The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[Gandalf]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

What is generalized about public education, health care, bus passes, fuel allowances, pensions etc? These are socialist policies and are used in countless nations.

Most economies are mixed to differing degrees and accept the validity of socialist policies. Unfortunately they are values that ideologues are trying to dismantle.

[Gandalf]

So Greenbeanz finally responds to Althugz, but does so in an attack on my 'facts'. I don't know which facts are in question here as I thought it was a rather straightforward post myself. Lots of opinions for sure, but nothing that cannot be backed up in any way.

The biggest criminal in the Middle East is Israel.

The policy towards Iran is hypocritical.

The English monarchy is a sham.

I actually work very hard and have no rich Daddy to fall back on.

[VictorCharlie]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

What is generalized about public education, health care, bus passes, fuel allowances, pensions etc? These are socialist policies and are used in countless nations.

Most economies are mixed to differing degrees and accept the validity of socialist policies. Unfortunately they are values that ideologues are trying to dismantle.

What isn't generalized about them? You don't post facts Miles you make broad sweeping statements and portray them as facts or definitive. You argue with straw man and non sequitar fallacies. Socialism is fine if you prefer it but you can't pretend that it isn't based on coercion and a threat of violence nor that it provides choice.

[Gandalf]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

What is generalized about public education, health care, bus passes, fuel allowances, pensions etc? These are socialist policies and are used in countless nations.

Most economies are mixed to differing degrees and accept the validity of socialist policies. Unfortunately they are values that ideologues are trying to dismantle.

What isn't generalized about them? You don't post facts Miles you make broad sweeping statements and portray them as facts or definitive. You argue with straw man and non sequitar fallacies. Socialism is fine if you prefer it but you can't pretend that it isn't based on coercion and a threat of violence nor that it provides choice.

It is a fact that many European nations have all/some of the socialist programmes. It is a certainly a fact that the UK has them all.

Socialist policies are not necessarily based on coercion and a threat of violence. Was the NHS introduced to the UK against the will of the general public? No of course not.

I would argue that most would agree on basic necessities which should be provided by the government in order to construct a healthier society.

[VictorCharlie]

Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.

[Gandalf]

Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.

In order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.

In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.

We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.

Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.

[El Kabong]

miles, the motivation produced by socialism is one that reduces productivity. Where people are rewarded for doing the bare minimum. Capitalism rewards those who work hard and strive to achieve new heights. If you looked at Socialism through the lens of Behavioral Psychology then you might understand how bad it is for humanity.

[Gandalf]

miles, the motivation produced by socialism is one that reduces productivity. Where people are rewarded for doing the bare minimum. Capitalism rewards those who work hard and strive to achieve new heights. If you looked at Socialism through the lens of Behavioral Psychology then you might understand how bad it is for humanity.

Lyle, I advocate socialist policies not communism. There is a massive distinction between the two. I fear your educational system has left you somewhat bereft between thy lugholes.

[VictorCharlie]

Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.

In order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.

In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.

We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.

Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.

Actually most of the great innovation in the world is done through the private sector not public. Green energy does have large amounts of government subsidies and our return is abject failure. Government's picking the winners and losers makes you the citizen almost always the loser. The fact that you are advocating the government to pick economic winners/losers just shows your hypocrisy considering how you rail against corporations and banks.

You would never point a gun at me and steal my money to pay for your healthcare or school so why do you feel it is ok to empower agents of the government to do so? You can pat yourself on the back all day about how great your system is but in the end it is predicated on coercion and the threat of violence against your fellow man. The decent and humane thing is to make society voluntary not coercive.

[Gandalf]

Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.

In order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.

In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.

We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.

Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.

Actually most of the great innovation in the world is done through the private sector not public. Green energy does have large amounts of government subsidies and our return is abject failure. Government's picking the winners and losers makes you the citizen almost always the loser. The fact that you are advocating the government to pick economic winners/losers just shows your hypocrisy considering how you rail against corporations and banks.

You would never point a gun at me and steal my money to pay for your healthcare or school so why do you feel it is ok to empower agents of the government to do so? You can pat yourself on the back all day about how great your system is but in the end it is predicated on coercion and the threat of violence against your fellow man. The decent and humane thing is to make society voluntary not coercive.

Korea would never have developed had the government not taken it by the reigns and carefully chosen the most effective ways to grow. Samsung and LG dominate because of the support they were given by governmental policy. These corporations dominate the entire globe now. The same means of growth is true of many countries, including America. Where did the Internet come from? Apple? Microsoft? No, your very own military industrial complex. Plenty of innovation comes from government sponsored means.

Picking winners doesn't mean you lose if you have a job and are putting food on the table. In fact, modern economies with high unemployment are proof that unchecked corporatism means that jobs are gone and won't be coming back. Governments can protect an economy for the greater good of all. When we talk of banks too, we should also point out the deregulation that caused the crisis. You need government control. Personally, I am in favour of a nationalised banking system.

In terms of your view on healthcare, you pay taxes, you pay private firms money for healthcare coverage, what is so different a nationalised health care system? At least that is avoiding the profit motive of the private firm. You are anti government influence, but your entire career has been based on state subsidization. That is what I see as hypocritical and contradictory. If you really were against governments being involved with things, then you would never work for them or use their services. It sounds cool to be anti government, but in practice nobody is.