist, empire, killed a huge proportion of the world's population.

Yes. But we're talking about the modern times with modern concepts of government after the idea that the head of state is god's representative on earth or simply invested with that level of power as a tyrant, Cesar or what not. 

4 hours ago, DougRichards said:

And if you really want to get down to it:  One estimate is that about 11% of the world's population was killed either during or immediately after the Mongol invasions, around 37.75–60 million people in Eurasia.[7] These events are regarded as some of the most deadly acts of mass killing in human history.

None of us is trying to justify that form of government in any serious way. Hell, I'm not even trying to justify British Colonialism as a way of doing good things despite how it in fact did more good than harm, but a great deal of harm along the way. 

4 hours ago, DougRichards said:


The Mongols were not exactly socialists.

One does not need to be a murderous tyrant in order to be a socialist, or vice versa. 

But in the last century and still going on this century, the devotees of Marx, the ones carrying out his mission in the world, they are in fact those murderous tyrants. And someone on this board keeps making apologia for them in any way he can. 

How would you guys react to someone pushing democratic fascism as a good way to handle government? IT does a lot of good, it organizes society, it pays the workers well, it gets the trains running on time, it has medical benefits, it keeps the corporations on a tight leash. All good right? Pay no attention to the Everything for the state, everything under the state, nothing outside of the state authoritarianism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Why is Stuart justifying socialism with that then? What DOES it have to do? 

Get an argument. 

Because I wasnt glorifying Socialism. As best as I can recall I made the fairly innocuous comment that Socialists were positively jealous of their achievements.

And they are. But it doesnt follow they actually WERE socialists, which is an absurd conflation of what I was trying to say. They were responsible, Moral capitalists, and nobody, neither myself nor yourself on the complete opposite of the political equilibrium, should have any grounds for complaint. Yet you have contrived to argue about it for over a page and a half for absolutely no reason that I can see.

Now you see, this is why I try and stay away from the FFZ. :D

 

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Because I wasnt glorifying Socialism. As best as I can recall I made the fairly innocuous comment that Socialists were positively jealous of their achievements.

Not clear in fact. As I was not the only one observing the realities of how gentle socialism has been. Especially in the big context of you justifying arrest for silent prayer. 

41 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And they are. But it doesnt follow they actually WERE socialists, which is an absurd conflation of what I was trying to say.

That was not clear actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism/Communism they are all Socialists, ipso facto the murderous breed that has killed more human beings than any other form of government.  Communists are just brain dead Socialists, but they are still Socialists, just like the Nazi party (National [b]SOCIALIST[/b] German Workers Party)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism in the UK is ...

1. Less corruption amongst politicians.

2. Instead of politicians driving in a Rolls Royce they buy a Jaguar.

3. Adequately fund the NHS.

 

 it's that simple.

The UK will never vote in a Jemerary Corbyn style politican. But they will support a Blair type one.

Edited by TrustMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An aspect of Socialism that appeals to many is "free/almost free" heath care. From a liberal poster a few years on the uber-left Democratic Underground.

How would Medicare for All work from a financial aspect?

At present, 100% of contributions made to Medicare by everyone who has a job in this country cover the healthcare costs for the current program. Those tax dollars are barely enough to cover seniors on Medicare, who account for roughly 19% of the population.  So the question is: how much would payroll taxes need to increase to cover 100% of the population as opposed to the current 19%? The current tax rate is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer, or a 2.9% total. 19% divides into 100% 5 times, so one assumes that one would need to raise the payroll tax five-fold to cover 100% of the population. That would mean that the employee would pay a tax of 7.25% as would the employer, equaling a tax of 14.5%.  Add into this the fact that current Medicare recipients pay monthly premiums of $109 on average, or $1308 a year.  So do the math: if you earn $50,000 a year, your Medicare tax would be $3625 at 7.25%. Add in your premiums of $1308, and you're paying just under $5,000 a year per person for Medicare for All. Sounds good.

But what if you are a family with a spouse who doesn't work and two young children who don't work? How are they covered in the Medicare for All scenario? Surely, there would be additional premium cost involved. They can't be covered free of charge. That $5000 per year mentioned above covers ONE working person, not their family members. Even if you waive the payroll tax deduction and charge only the average monthly premium per person (as Medicare currently does), you are looking at an additional $3900 per year to cover a non-working spouse and two children. That makes your cost around $9000 per year, and that is equal to 18% of that $50,000 income you are earning.

And, to cover all bases, let's not forget that you are currently paying 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. Add that into the mix, and your combined Medicare for All and SS expenses for that family of 4 with one bread winner described above would be over 25% of your income.

That's still a bargain when compared to the taxes paid in European nations, and it's the true cost of having a truly socialistic approach to things. It is what it is. Let's not downplay the realities involved.

I don't have the answers. I do know that while Medicare for All might well be the best and fairest approach we could take toward universal healthcare, it comes with real expenses and real costs to real people.

 

Edited by Rick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick said:

An aspect of Socialism that appeals to many is "free/almost free" heath care. From a liberal poster a few years on the uber-left Democratic Underground.

How would Medicare for All work from a financial aspect?

Like the VA. But with no private option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

Why is Stuart justifying socialism with that then? What DOES it have to do? 

Get an argument. 

Stuart is his own man, but I've not seen him defending any version of modern socialism using the Cadbury's as an example.

As I said, you really need to learn some basic English language comprehension skills. It's beyond ridiculous and way over into the deliberate trolling now.

And the only person you're playing to is yourself, so I guess you'll keep doing it if it makes you moist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rick said:

An aspect of Socialism that appeals to many is "free/almost free" heath care. From a liberal poster a few years on the uber-left Democratic Underground.

How would Medicare for All work from a financial aspect?

At present, 100% of contributions made to Medicare by everyone who has a job in this country cover the healthcare costs for the current program. Those tax dollars are barely enough to cover seniors on Medicare, who account for roughly 19% of the population.  So the question is: how much would payroll taxes need to increase to cover 100% of the population as opposed to the current 19%? The current tax rate is 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer, or a 2.9% total. 19% divides into 100% 5 times, so one assumes that one would need to raise the payroll tax five-fold to cover 100% of the population. That would mean that the employee would pay a tax of 7.25% as would the employer, equaling a tax of 14.5%.  Add into this the fact that current Medicare recipients pay monthly premiums of $109 on average, or $1308 a year.  So do the math: if you earn $50,000 a year, your Medicare tax would be $3625 at 7.25%. Add in your premiums of $1308, and you're paying just under $5,000 a year per person for Medicare for All. Sounds good.

But what if you are a family with a spouse who doesn't work and two young children who don't work? How are they covered in the Medicare for All scenario? Surely, there would be additional premium cost involved. They can't be covered free of charge. That $5000 per year mentioned above covers ONE working person, not their family members. Even if you waive the payroll tax deduction and charge only the average monthly premium per person (as Medicare currently does), you are looking at an additional $3900 per year to cover a non-working spouse and two children. That makes your cost around $9000 per year, and that is equal to 18% of that $50,000 income you are earning.

And, to cover all bases, let's not forget that you are currently paying 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. Add that into the mix, and your combined Medicare for All and SS expenses for that family of 4 with one bread winner described above would be over 25% of your income.

That's still a bargain when compared to the taxes paid in European nations, and it's the true cost of having a truly socialistic approach to things. It is what it is. Let's not downplay the realities involved.

I don't have the answers. I do know that while Medicare for All might well be the best and fairest approach we could take toward universal healthcare, it comes with real expenses and real costs to real people.

 

Go to a veterinary. There is mostly free market there.

Human medical economy is engineered in most of the world to be smaller than the market to inflate the income of people that live from it. Here we have a powerful Doctor Guild that vetoes many openings in universities, result: of course we have to import doctors.

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...