[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[B]The other socialist country I was talking about that Bush is fighting against is North Korea. A tendency for totalitairianism does not mean that in each and every case there would have to be a totalitairian regime. I think it's not credible if you deny that there is this tendency in socialism. Even on a small scale you can see social workers and the like revelling in the control they have over people's lives.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uhhhhhhh.... what the hell are you talking about? Bush is FIGHTING North Korea? Wow. How about that? I just came from the CNN website where they were saying how Bush is trying to pursue diplomatic channels to solve the crisis between our nations.
Oh yeah, and more careful reading seems to indicate it has nothing to do with socialism or even totalitarianism. While Bush and most peoples of the free world aren't too crazy about N Korea (I'm certainly not), the crisis is over proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--- in N Korea's case, nuclear weapons--- and NOT their imminent takeover of the world.
What you have failed to understand is that I concede that there is a tendency towards totalitarianism in socialist countries. IT IS THE EXACT SAME TENDENCY TOWARD TOLITARIANISM SEEN IN EVERY OTHER KIND OF COUNTRY!!!!!
ALL governments tend to scope-creep or outright shanghai their way into greater power over the lives of their citizens. It is a fact the founding fathers of the US government warned about many times.
As far as your commentary on social workers... pure ad hominem. "Revelling in the control... over people's lives"??? I want to see anything solid to support this claim of yours. And I'd love to see how they differ from anyone else in a position of power. I've certainly seen family members revelling in the control over other people's lives.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't know about the voter corruption to which you refer, anyway the population was about evenly split in their choice for Gore or Bush, and in great majority they are now happy that it was Bush and not Gore AFAIK.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, you obviously don't know. I guess you won't go and try to find out either. See how much you care about people seizing control of power in a government... as long as it isn't socialist!
And I love that "about evenly split" garbage. HE LOST SYAMSU. Do you believe in giving power to the person who has less votes just because the vote was close (if you consider 100,000's of people "close")?
Did you know that if what happened in Florida (and eventually the Supreme Court) had happened in ANY OTHER COUNTRY, the election would have been ruled invalid (or "corrupt") by the general rules set in place for monitoring elections? Jimmy Carter, who helps monitor elections around the world to ensure their validity, has spoken publicly on this matter.
BTW, Bush's approval ratings shot into high gear because of the WTC attacks, like any standing president when the country is under attack. We'll see if that "great majority" keeps him in office after the next election. I'm sure he'll try and work this "war with Iraq" to try and save his sorry presidency. Hopefully it will fail, much like his daddy's war with Iraq failed to keep him in office. 2nd BTW "Daddy" Bush also had high approval ratings during the war: He lost the next election.
MMMMmmmmmmmm. I hear Saddam has quite a bit of popularity over in Iraq as well right now. Guess the "great majority" are happy Saddam won and not anyone else. Wait a minute, Kim Jong II has that same popularity in N Korea too!!!
Look at all of these thoroughly elected leaders proven more legitimate because of how popular they are.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're right that a family social structure would put a lot of pressure on marriage to turn into a purely economic arrangement, and that is how such a scheme might fail. I don't think that a plan having some weaknesses therefore makes it useless.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A plan that may have some weaknesses (and some major inherent problems) does not make it useless. And from your last posting we are understand you aren't interested in discussing these weaknesses anyway. Things'll "just get worked out".
According to your own statement then, why should anyone dislike socialism? Tendency toward totalitarianism is just a weakness in the theory right? Oh... or is it a MAJOR problem? Like say having no way of getting families stuck in poverty out of poverty? Like stripping human emotion out of marriage and relegating it back to a barter system for goods and services?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AFAIK the Bush doctrine is to go after countries which harbour terrorists. How you can say that this is not in response to the WTC destruction by terrorists is beyond me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Bush Doctrine is about many many things, many MORE IMPORTANT THINGS, than terrorists. A doctrine in response to the WTC attacks would be one specifically addressing those responsible for the WTC attack. This doctrine has NOTHING to do with that. I see you have never read or at least have not understood what the Bush Doctrine is.
The Bush Doctrine deals with the proliferation of WMD and the buildup of military might by ANY AND ALL countries other than the US. The doctrine is about the US adopting a "first-strike" policy toward any nation which has reached a strength in arms (not terrorists) which could rival our own. The implications of this ought to offend your stated sensibilities.
There IS a portion of this Doctrine dealing with nations which harbor terrorists, or aid terrorist organizations, but it is not referring to just those terrorist organizations involved with the WTC attack. It is a way of dealing in general with nonmilitary threats which after WTC we recognize can be just as devastating as military strikes. After all, the WTC attackers only used some knives and box-cutters... WMD were not an issue in that attack at all.
It is the WMD proliferation portion of the doctrine which has us going head to head with Iraq (non-socialist, glad to see you didn't try and rework that fable), Iran (nonsocialist, another capito-feudal totalitarian regime), and N Korea (socialist, I never said there weren't bad socialist countries, just they aren't in the majority and don't "tend" to be more than any other).
Only one of these has become a FIGHT, and that is with Iraq. Iran remains a heated sore-point, and N Korea (due to its own angry actions in response to the Bush Doctrine) has been elevated to a crisis. N Korea could become a fight at some point. I tend to think it will. But Bush isn't fighting socialist countries. He is fighting any country (as we just saw with Afghanistan) which does, or may, pose a military or security threat to the US.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are misinformed about the democratic content of many-party coalition government. The socialist party in the Netherlands (where I lived) for instance, hasn't even announced it's candidate for prime-minister, in the upcoming elections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Uhhhhhh. You lost me once again. How does one party's (especially the socialist party's) lack of a candidate for prime minister indicate one iota that the "democratic content" is less in the Netherlands (much less for many-party socialist systems elsewhere)? I mean really. What you just said means absolutely nothing.
I also lived in the Netherlands (actually I just got back from there a few months ago). I am well aware of their system and current goings on in the government. Obviously much more aware than you are, even if what you just said made any sense at all.
I history is has any meaning, the socialist party in the Netherlands has about 0 chance in hell of getting a prime-minister into office, so it's not that important to be talking about one. My girlfriend and her whole family vote socialist and this has never fazed them from voting for the party.
This is because, unlike the US "two party" system, the fact that they don't ever get a prime minister in office does not mean they have thrown away their votes.
In Holland, people vote to to fill seats in their version of "congress" (I'll use a more common term than what they call it) with members of their party. Rest assured the socialist party has enough members to fill any seats they win. Unless the party chooses not to fill them. Well then that's their choice isn't it? And isn't that democracy in action?
Unless of course by "socialist party" you mean the social-democrats? Or are you talking about the LFP? The VVD? I mean any Dutch Party could be called "socialist" as none are out to remove the overall socialist economic system currently in place.
As regards to prime ministers in general, no party has an "end all" prime minister candidate anyway. The Prime-Minister is not handled like the Presidency is in the US. A party may front their more popular member as a potential candidate (or as the shoe-in selling point, as in the case of the late Pim Fortuyn's party), but the final say of who becomes minister isn't till AFTER THE ELECTIONS.
In the present case, Balkenende was the prime minister (from the christian party) who was put into power AFTER the Xtian party won dominance in the "congress." He had been touted as the man they'd put into office, but it was not definite until the time came to choose a prime-minister which is AFTER THE ELECTION. Once in office he was unable to to pull a coalition together from the other parties (most notably Fortuyn's party) and it has gotten so bad new elections for all the seats (not to mention prime-minister) need to be held.
I already said the Dutch government is arguably "over-active" and has collapsed twice in the past two years. But all that demostrates is an absence of power, which is the exact opposite of a totalitarian regime.
A totalitarian regime would not only have a candidate announced, they'd already have told you who you're voting for.
It's kind of sad to see that you were unable to understand the very basics of how the Dutch government functions given that you lived there... did you live long enough there to vote? Did a nasty bureaucrat toss you out on a bizarre technicality and that's why you've come to hate them so much? (I can sympathize with that issue)
Oh yeah, and with time to spare: Socialist Party candidate is Jan Marijnissen. Does that make anything more democratic for you.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely people hate those on social-assistance who smoke and drink too much and thereby go into the hospitals a lot, hospitals which have long waitinglists. As an example of consumerism, there are close to 1 million people on disability benefits in the Netherlands on a population of 15 million. Again, as I argue, this is because the relationship between those who give and those who receive is too impersonal. You can deny family social structures as a solution to this problem, but then you would have to find another way to make the relationship between givers and receivers more personal, since otherwise the relationship will rot by greed and lazyness, and the whole social system will rot with it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what you are saying is that people hate those who take advantage of a system, or hate those who end up getting more out of the services provided by the government than themselves.
While the first category is a legitimate issue in ANY system (how many businessmen take advantage of laissez-faire capitalist systems and are hated for it?), the second is just plain silly.
I think it is far fetched to claim people smoke and drink too much in order to get sick so that they can get the most out of the medical system. As it is, I would be glad to pay the health costs for a bunch of smoking whinos, as well as premature babies and heart attack victims and cancer victims who never smoked, and yet I never NEED to use one dime of ANY MEDICAL SERVICE AT ALL.
As long as when I did NEED to use it, it was there to help me, I'd be just as happy as if I was a chain-smoking booze hound getting sick every other day.
The point of a social program is to provide a safety-net for ALL when emergencies occur. We don't know when they'd occur or how much they'll cost as then they would not be emergencies. But we do know emergencies WILL occur. So resources are pooled so that when physical emergencies occur (to whomever and for whatever reason) they don't also become financial emergencies, and potentially create more physical emergencies.
If you are talking about the impact smokers and drinkers (or anyone that lives in a way that makes them prone to illness) have on cost of living in general, you will find that same "hatred" held against them in capitalist systems where they get no coverage at all. Illness prone people cost money in time lost (productivity) to the businesses they work (even when the business is not providing healthcare). This cost injures businesses and may even get passed on to the customer.
Don't worry. Everyone these days seems to hate smokers and drinkers. They don't even need to get sick in a country using a socialized medical system to generate anger.
On the other hand, the large numbers of people on disability in the Netherlands is an issue, which reflected to some people the first category mentioned above (those intentionally using a system). I've seen disability and unemployment services in action in Netherlands and Denmark and have even seen it misused in those same countries.
All I can say is, having watched it in action, the abuse of these systems were based in functional weaknesses of particular programs which need to be worked out, and do not merit scrapping of the system altogether. It is much better to allow sponges to exist (which the system can try to deal with), than leave honest people broken by emergencies.
BTW, your ignorance on the Dutch disability issue is showing. The ACTUAL issue,which the government recently announced after a thorough investigatuon, is not that most of these people are sponging (though clearly there are sponges, as in any system) but that due to practical issues (rules and regulations), people are better off getting sick than going on strike.
Their answer was not to scrap the socialist system put in place to aid people when they get ill, nor scrap the unemployment scheme when people get laid off. It was to create better problem-resolution mechanisms between employees and management, and allow for better transitions from jobs where there is a falling out, to somewhere new. "Illness-strikes" were distorting the reality of what was actually going on and hampering the progress employees might have wanted.
Is this not a more humane and personal solution?
No wait, Syamsuism is much more humane and social. Throw all the disabled onto their relatives for support, because of a flaw in the rules regarding management-employee relations!
In summary:
1) You state you have no interest in discussing the flaws in your own theory.
2) While bringing you have given examples of socialist countries that are totalitarian (some of which I am in complete agreement on), you conveniently refuse to acknowledge the socialist countries which are not totalitarian and the more numerous capitalist and feudalist countries that currently are or have been totalitarian.
3) You do nothing but use ad hominem (and unfounded) charges against anyone using social programs (giver and taker), as well as making totally misinformed statements regarding governments and policies (frankly it sounds like you just read the republican party press literature, and not even all of that!).
Last inning, strike three, and the ballgame's over. You lost Syamsu. Until you address those critical problems with your ability to construct reasonable arguments in general (or on the specific issue we are discussing) I'm taking a shower and going home.
Don't feel too bad. There's always next year.
holmes
™ Version 4.2
