because dumb ass in a social democracy the governmental is there to represent the people interests. it's a way of the people to take power from the powerful individuals, like that ones who are in control of the american government today. but i guess you know that, and your not ass dumb as you look, you work for the individuals who don't want ordinary people have power
Again: The world economy isn't run along Socialist lines. Quite the reverse. So how can you blame Socialism for the miserable rut we're in at the moment?
OK Socialism is the government taking over some of the market while communism is the government taking over the entire market. That doesn't make either a good idea. The reason communism fails is because they gave all of the power to the government. Once they have all of the power the one in power do whats best for themselves. Maybe socialism is not as bad as communism but it is a step in that direction. Every time the government gets involved in the markets there are unintended consequences.
@slayin4free The reason Communism failed was because it was never actually Communism, that's what actually happened, it was never Communism, for as much as the term was spoken, the fact was that private property was owned by an elite: at the end of the day, you cannot have Communism when the ideas that drive the economy are owned by life.
@slayin4free (cont) The problem that people like you like to ignore, is that when you have corporations that are owned by people, and when that corporation owns the technology and resources that drive the economy, that corporation, in effect, becomes a government. The problem is that a government was required in order to create the corporation, so now you have two branches of the government fighting each other, and in the end, the corporations always end up buying the government.
@slayin4free (cont) So this really is not a "political" issue that can be fixed with Capitalism, or Communism, or Socialism; the root of the problem is private property, it cannot be sustained in the long term, because it creates new branches of government without restraint, until eventually the world ends up broke: you can print money, but you cannot print facts.
@slayin4free (cont) The "profit motive" is flawed at the very core, simply because the same model of "profit" cannot be applied into all the areas of human life: architecture is not simply a building, architecture is the physical form of the education system, and when a banker who does not understand what architecture actually is starts regulating and determining what architecture is within their own virtual reality, that creates a lot of poverty and unemployment.
@slayin4free (cont) That was the point of the constitution, separating the church from the government, but the fact is that the church and the government have always been one and the same. The government can define "religion" as one thing, but they cannot change the historical facts. When you have bankers imposing their financial models upon the architecture, that's an imposition that limits our education, and that makes it a religious imposition, it is not a political imposition.
@slayin4free (cont) That's the whole point of the absurd notion of "religious freedom", that in a free country you should have the freedom to criticize religion and to also chose the religion of your preference. But when you have the new church imposing their religious beliefs upon the education system of a "democratic" government, talking about the difference between the church and the government, religion and politics, is just ridiculous.
@slayin4free (cont) At the end of the day, the "profit motive" is based on an imaginary economy, that's why we have a global crisis: our education is rigged, our architecture is rigged, our health care is rigged, in order to benefit a very specific demographic; you can buy a good education, but you do not need to earn a good education: we are playing with fire, defying the laws of nature, and the consequences of our actions are just around the corner.
@slayin4free Free market? Very much, yeah, but I'm still in the process of learning, and thus I try my best to keep an open mind. But having said that: yes, free market is something that I believe in; however, I do not believe that free market can be successful when corporations are owned by people -- I believe that ideas should have creators, but I do not think that an idea should ever have an owner, because ownership is a crime against the evolution of any species.
Why do so many in the USA demonise the word socialism. Usually it's because, generaly speaking, it is an inward looking and insular society. There are many degrees of socialism but some in the US seem to think Socialism = Communism or Marxism. That is just ignorance. The most successful, responsible and fairest democracies in the world (Sweden, Denmark, UK) all have a level of democratic socialism. It protects you from the excesses of a 'totally' free market economy like in the USA.
Bill is right though even if people might disagree. Schools, hospitals and stuff with a moral dimension should not be run for profit, because there is a conflict of interest there. That said though, government bureaucracy should be eliminated where those matters are concerned too, because government agenda might not exactly have a moral dimension in itself.
@Faerlon123 But if there is no competition there will be no incentive to improve. I'm not saying people are lazy they are just not stupid. I someone knew that no matter how hard they worked they will reach the same result they are not going to give it their all. Competition drives innovation. It pushes people to reach their full potential. Plus consumers care less about prices when there is a third party paying. That is one of the reason tuition costs have gone up so much.
@slayin4free But health is not something that has production value in a market. A sneaker has value in capitalism, because someone has laboured for it and created it. For me at least, healthservices shouldn't be privatized because it's about people's health, and people's health is more important than profit. But, I still don't think a gov't run healthsystem is the "solution". Nothing is perfect. I just don't think profiteering on people's health is a good thing.
@Faerlon123 But without competition, there will be no incentive to improve and offer low prices. Also when a third party is paying for something, the buyer doesn't care about the price. Anything that someone is willing to pay for has value. Before state run welfare there where mutual aid societies. They didn't put profits first because the members knew each other personally. if your neighbor lost his job or got sick the fraternity would pool their resources to help him.
When the welfare state was created the government actually shut down about half of the existing medical schools and even shut down entire hospitals created by these organizations. This helped to drive up the cost of healthcare along with the fact that people don't care how much something costs when someone else is paying for it. Now people have to deal with insurance companies that don't know you form Adam and see you as just another number.
@slayin4free I think your argument is absurd and shallow. I am not arguing against competition, I think competition is inherent to human nature, therefore no political system can erase our competitive edge from within us: we are competitive animals, and no matter how much some people want to dress it up, it won't ever go away. But my point is, being competitive does not mean that wealth needs to be printed paper that can be burnt and stolen as easily as it was printed.
@leadleader2023 How is that shallow. It's common sense. If you are going to end up with the same result no matter how hard you work it is human nature to give less effort. Why would I bust my ass if the person next to me is slacking off and we are going to get the exact same reward either way? Why would a company strive to deliver a better product if the consumer has no other alternatives?
@slayin4free I think it is shallow -- humans give less work, but only when an artificial environment conditions them into becoming lazy animals. I mean, I agree with you, but you view it more from a political stand point, I view it more from natural point of view: in nature, if you didn't worked, you died. The problem is that in society, we do not have an objective definition for what "survival of the fittest" actually is....
@slayin4free (cont) So my point is, nature reinforces itself, but a society needs to have a constitutional model that can protect the laws of nature, if you do not have that model, then the laws of nature are replaced with ridiculous jobs that drain the economy and give nothing back.
@slayin4free (cont) And what I mean by that is simple: it doesn't take a genius to understand that private property will eventually consume free market....
All you need to do, is to be lucky enough to be the first buyer of the new technology, and as soon as that happens, a market that consisted of 100s of corporations will be reduced into a market that consists of just 5 corporations -- thus leading to massive unemployment, and then the government always hides the real reason.
@slayin4free (cont) So my point is, again, that I think your argument is shallow, because you are arguing against Socialism, whereas I think that the truth is that private property creates a lot more laziness than Socialism ever could. With private property being protected by a fraudulent constitution, it's just a matter of when: when will this one lucky buyer become the first owner of the new technology that will result in thousands of jobs lost from one day to another.
@leadleader2023 "So my point is, again, that I think your argument is shallow, because you are arguing against Socialism" And you are saying I'm shallow? Just because I don't believe what you believe. Fraudulent constitution? Why would the inventor sell his idea unless he thought it was worth the money offered to him? Honestly you are just babbling on not really making any sense. Private property is what the free market is all about. So your saying its going to consume itself?
@slayin4free I completely disagree with you. Free market predates private property by THOUSANDS of years: FACT.....
If free market existed for thousands of years, long before private property was ever imposed by a foreign government: what makes you believe that free market is all about private property?
Again -- your argument is absurd and shallow. It is a FACT that free market existed long before private property.
@leadleader2023 Are you trying to drag me down to your level and beat me with experience. How can you trade if you do not own property in which to trade with? If I own nothing, then I have nothing to trade. Therefore if no one owned anything there could be no market. Do I really have to argue basic common sense?
@slayin4free Dude, no, I do not need to own anything in order to trade it. I can claim ownership over a piece of concreted: but you know what the truth is? That the piece of rock will still stand in its place long after I'm dead, so I never actually owned anything, ownership is just a fairy tale, ownership is not the reason why hunters needed to hunt for food in order to survive, ownership is not the reason why humans strive for more.
@leadleader2023 Yes I understand that matter will still exist when we die. You are talking about philosophy. You are way off on some random tangent. This is what I am talking about.
@slayin4free I am talking about philosophy? No, I am talking about facts: free market existed long before humans started claiming ownership over technology. You are saying that ownership over technology is essential to free market, but you cannot possibly be basing yourself on anything other than fiction, because the facts are all very clear. If you are going to talk about free market, you better be prepared for people like me, who look at free market from a historical view point.
@slayin4free (cont) But when I say that a free market did in fact existed long before humans started claiming ownership over technology, you respond by saying that I'm responding with "random crap" and with "random philosophy" when in actual fact I'm just telling you a SCIENTIFIC FACT.
@slayin4free (cont) Then you go on to say that the government should not meddle with the market even though the constitution specifically says that the government SHOULD meddle with the market: so right from the get go, you do not respect the constitution of the US.
Basically, you do not respect the constitution of the US, then you go on to talk about the "individual liberties" that are protected by the very constitution that you do not respect -- absurd.
@slayin4free When you earn rewards you OWN them. Question: did I ever said something against OWNING rewards?
A corporation coming in and buying an invention, and thus becoming the OWNERS of the technology that drives the economy of an entire nation -- destroys free market.
You are a fool, you accuse me of trolling, yet you fail to comprehend that when I said that your argument is shallow, I was criticizing your argument, I never actually said that you are shallow.
@slayin4free (cont) And of course, the fact that you respond by personally offending me, just demonstrates that you are not a person who should be taken seriously, because as soon as someone does not agree you, that someone is by your high standards a stupid person. I do not waste my time with such childish insults, I still think your argument is shallow, but I feel no need to personally offend you.
@leadleader2023 Whatever. You aren't even making any sense. Your talking in circles. Any time a point is made you seem to go off on some philosophical rant but it seems you cannot put a coherent thought together long enough to make any sense. Your rebuttals end up having nothing to do with what you are replying to. What do you expect?
@slayin4free What do I expect? I expect a person who actually understands simple notions that have everything to do with the discussion at hand. But your responses speak for themselves: "you make no sense", "you are stupid", can you really say when exactly it was that I started making no sense? Because I understand your points perfectly, and I fail to see why I am making no sense. The fact of the matter is, you are an idiot with a very feeble mind, oh well.
@leadleader2023 Yes I'm sure you do understand what I am saying. Because I stay on subject and don't start rambling off on random tangents. We were talking about free markets and the consequences of government involvement in them and you start talking about religion and how a rock will still be a rock when we die so we never truly owned it. What does that have to do with anything I am saying. Then you start speaking in some oxymoronic babble. It's pointless.
@slayin4free Yes, because your brilliant answers -- "by protecting our individual liberty and not meddling" -- do not qualify as oxymoronic babble.... laughing my ass off.
Stop trying to pretend that you are informed: you do not understand what a government is, and you do not understand why very simple points are relevant when discussing free market and when discussing Capitalism or Socialism. You are pointless.
@slayin4free I understand you, but I also understand people like me. By the way, what subject are you talking about exactly? I said to you, that I think that your argument is shallow and absurd, but I never agreed on discussing one subject with you, I criticized your argument on my conditions -- you can talk about the "subject" all you want, but I never agreed on discussing one subject, I merely criticized your argument on the basis of the many subjects that I mentioned.
@leadleader2023 It seems to me that many who espouse the conservative point of view-and use the talking points much like those who rely on religious texts-are often incapable of juggling facts and information from varied sources. I know it's tough to synthesize from a million facts, but you have a great point there and I don't think you're going to get much sympathy from them for it.
By the way, thanks for subscribing to me, but I'm not worthy. And by the way, soy boricua, tambien.
@slayin4free (cont) I think the ideal conditions for free market, would be if technological inventions systematically become property of the government, the creator of the invention will be wealthy beyond imagination, and the government then shares the technological advancements equally with all the corporations, and then the corporations that make the best use of the technology will be chosen by the consumers, and that's how free market works.
@slayin4free (cont) However, again, when being the first one to buy a new technology, is the reason why one corporation defeats another corporation: it destroys free market, because something as trivial as being "first" to buy, becomes more important than what really matters, which is whom produces the better products. With every new technological advancement, the market will get smaller and smaller -- can you really call it a "free market" when two corporations own the damn place?
@slayin4free (cont) Oh most certainly not, it will consume itself? Your logic is as daft as your attempts at being witty.
Why would the inventor sell his idea unless he thought it was worth the money offered to him?
Why would the creator need to OWN his invention in order to receive money for his invention? Is it written in paper that if I claim myself as the creator, not owner, creator of this invention, that it is by law impossible for me to receive money in exchange?
@leadleader2023 You make no sense. I guess what they say is right. Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to your level and beat you with experience. Good luck with all that.
@slayin4free (cont) Call it "babbling" all you want, but I am not the person who believes that I need to own something in order to receive money. Free market is precisely NOT about private property, it's about competition and about being rewarded by your success, but you do not need to have "owners" in order to receive money for your service or inventions.
@leadleader2023 You are a fucking idiot. When you earn rewards, you OWN them. That is your private property. When you receive money you OWN it. I can't tell if you are trolling or just that stupid.
@slayin4free OWNING the intellectual property of a painting, is not the same thing as OWNING life forms. I hope that you can understand that "private property" is not just one thing, you cannot say "hey, if you can OWN a car, why not OWN life itself?" because there are fucking boundaries to how far private property should go; but of course, closed-minded people like yourself will always fail to understand why that is.
@leadleader2023 You are so of base. Do you even understand what you are talking about? You are off in your own little world in your reasoning. Who said anything about owning life? This is ridiculous. Individual liberty means you are free up to the point that it impedes on an others freedom. Why are you bringing up random crap that has nothing to do with the discussion.
@slayin4free (cont) Ignore everything that I say because it is clear that I do not understand anything, and just answer this very simple question: why is the US in debt with China?
Just answer that questions, and I will not even answer back, I have lost all interest in talking with a person whom is blatantly offending me with childish insults and childish arguments -- so just answer that question, so that I can understand you better.
@slayin4free (cont) So yes, go ahead, laugh at me if you want, because trust me, I am laughing at what I consider massive ignorance -- the belief that private property is needed in order to have free market... both hilarious and absurd, from my point of view.
Private property rewards LUCK, free market rewards ABILITY -- that's a clear conflict of interests right there. I don't view your argument as absurd because you disagree with me, it's something else.
@leadleader2023 Yes and that something else obviously has to do with the damage done to your brain at some point in your life. Are you arguing against patents? You are making no sense at all.
@slayin4free I am arguing against patents? I am arguing against the creation of wealth by exploiting obvious loopholes within a flawed system. You, on the other hand, are defending a system that exploits its own people thanks to these loopholes that are kept in place: who the fuck do you think creates patents? And why should I not argue against patents? You are making no sense at all, an what's worst, you are personally offending me when all I'm trying to do is have a discussion.
@slayin4free (cont) By the way, for a person who talks a lot about common sense and about brain damage -- you are indeed pathetic, seeing how you fail to see the fact that your argument is both ridiculous and shallow. You are arguing against Socialism, as if Socialism could actually make things worst than they currently are. Dude, really, if you think that industry does not already control a great part of the government, you need to get in touch with reality.
@slayin4free And finally: NO, I am not saying that you are shallow because you disagree with me. I think YOUR ARGUMENT is shallow, because your argument can be easily disproved by actual scientific evidence -- you are under the delusion that free market is all about private property, but the fact is that scientific evidence makes it clear that free trade existed long before private property existed -- so this is a case of you having no respect for the actual facts.
@slayin4free Off you go with the old "I can't tell if you are trolling or just that stupid" line as if it somehow made you sound smart. And whilst you feel smart about yourself for describing me as a stupid and shallow person: the fact is, you do not understand what free market is, you do not understand why a market of 100s of corporations was reduced to just about 7 corporations, precisely during the time when the government gave unprecedented freedom to the corporations.
@slayin4free (cont) So please, seeing how you are incredibly intelligent, could you explain a humble person of average intelligence like myself, why the corporations ended doing most of the damage precisely when the government gave them unprecedented freedom back in the 1970s and 1980s?
So what do we do now? If we get the government involved: it's bad. If we do not get the government involved: it's worst.
People who think Capitalism is so great should look at it's past. Dickens London during the industrial revolution, and the U.S. prior to the depression. Child labor, horrible working conditions, starvation wages, people living in polluted ghettos, no weekend, 15 hour days in factories, no vacations, no insurance, no safety net. That was unregulated capitalism and it was pretty ugly...
stallin first used then raped the commie way of thinking in the same way kappitalisties had there way with democratie. sociominding is the middle whay. take the good from uncle karl m and the good from uncle free for all and you have the least bad way to govern. utopia is a fabel and and a dream not a goal
Let's rephrase that. Why would you wanna give even more power to a democratically elected government when you can leave basic human needs like healthcare in the hands of greedy and corrupt corporations!
Socialism: The distribution of wealth equally to everyone. Communism: Government owns all land, single political party controls the government, and needs of the country always takes priority over the rights of individuals. You're right, they're not the same. They're both just crazy. If we become a socialist/communistic society, where is the American dream? The land of opportunity? The land of the free and the home of the brave? BTW, O'Reilly was only agreeing on Maher's definition of Socialism.
@MyOpinion29 Whoa whoa whoa, i was with you up until you said theyre both crazy. Communism definitely seems a little shady, but your saying everyone getting an equal amount of money is bad? That must be the greed talking...
@MyOpinion29 The American dream isn't something good. It remains in history as a big delusion, the delusion of poor people who thought they had a chance to win it all, but in the end were left with nothing.
Thousands of people have moved to america, very few made a fortune.
Capitalism nowadays offers you absolute freedom, so you say "i wanna be a big winner", and you ignore the fact that you could become a big loser. That's gambling mentality...
@riqyl32 You don't want absolute freedom? I'd rather take the gamble then have to be bound to a certain amount of money each year. Think about it though, if we all got paid the same, there is no reason to work hard. No matter what job you had, you'd get the same salary. So why be a doctor when I could be a garbage man and get the same amount of money?
@MyOpinion29 I don't want absolute freedom. This is why:
This absolute freedom will allow you to earn a lot of money. This doesn't mean you WILL make a lot of money, benefiting from this freedom. I mean that with limited regulations and a relative freedom you will be able to make the same money you would without them. Those who will actually feel the difference are the very wealthy, who don't need that much money, and frequently benefit from other people's misery.
@MyOpinion29 I find it wrong, that you would rather take the gamble. And you would too, if things hadn't worked out for you. Actually, most people who take the gamble end up losing it all.
Now, motivation for work is a different story. You work for money so that you can buy food to eat. If society gave you food, would you still work?
What we want from society is freedom and prosperity of all people if possible.
I have a theory on this but i don't know if you're interested...
@MyOpinion29 Well, at first, we must ensure that people have their basic needs covered.
So, what can be done, with current technology is:
1) With the money USA spend on military for 1 year (1,5 trillion$), a complete switch to solar power can be achieved. This way, energy is produced without human labor (except for maintenance) so it can be distributed for free to U.S. homes and businesses.
2)The Big step: We have to automate food production. With current technology everything ....
@MyOpinion29 from irrigation to harnessing can be done automatically, with people working only for supervision. So food production can be organised in large parks powered by solar energy, part of whose production can be used for breeding animals.
In this way you can have almost any good produced without human labor, hence it can be distributed for free.
These parks should not be run for profit. They should belong to the goverment. So, with organised transportation, free food can..
@MyOpinion29 be supplied to "distribution centers" in cities and towns. Something like free-of-charge supermarkets, nothing special.
This can at first be applied as one form of charity, so that it doesn't harm the market, but later on, food production should be enough to cover the needs of the entire population.
This will change a lot of things. First, food will loose its value because it can be found everywhere for free. So no-one will have a reason to steal, or take more than ...
@MyOpinion29 ...they actually need to idk sell it perhaps, because no-one will buy. Also:In the current system, that would lead to massive unemployment. But in what i'm proposing, the farmers who loose their jobs, will be able to feed themselves and their families for free. So unemployment will no longer be an issue. They can also be employed as maintainers and supervisors of the production process working very few hours and payed accordingly.
@MyOpinion29 for the population. If you take the average house-building cost at around 150.000$, again, the annual military budget would be enough to fund the construction of more than 7.000.000 houses.
With those four measures we can achieve the first of the two goals we set at the beginning: We have created the foundation for people's prosperity. Also, this system is self-sustainable, environment-friendly, and most importantly, human-friendly.
@MyOpinion29 ...a LOT from a system like that. They would have electricity, food, and shelter guaranteed, so they would have their life guaranteed.
Two possible questions:
>Why would people work then, if they have everything they need?
>Isn't that communism?
Regarding the motives to work: Many people work because they love their jobs. Others work because they need money. But in this system, the second category doesn't need money in order to survive anymore. So society would ....
@MyOpinion29 ...depend more on the first category, which is how it should be. You will have the scientist able to concentrate on his/her research, instead of having to compromise research with money-making. You will have the artist able to do his/her thing instead of having to work three jobs to get by. You will have kids with dreams "going for it" instead of compromising for a job they hate.
And at the same time, non-workers will not harm society, as they do (in a way) now.
@MyOpinion29 So motivation won't be much of a problem. Just for the record, isaac newton's laws of physics, einstein's relativity, thomas edison's light bulb, graham bell's telephone etc. were all inventions and discoveries that brought little or no profit to these men. The list is enormous. So it seems that money is not the prime cause for the progress of our civilisation.
Furthermore, volunteering would be significantly boosted, because people will know that there is a system ...
@MyOpinion29 ...which actually cares for their needs, and they will do anything to preserve it.
Now, regarding the second remark, this system is NOT communism. And this is the good part. This is how we ensure that ok, people will have the essentials, but there must also be freedom, and potential for improvement (something that in communism doesn't exist):
Money will continue to exist. People will continue to work. The difference is, they won't be working for their food, but ...
@MyOpinion29 ...for what i call "the luxuries". They will still be able to buy their ferrari, their TV, their guitars, their laptos, their refridgerators, their microwave ovens, their custom kitchen deliveries, (their dire straits CDs), and they will have to work for that.
In our world, it seems unfair to me that some people have it all, while others die of starvation. And despite that admitting this will bring you some nightmares, it isdead wrong and unfair.
@MyOpinion29 ...of a slightly differnet society, it wouldn't be unfair. You can have as many ferraris in the world, as long as people don't die of starvation because of that.
This system i'm proposing is not perfect. There will still be inequalities, some people will have two porsche's while others will have none, some jobs will be over-payed, some others will be under-payed, but all this is unimportant, and in my opinion, some diversity is necessary and intersting.
@MyOpinion29 your "gamble", you will be able to take it, you will have the chance to win it all, but there won't be a chance of ending up with nothing, and you won't be jumping out of a casino balcony.
So the big picture, is that we will have a system that is not communism and is not capitalism. It will be the "best of both worlds". The "essentials guaranteed" of socialism combined with the "absolute freedom" of capitalism.
There are also many (positive) side-effects of this ...
For example, 99% (or so) of crimes are committed for financial reasons thefts,robberies,homicides, everything has a financial aspect to it. Yeah even homicides. Only a 0.1% of homicides are committed by schizophrenic, mentally ill, crazy people. And one can argue that those cases of mental illness were caused by our very own competitive society structure. So, in a society were people can live without stealing, crime rates are sure to go down.
@MyOpinion29 So that's my theory (I am still working on it !). I think that if you really want to offer solutions to problems (and not just show off with your philosophy) you have to be specific and propose simple and effective changes.
There are of course, many things i haven't considered, many gaps to fill. But hey, that's how you improve your ideology, you discuss it and see where you're wrong!
the governments takes away our freedom by running prisons...... NO FUCKING SHIT THAT'S THE POINT OF FUCKING PRISONS. generally cooperations are more evil than the government, i don't get to vote for the people who are part of cooperations, i'd rather give power to a government which i have a voice in than idiots like bill o'reilly.
Oh, God, I've heard quote mines from Darwin that weren't this bad.
Of course Maher was right about the definition of socialism. O'Reilly... er, might actually lie about something that you could find out with a quick Google search, but like a poker bluff, it's something you don't want to do too often.
The vast majority of the world's nations are up against it at the moment, regardless of political colour. But if you take a closer look, you'll find that the mess the world is in wasn't caused by too much socialism. Quite the opposite.
I'm not saying that Europeans have all the answers. But some countries, especially the Scandinavian ones, have demonstrated for years that socialism and democracy mix quite well. Moderately leftist governments in Europe have offered people prosperity, freedom and social harmony. The trick is to avoid extremism, be it right-wing or left-wing.
In a democracy people are free to elect (and dismiss) the government. And in Europe we sometimes CHOOSE to governed by socialdemocrats. And why not? Many people in Europe actually LIKE free healthcare and free education for everyone. It's in people's interest. That's why people often vote for it. But in the U.S.A. the very word 'socialism' has become an inherently evil, scary word (like 'bogeyman').
Americans should try a little socialism sometime. Maybe you'd enjoy it, who knows?
@ShakingSeismologist Have you been living under a rock? Europe is on the brink of collapse, now is not a good time to use Europe as a shining beacon for all the world to follow.
@mattschol then what would be a beacon of hope because it sure as hell wouldn't be the USA which compared to the rest of the world is quite right-wing.
@ShakingSeismologist I agree with you in many ways. The likelihood of Americans ever being open-minded enough to consider a system which does not treat them like the pawns they are and have been for years is very small. I would become queen of England before that happened, I think.
Sadly, those who stand to benefit the most are the most vocal against socialized institutions. They often don't realize Medicare, social security and the military are socialized institutions.
@slayin4free Are they really? Or is it the one-eyed, one-dimensional media system you listen to telling you that? I found a copy of the Statistical Abstract of the United States and, by assiduous reading, discovered that, at worst, social security is solvent for the next 22 years. Those two services are the whipping boys for the rich, precisely because they want every penny they can lay their hands on and when you and other poor schmucks like me have no recourse to health care, what then? TBC
@xlsyor Not to put too fine a point on it, the best demonstration for how blinkered you are is the fact that you didn't mention that the military is/is not in a mess. Why is that? Let me speculate. You have bought the notion that "we" need a strong military(which, by the way, is nothing more than a police force for the rich...thugs who secure the resource pipelines to provide the workers and other drones with the means to provide a comfy living) and/or have family/friends in "service".....TBC
@xlsyor And that allegiance to the notions that have been implanted in your slave brain make the military off-limits to criticism. I was watching your back and forth with the others and briefly thought you were redeemable.....until you brought this nonsense up.
@xlsyor Yes from what I heard it will not just disappear, payments would just go down 25% as well. It doesn't mean it is not a flawed system. It's still forcing people to pay. When the baby boomers were young it worked alright because there were way more people paying into it then receiving, but now that they are reaching retirement its the other way around. I don't subscribe to the media. Before these programs we had mutual aid societies which took care of welfare and healthcare.
@ShakingSeismologist We did try it. That's why education and healthcare are so expensive now. That's what cause the housing crisis. If socialism is working so great then why are we in a global financial crisis?
Bill O'Reilly i one of the biggest idiots alive, he cannot even have a conversation without trying to prove his guests wrong (no matter the subject) and yell at them.
Why the government needs power? Why??? Because we are supposed the be a democracy, the motherfucking government represents THE PEOPLE, and the people is the power! Our government is already almost completely controlled and run by the mega-corporations and lobbies, and you disgusting conservatives want to weaken it even more so it can be controlled even more. We need a strong government, but also a democratic government! Maybe socialist, maybe not, but always democratic and constitutional!
@MastermindX We are supposed to be a constitutional republic. One of the reasons we don't want the government meddling in the markets is because it makes them a tool of corporations. The government should only be protecting our individual rights and our national security. Once you let the government interfere in the market corporations will use it to their advantage through lobbyists. I think that is the big thing you are missing. You think its capitalism but its not.
@slayin4free And if you don't let it interfere, there is no one to protect us from the actions of the corporations. How can you protect individual rights and security if corporations are free to pollute the environment, to deceive you, to sell you harmful foods or useless drugs, and so on?
@MastermindX I get your point, but then again, I can always argue: how do you know that the government will not simply become another vehicle for the corporations? I do not think that Socialism fixes a great deal of things, the government will always protect the highest bidder with Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism.
@leadleader2023 How do we know...? We know it already has become like that! Corporations pretty much control the government! That's why we need to take it back, and that's why we need a strong government that is not so easily bought and controlled. And I did never say anything about socialism, I said democracy. Most democratic governments in the world not always protect the highest bidder, it doesn't need to be like that. This is an American phenomenon.
@MastermindX It's not only an American phenomenon, that's the reason why the Roman empire went to shit: it went broke!! The fact of the matter, as far as I'm concerned, is fairly simple: I have never seen a model of democracy that I can describe as an actual democracy.
@MastermindX (cont) I think a real democracy would require something like a driver's license that you pass even if you get everything wrong, there's no intention of passing the test in order to acquire your voting license, you get your voting license regardless of your grade, but the point is, that then the government would know how most F-Grade voters are investing their vote, how most A-Grade voters are investing their vote, etc, etc.
@MastermindX (cont) A real democracy needs to have an objective mechanism to measure the health of the democracy. Then the government grades itself on the basis of a completely objective constitution. But because I have never heard of such a thing, I cannot say that an actual democracy has ever existed: there's no transparency to the many "democratic" governments that we have seen through history.
@MastermindX (cont) But having said all that, for the sake of informing myself: could you give me an example of a government that you consider a real democracy?
@leadleader2023 Sweden is a pretty healthy democracy. They are rather socialist as well. Just an example. Anyway we could say democracy is an ideal, maybe a perfect democracy is not attainable, same reasons as why a perfect free market is not possible in the real world, but we can strive towards those ideals.
@MastermindX What you are listing are violations of our individual liberty. The government is supposed to protect us from corporations that do these things. Instead of protecting our individual rights, they are meddling int he market. When you let them effect the market, that makes them just another tool corporations can use to get an edge. The more power you give the government, the more incentive you give corporations to bribe them to work against the people.
@slayin4free That's the problem with private property, that when an American makes an invention, he owns that invention, the invention does not systematically become property of the government, and when that happens, a 1% of the population ends up buying the invention that drives the economy, and eventually these corporations end up buying the government. So I don't see it as Capitalism vs Socialism, I think it's a problem of private property eventually consuming the government.
@leadleader2023 You are worried that industry and government will become one? That's why I want government to stay away from industry. Once they have the power to effect it industry will lobby to use the government to their favor, and our loss.
@slayin4free That's why I said that your argument is shallow, because you want to somehow prevent something that already happened. The industry owns the power, and the government cannot do anything about it, the government is too big and disorganized to actually scrutinize the corporations that do whatever they want. I'm not pro-socialism, I just think your argument is shallow, and I think you are full of shit if you honestly cannot see why your argument is shallow.
@slayin4free I must reiterate once again that I think your argument is absurd. Industry has grown to what it is today precisely because the government allowed a lot of freedom, and now you are saying that the government should stay away from the industry, as if the government could make it worst, when the fact is that it got to this point precisely because the government did not regulated enough.
@slayin4free (cont) Furthermore, if McDonalds has replaced a space that used to be covered by 100s of corporations: here's the problem with that, if I am starting a food business, the current food system is designed to benefit the big fast food chains, and that makes it very difficult for me if I do not want to buy the same chicken that all the fast food restaurants buy -- this is a great limitation to free market, because the fast food restaurants have rigged the food system.
@slayin4free (cont) So of course, if you replace the work that 100s of corporations used to do prior to the 1970s, and you replace it with just one corporation: sure, it will logically create a lot of wealth for that one corporation, but at the expense of massive unemployment because of the thousands of jobs that were lost due to the ownership of technological advances -- this undeniably destroys free market, having three choices is not what free market was supposed to be.
@slayin4free (cont) The technological advances themselves are not the reason for the unemployment, the reason for the unemployment is the fact that technological advances are owned by corporations, and of course, in order to create wealth for yourself as a corporation, an easy way of doing it is by not sharing your technology, these means that more people will be forced into buying your products, and that generates great wealth for you -- but it is detrimental to free market.
@slayin4free (cont) That is precisely where I completely disagree with you. You think that making a profit automatically means something positive for the economy of the nation, but you do not question how that profit is created, and whom is benefiting.
I can tell one thing though, we are not in this situation because of Socialism, which is why, again, I think your argument is shallow. You want to prevent something that already happened without Socialism.
@MastermindX How can the government protect us without "meddling"?
In his mind, slayin4free, believes that our current crisis is due to the government "meddling" with things, even though the fact is that a big chunk of the deficit was created by the corporations precisely when the government stopped regulating them properly.
@MastermindX That's a good question. I would say by protecting our individual liberty. The key is to protect the citizens without giving companies protection from competition. If companies have to compete for our business, then we are the ones who will benefit the most. The types of things you listen the government should be enforcing. But the government shouldn't be able to force us or companies to do certain things. There are still rules. But we have to be careful about it.
@slayin4free That's not an answer. "How do we protect individual liberty without meddling?", "By protecting our individual liberty and not meddling." Wow, really? The truth is the easiest, cheapest way to do that is by having industry regulations and special taxes (like carbon tax, green taxes, etc.), then let the free market manage. But you probably don't like that.
@MastermindX Idk how much of a free market that would be. Honestly I think a new tax would be a horrible idea. Why do they need more money? It would just make everything more expensive and distort the market even more. It's ok though. At least you can put a coherent thought onto paper. Unlike leadleader2023. Guy is wacko. haha. I do not see how that is the truth though. How does the carbon tax protect our individual rights? A tax is forcing us to pay money.
@MastermindX I don't know if you have noticed, but slayin4free really is a moron, I do not like to call people names, but slayin4free really is a moron -- "by protecting individual liberty and not meddling" -- laughing my ass off, slayin4free doesn't even understands the most fundamental things about any government, it's pathetic really, because people like him are the reason why our economy is in the shape it is.
@slayin4free You are a moron of massive proportions, there is no adjective to describe the depths of your stupidity. I mean, dude, do you not understand that what you ask for is precisely what the US government has been doing for the last fifty years? If it's not working now, if it has not been working for the last thirty years, what makes you think that things will get better by doing the same thing that hasn't produced any positive results in the last thirty years? Absurd.
I am happy that Europe has no problems nowadys (maybe the people complaining that we are too capitalist) :). And our free for all universities are so innovative, its good to have 17 out of 20 top universties in the world. Oh wait.
I thought I might remind some people in the comments that Socialism and Communism ARE NOT THE SAME! People often toss around terms that they don't even know the meanings of. Socialism and Communism are not synonyms for "evil". They are different forms of government that can and have worked if they are managed properly. Capitalism is no better than Communism. Each has pros and cons. Just because your country operates one way doesn't make it better. Heck, look where America is now!
@moreoreos123 Well, you obviously haven't thought very hard about that one. China. Largest exporter of goods and the second largest economy in the world. Although it has an adapted form of communism (with an economy) China represents a very successful nation under a communist government.
@moreoreos123 And the United States's government is not "true" capitalism either. It can't be, because it doesn't work. Public schools, libraries, hospitals, etc. are all SOCIALIST, yet the US has them. Those same people who send their kids to public schools claim socialism is bad (just because it is associated with Nazis). No form of government works perfectly (which is why China is an adapted form of communism like the US is an adapted form of capitalism). Cyprus and Nepal also are doing fine.
@bachthoven1685 trust me my father grew up in communist europe. go figure. and yes they are different but not that much. true communism by the book is much different but the way its worked when it has been present isn't that different.
because dumb ass in a social democracy the governmental is there to represent the people interests. it's a way of the people to take power from the powerful individuals, like that ones who are in control of the american government today. but i guess you know that, and your not ass dumb as you look, you work for the individuals who don't want ordinary people have power
MartianSanta 3 days ago
I swear Bill O'Reilly is 5 years old with his insults, pinhead? Really? Bill O'Reilly is a doo doo head. Smh.
MIKEJSCHERRER 5 days ago
If Bill Maher is correct , then why call him a pinhead?
megawelderguy 6 days ago
Again: The world economy isn't run along Socialist lines. Quite the reverse. So how can you blame Socialism for the miserable rut we're in at the moment?
ShakingSeismologist 1 week ago
OK Socialism is the government taking over some of the market while communism is the government taking over the entire market. That doesn't make either a good idea. The reason communism fails is because they gave all of the power to the government. Once they have all of the power the one in power do whats best for themselves. Maybe socialism is not as bad as communism but it is a step in that direction. Every time the government gets involved in the markets there are unintended consequences.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free The reason Communism failed was because it was never actually Communism, that's what actually happened, it was never Communism, for as much as the term was spoken, the fact was that private property was owned by an elite: at the end of the day, you cannot have Communism when the ideas that drive the economy are owned by life.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) The problem that people like you like to ignore, is that when you have corporations that are owned by people, and when that corporation owns the technology and resources that drive the economy, that corporation, in effect, becomes a government. The problem is that a government was required in order to create the corporation, so now you have two branches of the government fighting each other, and in the end, the corporations always end up buying the government.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) So this really is not a "political" issue that can be fixed with Capitalism, or Communism, or Socialism; the root of the problem is private property, it cannot be sustained in the long term, because it creates new branches of government without restraint, until eventually the world ends up broke: you can print money, but you cannot print facts.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) The "profit motive" is flawed at the very core, simply because the same model of "profit" cannot be applied into all the areas of human life: architecture is not simply a building, architecture is the physical form of the education system, and when a banker who does not understand what architecture actually is starts regulating and determining what architecture is within their own virtual reality, that creates a lot of poverty and unemployment.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) That was the point of the constitution, separating the church from the government, but the fact is that the church and the government have always been one and the same. The government can define "religion" as one thing, but they cannot change the historical facts. When you have bankers imposing their financial models upon the architecture, that's an imposition that limits our education, and that makes it a religious imposition, it is not a political imposition.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) That's the whole point of the absurd notion of "religious freedom", that in a free country you should have the freedom to criticize religion and to also chose the religion of your preference. But when you have the new church imposing their religious beliefs upon the education system of a "democratic" government, talking about the difference between the church and the government, religion and politics, is just ridiculous.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) At the end of the day, the "profit motive" is based on an imaginary economy, that's why we have a global crisis: our education is rigged, our architecture is rigged, our health care is rigged, in order to benefit a very specific demographic; you can buy a good education, but you do not need to earn a good education: we are playing with fire, defying the laws of nature, and the consequences of our actions are just around the corner.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 So you are for the free market then? Because you don't want these things to be rigged right?
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free Free market? Very much, yeah, but I'm still in the process of learning, and thus I try my best to keep an open mind. But having said that: yes, free market is something that I believe in; however, I do not believe that free market can be successful when corporations are owned by people -- I believe that ideas should have creators, but I do not think that an idea should ever have an owner, because ownership is a crime against the evolution of any species.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do so many in the USA demonise the word socialism. Usually it's because, generaly speaking, it is an inward looking and insular society. There are many degrees of socialism but some in the US seem to think Socialism = Communism or Marxism. That is just ignorance. The most successful, responsible and fairest democracies in the world (Sweden, Denmark, UK) all have a level of democratic socialism. It protects you from the excesses of a 'totally' free market economy like in the USA.
paultheinept 2 weeks ago
Bill is right though even if people might disagree. Schools, hospitals and stuff with a moral dimension should not be run for profit, because there is a conflict of interest there. That said though, government bureaucracy should be eliminated where those matters are concerned too, because government agenda might not exactly have a moral dimension in itself.
Faerlon123 2 weeks ago
@Faerlon123 But if there is no competition there will be no incentive to improve. I'm not saying people are lazy they are just not stupid. I someone knew that no matter how hard they worked they will reach the same result they are not going to give it their all. Competition drives innovation. It pushes people to reach their full potential. Plus consumers care less about prices when there is a third party paying. That is one of the reason tuition costs have gone up so much.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free But health is not something that has production value in a market. A sneaker has value in capitalism, because someone has laboured for it and created it. For me at least, healthservices shouldn't be privatized because it's about people's health, and people's health is more important than profit. But, I still don't think a gov't run healthsystem is the "solution". Nothing is perfect. I just don't think profiteering on people's health is a good thing.
Faerlon123 1 week ago
@Faerlon123 But without competition, there will be no incentive to improve and offer low prices. Also when a third party is paying for something, the buyer doesn't care about the price. Anything that someone is willing to pay for has value. Before state run welfare there where mutual aid societies. They didn't put profits first because the members knew each other personally. if your neighbor lost his job or got sick the fraternity would pool their resources to help him.
slayin4free 1 week ago
When the welfare state was created the government actually shut down about half of the existing medical schools and even shut down entire hospitals created by these organizations. This helped to drive up the cost of healthcare along with the fact that people don't care how much something costs when someone else is paying for it. Now people have to deal with insurance companies that don't know you form Adam and see you as just another number.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free I think your argument is absurd and shallow. I am not arguing against competition, I think competition is inherent to human nature, therefore no political system can erase our competitive edge from within us: we are competitive animals, and no matter how much some people want to dress it up, it won't ever go away. But my point is, being competitive does not mean that wealth needs to be printed paper that can be burnt and stolen as easily as it was printed.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 How is that shallow. It's common sense. If you are going to end up with the same result no matter how hard you work it is human nature to give less effort. Why would I bust my ass if the person next to me is slacking off and we are going to get the exact same reward either way? Why would a company strive to deliver a better product if the consumer has no other alternatives?
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free I think it is shallow -- humans give less work, but only when an artificial environment conditions them into becoming lazy animals. I mean, I agree with you, but you view it more from a political stand point, I view it more from natural point of view: in nature, if you didn't worked, you died. The problem is that in society, we do not have an objective definition for what "survival of the fittest" actually is....
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) So my point is, nature reinforces itself, but a society needs to have a constitutional model that can protect the laws of nature, if you do not have that model, then the laws of nature are replaced with ridiculous jobs that drain the economy and give nothing back.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) And what I mean by that is simple: it doesn't take a genius to understand that private property will eventually consume free market....
All you need to do, is to be lucky enough to be the first buyer of the new technology, and as soon as that happens, a market that consisted of 100s of corporations will be reduced into a market that consists of just 5 corporations -- thus leading to massive unemployment, and then the government always hides the real reason.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) So my point is, again, that I think your argument is shallow, because you are arguing against Socialism, whereas I think that the truth is that private property creates a lot more laziness than Socialism ever could. With private property being protected by a fraudulent constitution, it's just a matter of when: when will this one lucky buyer become the first owner of the new technology that will result in thousands of jobs lost from one day to another.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 "So my point is, again, that I think your argument is shallow, because you are arguing against Socialism" And you are saying I'm shallow? Just because I don't believe what you believe. Fraudulent constitution? Why would the inventor sell his idea unless he thought it was worth the money offered to him? Honestly you are just babbling on not really making any sense. Private property is what the free market is all about. So your saying its going to consume itself?
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free I completely disagree with you. Free market predates private property by THOUSANDS of years: FACT.....
If free market existed for thousands of years, long before private property was ever imposed by a foreign government: what makes you believe that free market is all about private property?
Again -- your argument is absurd and shallow. It is a FACT that free market existed long before private property.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Are you trying to drag me down to your level and beat me with experience. How can you trade if you do not own property in which to trade with? If I own nothing, then I have nothing to trade. Therefore if no one owned anything there could be no market. Do I really have to argue basic common sense?
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free Dude, no, I do not need to own anything in order to trade it. I can claim ownership over a piece of concreted: but you know what the truth is? That the piece of rock will still stand in its place long after I'm dead, so I never actually owned anything, ownership is just a fairy tale, ownership is not the reason why hunters needed to hunt for food in order to survive, ownership is not the reason why humans strive for more.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Yes I understand that matter will still exist when we die. You are talking about philosophy. You are way off on some random tangent. This is what I am talking about.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free I am talking about philosophy? No, I am talking about facts: free market existed long before humans started claiming ownership over technology. You are saying that ownership over technology is essential to free market, but you cannot possibly be basing yourself on anything other than fiction, because the facts are all very clear. If you are going to talk about free market, you better be prepared for people like me, who look at free market from a historical view point.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) But when I say that a free market did in fact existed long before humans started claiming ownership over technology, you respond by saying that I'm responding with "random crap" and with "random philosophy" when in actual fact I'm just telling you a SCIENTIFIC FACT.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) Then you go on to say that the government should not meddle with the market even though the constitution specifically says that the government SHOULD meddle with the market: so right from the get go, you do not respect the constitution of the US.
Basically, you do not respect the constitution of the US, then you go on to talk about the "individual liberties" that are protected by the very constitution that you do not respect -- absurd.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free When you earn rewards you OWN them. Question: did I ever said something against OWNING rewards?
A corporation coming in and buying an invention, and thus becoming the OWNERS of the technology that drives the economy of an entire nation -- destroys free market.
You are a fool, you accuse me of trolling, yet you fail to comprehend that when I said that your argument is shallow, I was criticizing your argument, I never actually said that you are shallow.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) And of course, the fact that you respond by personally offending me, just demonstrates that you are not a person who should be taken seriously, because as soon as someone does not agree you, that someone is by your high standards a stupid person. I do not waste my time with such childish insults, I still think your argument is shallow, but I feel no need to personally offend you.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Whatever. You aren't even making any sense. Your talking in circles. Any time a point is made you seem to go off on some philosophical rant but it seems you cannot put a coherent thought together long enough to make any sense. Your rebuttals end up having nothing to do with what you are replying to. What do you expect?
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free What do I expect? I expect a person who actually understands simple notions that have everything to do with the discussion at hand. But your responses speak for themselves: "you make no sense", "you are stupid", can you really say when exactly it was that I started making no sense? Because I understand your points perfectly, and I fail to see why I am making no sense. The fact of the matter is, you are an idiot with a very feeble mind, oh well.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Yes I'm sure you do understand what I am saying. Because I stay on subject and don't start rambling off on random tangents. We were talking about free markets and the consequences of government involvement in them and you start talking about religion and how a rock will still be a rock when we die so we never truly owned it. What does that have to do with anything I am saying. Then you start speaking in some oxymoronic babble. It's pointless.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free Yes, because your brilliant answers -- "by protecting our individual liberty and not meddling" -- do not qualify as oxymoronic babble.... laughing my ass off.
Stop trying to pretend that you are informed: you do not understand what a government is, and you do not understand why very simple points are relevant when discussing free market and when discussing Capitalism or Socialism. You are pointless.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free I understand you, but I also understand people like me. By the way, what subject are you talking about exactly? I said to you, that I think that your argument is shallow and absurd, but I never agreed on discussing one subject with you, I criticized your argument on my conditions -- you can talk about the "subject" all you want, but I never agreed on discussing one subject, I merely criticized your argument on the basis of the many subjects that I mentioned.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 It seems to me that many who espouse the conservative point of view-and use the talking points much like those who rely on religious texts-are often incapable of juggling facts and information from varied sources. I know it's tough to synthesize from a million facts, but you have a great point there and I don't think you're going to get much sympathy from them for it.
By the way, thanks for subscribing to me, but I'm not worthy. And by the way, soy boricua, tambien.
xlsyor 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) I think the ideal conditions for free market, would be if technological inventions systematically become property of the government, the creator of the invention will be wealthy beyond imagination, and the government then shares the technological advancements equally with all the corporations, and then the corporations that make the best use of the technology will be chosen by the consumers, and that's how free market works.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) However, again, when being the first one to buy a new technology, is the reason why one corporation defeats another corporation: it destroys free market, because something as trivial as being "first" to buy, becomes more important than what really matters, which is whom produces the better products. With every new technological advancement, the market will get smaller and smaller -- can you really call it a "free market" when two corporations own the damn place?
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) Oh most certainly not, it will consume itself? Your logic is as daft as your attempts at being witty.
Why would the inventor sell his idea unless he thought it was worth the money offered to him?
Why would the creator need to OWN his invention in order to receive money for his invention? Is it written in paper that if I claim myself as the creator, not owner, creator of this invention, that it is by law impossible for me to receive money in exchange?
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 You make no sense. I guess what they say is right. Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to your level and beat you with experience. Good luck with all that.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) Call it "babbling" all you want, but I am not the person who believes that I need to own something in order to receive money. Free market is precisely NOT about private property, it's about competition and about being rewarded by your success, but you do not need to have "owners" in order to receive money for your service or inventions.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 You are a fucking idiot. When you earn rewards, you OWN them. That is your private property. When you receive money you OWN it. I can't tell if you are trolling or just that stupid.
slayin4free 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free OWNING the intellectual property of a painting, is not the same thing as OWNING life forms. I hope that you can understand that "private property" is not just one thing, you cannot say "hey, if you can OWN a car, why not OWN life itself?" because there are fucking boundaries to how far private property should go; but of course, closed-minded people like yourself will always fail to understand why that is.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 You are so of base. Do you even understand what you are talking about? You are off in your own little world in your reasoning. Who said anything about owning life? This is ridiculous. Individual liberty means you are free up to the point that it impedes on an others freedom. Why are you bringing up random crap that has nothing to do with the discussion.
slayin4free 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) Ignore everything that I say because it is clear that I do not understand anything, and just answer this very simple question: why is the US in debt with China?
Just answer that questions, and I will not even answer back, I have lost all interest in talking with a person whom is blatantly offending me with childish insults and childish arguments -- so just answer that question, so that I can understand you better.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) So yes, go ahead, laugh at me if you want, because trust me, I am laughing at what I consider massive ignorance -- the belief that private property is needed in order to have free market... both hilarious and absurd, from my point of view.
Private property rewards LUCK, free market rewards ABILITY -- that's a clear conflict of interests right there. I don't view your argument as absurd because you disagree with me, it's something else.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Yes and that something else obviously has to do with the damage done to your brain at some point in your life. Are you arguing against patents? You are making no sense at all.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free I am arguing against patents? I am arguing against the creation of wealth by exploiting obvious loopholes within a flawed system. You, on the other hand, are defending a system that exploits its own people thanks to these loopholes that are kept in place: who the fuck do you think creates patents? And why should I not argue against patents? You are making no sense at all, an what's worst, you are personally offending me when all I'm trying to do is have a discussion.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) By the way, for a person who talks a lot about common sense and about brain damage -- you are indeed pathetic, seeing how you fail to see the fact that your argument is both ridiculous and shallow. You are arguing against Socialism, as if Socialism could actually make things worst than they currently are. Dude, really, if you think that industry does not already control a great part of the government, you need to get in touch with reality.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free And finally: NO, I am not saying that you are shallow because you disagree with me. I think YOUR ARGUMENT is shallow, because your argument can be easily disproved by actual scientific evidence -- you are under the delusion that free market is all about private property, but the fact is that scientific evidence makes it clear that free trade existed long before private property existed -- so this is a case of you having no respect for the actual facts.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slayin4free Off you go with the old "I can't tell if you are trolling or just that stupid" line as if it somehow made you sound smart. And whilst you feel smart about yourself for describing me as a stupid and shallow person: the fact is, you do not understand what free market is, you do not understand why a market of 100s of corporations was reduced to just about 7 corporations, precisely during the time when the government gave unprecedented freedom to the corporations.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) So please, seeing how you are incredibly intelligent, could you explain a humble person of average intelligence like myself, why the corporations ended doing most of the damage precisely when the government gave them unprecedented freedom back in the 1970s and 1980s?
So what do we do now? If we get the government involved: it's bad. If we do not get the government involved: it's worst.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
The only pinhead here is the one in this video.
kennyparker1337 2 weeks ago
People who think Capitalism is so great should look at it's past. Dickens London during the industrial revolution, and the U.S. prior to the depression. Child labor, horrible working conditions, starvation wages, people living in polluted ghettos, no weekend, 15 hour days in factories, no vacations, no insurance, no safety net. That was unregulated capitalism and it was pretty ugly...
znarf541 1 month ago
stallin first used then raped the commie way of thinking in the same way kappitalisties had there way with democratie. sociominding is the middle whay. take the good from uncle karl m and the good from uncle free for all and you have the least bad way to govern. utopia is a fabel and and a dream not a goal
fransuitenhoven 1 month ago
Let's rephrase that. Why would you wanna give even more power to a democratically elected government when you can leave basic human needs like healthcare in the hands of greedy and corrupt corporations!
DavidNWebster 1 month ago
Socialism: The distribution of wealth equally to everyone. Communism: Government owns all land, single political party controls the government, and needs of the country always takes priority over the rights of individuals. You're right, they're not the same. They're both just crazy. If we become a socialist/communistic society, where is the American dream? The land of opportunity? The land of the free and the home of the brave? BTW, O'Reilly was only agreeing on Maher's definition of Socialism.
MyOpinion29 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 Whoa whoa whoa, i was with you up until you said theyre both crazy. Communism definitely seems a little shady, but your saying everyone getting an equal amount of money is bad? That must be the greed talking...
whathehellbombit 1 month ago
@whathehellbombit to be fair everyone getting paid the same isn't fair if one person has a higher pressure job with more responsibility.
jinofthethunder 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 The American dream isn't something good. It remains in history as a big delusion, the delusion of poor people who thought they had a chance to win it all, but in the end were left with nothing.
Thousands of people have moved to america, very few made a fortune.
Capitalism nowadays offers you absolute freedom, so you say "i wanna be a big winner", and you ignore the fact that you could become a big loser. That's gambling mentality...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@riqyl32 You don't want absolute freedom? I'd rather take the gamble then have to be bound to a certain amount of money each year. Think about it though, if we all got paid the same, there is no reason to work hard. No matter what job you had, you'd get the same salary. So why be a doctor when I could be a garbage man and get the same amount of money?
MyOpinion29 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 I don't want absolute freedom. This is why:
This absolute freedom will allow you to earn a lot of money. This doesn't mean you WILL make a lot of money, benefiting from this freedom. I mean that with limited regulations and a relative freedom you will be able to make the same money you would without them. Those who will actually feel the difference are the very wealthy, who don't need that much money, and frequently benefit from other people's misery.
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 I find it wrong, that you would rather take the gamble. And you would too, if things hadn't worked out for you. Actually, most people who take the gamble end up losing it all.
Now, motivation for work is a different story. You work for money so that you can buy food to eat. If society gave you food, would you still work?
What we want from society is freedom and prosperity of all people if possible.
I have a theory on this but i don't know if you're interested...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@riqyl32 I'm interested :) What's your theory?
MyOpinion29 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 Well, at first, we must ensure that people have their basic needs covered.
So, what can be done, with current technology is:
1) With the money USA spend on military for 1 year (1,5 trillion$), a complete switch to solar power can be achieved. This way, energy is produced without human labor (except for maintenance) so it can be distributed for free to U.S. homes and businesses.
2)The Big step: We have to automate food production. With current technology everything ....
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 from irrigation to harnessing can be done automatically, with people working only for supervision. So food production can be organised in large parks powered by solar energy, part of whose production can be used for breeding animals.
In this way you can have almost any good produced without human labor, hence it can be distributed for free.
These parks should not be run for profit. They should belong to the goverment. So, with organised transportation, free food can..
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 be supplied to "distribution centers" in cities and towns. Something like free-of-charge supermarkets, nothing special.
This can at first be applied as one form of charity, so that it doesn't harm the market, but later on, food production should be enough to cover the needs of the entire population.
This will change a lot of things. First, food will loose its value because it can be found everywhere for free. So no-one will have a reason to steal, or take more than ...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...they actually need to idk sell it perhaps, because no-one will buy. Also:In the current system, that would lead to massive unemployment. But in what i'm proposing, the farmers who loose their jobs, will be able to feed themselves and their families for free. So unemployment will no longer be an issue. They can also be employed as maintainers and supervisors of the production process working very few hours and payed accordingly.
4) the state has to provide shelter...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 for the population. If you take the average house-building cost at around 150.000$, again, the annual military budget would be enough to fund the construction of more than 7.000.000 houses.
With those four measures we can achieve the first of the two goals we set at the beginning: We have created the foundation for people's prosperity. Also, this system is self-sustainable, environment-friendly, and most importantly, human-friendly.
The lower classes would benefit ..
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...a LOT from a system like that. They would have electricity, food, and shelter guaranteed, so they would have their life guaranteed.
Two possible questions:
>Why would people work then, if they have everything they need?
>Isn't that communism?
Regarding the motives to work: Many people work because they love their jobs. Others work because they need money. But in this system, the second category doesn't need money in order to survive anymore. So society would ....
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...depend more on the first category, which is how it should be. You will have the scientist able to concentrate on his/her research, instead of having to compromise research with money-making. You will have the artist able to do his/her thing instead of having to work three jobs to get by. You will have kids with dreams "going for it" instead of compromising for a job they hate.
And at the same time, non-workers will not harm society, as they do (in a way) now.
..
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 So motivation won't be much of a problem. Just for the record, isaac newton's laws of physics, einstein's relativity, thomas edison's light bulb, graham bell's telephone etc. were all inventions and discoveries that brought little or no profit to these men. The list is enormous. So it seems that money is not the prime cause for the progress of our civilisation.
Furthermore, volunteering would be significantly boosted, because people will know that there is a system ...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...which actually cares for their needs, and they will do anything to preserve it.
Now, regarding the second remark, this system is NOT communism. And this is the good part. This is how we ensure that ok, people will have the essentials, but there must also be freedom, and potential for improvement (something that in communism doesn't exist):
Money will continue to exist. People will continue to work. The difference is, they won't be working for their food, but ...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...for what i call "the luxuries". They will still be able to buy their ferrari, their TV, their guitars, their laptos, their refridgerators, their microwave ovens, their custom kitchen deliveries, (their dire straits CDs), and they will have to work for that.
In our world, it seems unfair to me that some people have it all, while others die of starvation. And despite that admitting this will bring you some nightmares, it isdead wrong and unfair.
But in my hypothesis
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...of a slightly differnet society, it wouldn't be unfair. You can have as many ferraris in the world, as long as people don't die of starvation because of that.
This system i'm proposing is not perfect. There will still be inequalities, some people will have two porsche's while others will have none, some jobs will be over-payed, some others will be under-payed, but all this is unimportant, and in my opinion, some diversity is necessary and intersting.
So back to ...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 your "gamble", you will be able to take it, you will have the chance to win it all, but there won't be a chance of ending up with nothing, and you won't be jumping out of a casino balcony.
So the big picture, is that we will have a system that is not communism and is not capitalism. It will be the "best of both worlds". The "essentials guaranteed" of socialism combined with the "absolute freedom" of capitalism.
There are also many (positive) side-effects of this ...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 ...whole story:
For example, 99% (or so) of crimes are committed for financial reasons thefts,robberies,homicides, everything has a financial aspect to it. Yeah even homicides. Only a 0.1% of homicides are committed by schizophrenic, mentally ill, crazy people. And one can argue that those cases of mental illness were caused by our very own competitive society structure. So, in a society were people can live without stealing, crime rates are sure to go down.
...
riqyl32 1 month ago
@MyOpinion29 So that's my theory (I am still working on it !). I think that if you really want to offer solutions to problems (and not just show off with your philosophy) you have to be specific and propose simple and effective changes.
There are of course, many things i haven't considered, many gaps to fill. But hey, that's how you improve your ideology, you discuss it and see where you're wrong!
So let me hear your thoughts...
riqyl32 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What political view does Bill O'Reilly have?
Searchinganswers 1 month ago
Comment removed
Searchinganswers 1 month ago
the governments takes away our freedom by running prisons...... NO FUCKING SHIT THAT'S THE POINT OF FUCKING PRISONS. generally cooperations are more evil than the government, i don't get to vote for the people who are part of cooperations, i'd rather give power to a government which i have a voice in than idiots like bill o'reilly.
ryan473 1 month ago
Oh, God, I've heard quote mines from Darwin that weren't this bad.
Of course Maher was right about the definition of socialism. O'Reilly... er, might actually lie about something that you could find out with a quick Google search, but like a poker bluff, it's something you don't want to do too often.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
Yeah, because the governemt taking over hospitals and schools is something that takes away a lot more freedom than the PATRIOT act...
truffyt 1 month ago
Go Socialists!
LousySob 1 month ago
The vast majority of the world's nations are up against it at the moment, regardless of political colour. But if you take a closer look, you'll find that the mess the world is in wasn't caused by too much socialism. Quite the opposite.
ShakingSeismologist 1 month ago
I'm not saying that Europeans have all the answers. But some countries, especially the Scandinavian ones, have demonstrated for years that socialism and democracy mix quite well. Moderately leftist governments in Europe have offered people prosperity, freedom and social harmony. The trick is to avoid extremism, be it right-wing or left-wing.
ShakingSeismologist 1 month ago
In a democracy people are free to elect (and dismiss) the government. And in Europe we sometimes CHOOSE to governed by socialdemocrats. And why not? Many people in Europe actually LIKE free healthcare and free education for everyone. It's in people's interest. That's why people often vote for it. But in the U.S.A. the very word 'socialism' has become an inherently evil, scary word (like 'bogeyman').
Americans should try a little socialism sometime. Maybe you'd enjoy it, who knows?
ShakingSeismologist 1 month ago
@ShakingSeismologist Have you been living under a rock? Europe is on the brink of collapse, now is not a good time to use Europe as a shining beacon for all the world to follow.
mattschol 1 month ago
@mattschol then what would be a beacon of hope because it sure as hell wouldn't be the USA which compared to the rest of the world is quite right-wing.
irishgodfatherchris 1 month ago
@irishgodfatherchris I'm not sure there is one.
mattschol 1 month ago
@ShakingSeismologist I agree with you in many ways. The likelihood of Americans ever being open-minded enough to consider a system which does not treat them like the pawns they are and have been for years is very small. I would become queen of England before that happened, I think.
Sadly, those who stand to benefit the most are the most vocal against socialized institutions. They often don't realize Medicare, social security and the military are socialized institutions.
I'm broke. I'd benefit.
xlsyor 1 month ago
@xlsyor Yes we do. And look how much of a mess Medicare and Social Security is in.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free Are they really? Or is it the one-eyed, one-dimensional media system you listen to telling you that? I found a copy of the Statistical Abstract of the United States and, by assiduous reading, discovered that, at worst, social security is solvent for the next 22 years. Those two services are the whipping boys for the rich, precisely because they want every penny they can lay their hands on and when you and other poor schmucks like me have no recourse to health care, what then? TBC
xlsyor 1 week ago
@xlsyor Not to put too fine a point on it, the best demonstration for how blinkered you are is the fact that you didn't mention that the military is/is not in a mess. Why is that? Let me speculate. You have bought the notion that "we" need a strong military(which, by the way, is nothing more than a police force for the rich...thugs who secure the resource pipelines to provide the workers and other drones with the means to provide a comfy living) and/or have family/friends in "service".....TBC
xlsyor 1 week ago
@xlsyor And that allegiance to the notions that have been implanted in your slave brain make the military off-limits to criticism. I was watching your back and forth with the others and briefly thought you were redeemable.....until you brought this nonsense up.
xlsyor 1 week ago
@xlsyor Yes from what I heard it will not just disappear, payments would just go down 25% as well. It doesn't mean it is not a flawed system. It's still forcing people to pay. When the baby boomers were young it worked alright because there were way more people paying into it then receiving, but now that they are reaching retirement its the other way around. I don't subscribe to the media. Before these programs we had mutual aid societies which took care of welfare and healthcare.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@ShakingSeismologist We did try it. That's why education and healthcare are so expensive now. That's what cause the housing crisis. If socialism is working so great then why are we in a global financial crisis?
slayin4free 1 week ago
BillO is just an actor, he's not even a journalist, he's just there for the lulz. FACT
luciferiexcelsil 2 months ago
Bill O'Reilly i one of the biggest idiots alive, he cannot even have a conversation without trying to prove his guests wrong (no matter the subject) and yell at them.
fitemil 2 months ago
Evil corporatists don't take away freedom? Apple and Microsoft live to take away freedom, to trick you into buying only their stuff.
TomMinderson 2 months ago
Also HE MAD, do you want a falafel, Bill'O?
MastermindX 2 months ago
Why the government needs power? Why??? Because we are supposed the be a democracy, the motherfucking government represents THE PEOPLE, and the people is the power! Our government is already almost completely controlled and run by the mega-corporations and lobbies, and you disgusting conservatives want to weaken it even more so it can be controlled even more. We need a strong government, but also a democratic government! Maybe socialist, maybe not, but always democratic and constitutional!
MastermindX 2 months ago
@MastermindX We are supposed to be a constitutional republic. One of the reasons we don't want the government meddling in the markets is because it makes them a tool of corporations. The government should only be protecting our individual rights and our national security. Once you let the government interfere in the market corporations will use it to their advantage through lobbyists. I think that is the big thing you are missing. You think its capitalism but its not.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free And if you don't let it interfere, there is no one to protect us from the actions of the corporations. How can you protect individual rights and security if corporations are free to pollute the environment, to deceive you, to sell you harmful foods or useless drugs, and so on?
MastermindX 1 week ago
@MastermindX I get your point, but then again, I can always argue: how do you know that the government will not simply become another vehicle for the corporations? I do not think that Socialism fixes a great deal of things, the government will always protect the highest bidder with Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 How do we know...? We know it already has become like that! Corporations pretty much control the government! That's why we need to take it back, and that's why we need a strong government that is not so easily bought and controlled. And I did never say anything about socialism, I said democracy. Most democratic governments in the world not always protect the highest bidder, it doesn't need to be like that. This is an American phenomenon.
MastermindX 1 week ago
@MastermindX It's not only an American phenomenon, that's the reason why the Roman empire went to shit: it went broke!! The fact of the matter, as far as I'm concerned, is fairly simple: I have never seen a model of democracy that I can describe as an actual democracy.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@MastermindX (cont) I think a real democracy would require something like a driver's license that you pass even if you get everything wrong, there's no intention of passing the test in order to acquire your voting license, you get your voting license regardless of your grade, but the point is, that then the government would know how most F-Grade voters are investing their vote, how most A-Grade voters are investing their vote, etc, etc.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@MastermindX (cont) A real democracy needs to have an objective mechanism to measure the health of the democracy. Then the government grades itself on the basis of a completely objective constitution. But because I have never heard of such a thing, I cannot say that an actual democracy has ever existed: there's no transparency to the many "democratic" governments that we have seen through history.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@MastermindX (cont) But having said all that, for the sake of informing myself: could you give me an example of a government that you consider a real democracy?
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Sweden is a pretty healthy democracy. They are rather socialist as well. Just an example. Anyway we could say democracy is an ideal, maybe a perfect democracy is not attainable, same reasons as why a perfect free market is not possible in the real world, but we can strive towards those ideals.
MastermindX 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@MastermindX What you are listing are violations of our individual liberty. The government is supposed to protect us from corporations that do these things. Instead of protecting our individual rights, they are meddling int he market. When you let them effect the market, that makes them just another tool corporations can use to get an edge. The more power you give the government, the more incentive you give corporations to bribe them to work against the people.
slayin4free 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slayin4free That's the problem with private property, that when an American makes an invention, he owns that invention, the invention does not systematically become property of the government, and when that happens, a 1% of the population ends up buying the invention that drives the economy, and eventually these corporations end up buying the government. So I don't see it as Capitalism vs Socialism, I think it's a problem of private property eventually consuming the government.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 You are worried that industry and government will become one? That's why I want government to stay away from industry. Once they have the power to effect it industry will lobby to use the government to their favor, and our loss.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free That's why I said that your argument is shallow, because you want to somehow prevent something that already happened. The industry owns the power, and the government cannot do anything about it, the government is too big and disorganized to actually scrutinize the corporations that do whatever they want. I'm not pro-socialism, I just think your argument is shallow, and I think you are full of shit if you honestly cannot see why your argument is shallow.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free I must reiterate once again that I think your argument is absurd. Industry has grown to what it is today precisely because the government allowed a lot of freedom, and now you are saying that the government should stay away from the industry, as if the government could make it worst, when the fact is that it got to this point precisely because the government did not regulated enough.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) Furthermore, if McDonalds has replaced a space that used to be covered by 100s of corporations: here's the problem with that, if I am starting a food business, the current food system is designed to benefit the big fast food chains, and that makes it very difficult for me if I do not want to buy the same chicken that all the fast food restaurants buy -- this is a great limitation to free market, because the fast food restaurants have rigged the food system.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
Comment removed
leadleader2023 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slayin4free (cont) So of course, if you replace the work that 100s of corporations used to do prior to the 1970s, and you replace it with just one corporation: sure, it will logically create a lot of wealth for that one corporation, but at the expense of massive unemployment because of the thousands of jobs that were lost due to the ownership of technological advances -- this undeniably destroys free market, having three choices is not what free market was supposed to be.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) The technological advances themselves are not the reason for the unemployment, the reason for the unemployment is the fact that technological advances are owned by corporations, and of course, in order to create wealth for yourself as a corporation, an easy way of doing it is by not sharing your technology, these means that more people will be forced into buying your products, and that generates great wealth for you -- but it is detrimental to free market.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free (cont) That is precisely where I completely disagree with you. You think that making a profit automatically means something positive for the economy of the nation, but you do not question how that profit is created, and whom is benefiting.
I can tell one thing though, we are not in this situation because of Socialism, which is why, again, I think your argument is shallow. You want to prevent something that already happened without Socialism.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free How can the government protect us without "meddling"?
MastermindX 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MastermindX How can the government protect us without "meddling"?
In his mind, slayin4free, believes that our current crisis is due to the government "meddling" with things, even though the fact is that a big chunk of the deficit was created by the corporations precisely when the government stopped regulating them properly.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@MastermindX That's a good question. I would say by protecting our individual liberty. The key is to protect the citizens without giving companies protection from competition. If companies have to compete for our business, then we are the ones who will benefit the most. The types of things you listen the government should be enforcing. But the government shouldn't be able to force us or companies to do certain things. There are still rules. But we have to be careful about it.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@slayin4free That's not an answer. "How do we protect individual liberty without meddling?", "By protecting our individual liberty and not meddling." Wow, really? The truth is the easiest, cheapest way to do that is by having industry regulations and special taxes (like carbon tax, green taxes, etc.), then let the free market manage. But you probably don't like that.
MastermindX 1 week ago
@MastermindX Idk how much of a free market that would be. Honestly I think a new tax would be a horrible idea. Why do they need more money? It would just make everything more expensive and distort the market even more. It's ok though. At least you can put a coherent thought onto paper. Unlike leadleader2023. Guy is wacko. haha. I do not see how that is the truth though. How does the carbon tax protect our individual rights? A tax is forcing us to pay money.
slayin4free 1 week ago
@MastermindX I don't know if you have noticed, but slayin4free really is a moron, I do not like to call people names, but slayin4free really is a moron -- "by protecting individual liberty and not meddling" -- laughing my ass off, slayin4free doesn't even understands the most fundamental things about any government, it's pathetic really, because people like him are the reason why our economy is in the shape it is.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@slayin4free You are a moron of massive proportions, there is no adjective to describe the depths of your stupidity. I mean, dude, do you not understand that what you ask for is precisely what the US government has been doing for the last fifty years? If it's not working now, if it has not been working for the last thirty years, what makes you think that things will get better by doing the same thing that hasn't produced any positive results in the last thirty years? Absurd.
leadleader2023 1 week ago
@leadleader2023 Blah Blah Blah I'm done arguing with you kid. You can't even put a coherent thought onto paper. Learn 2 Communicate.
slayin4free 1 week ago
I am happy that Europe has no problems nowadys (maybe the people complaining that we are too capitalist) :). And our free for all universities are so innovative, its good to have 17 out of 20 top universties in the world. Oh wait.
WolfganggAmadeus 2 months ago
Bill O'Reilly, your mother should have swallowed you
dopeasfuckk 2 months ago 37
@dopeasfuckk She did. Then she spat him out. Oh, wait, that was the placenta.....
xlsyor 1 month ago
@dopeasfuckk The best part of him ran down the crack of his mothers ass and wound up a brown stain on the mattress.
RichardZERO 1 month ago 2
@dopeasfuckk funny :P but i like o'reilly, dont ask me why. He can be a faggot and do nothing but talk over people, but i just do.
jayot33 3 weeks ago
I thought I might remind some people in the comments that Socialism and Communism ARE NOT THE SAME! People often toss around terms that they don't even know the meanings of. Socialism and Communism are not synonyms for "evil". They are different forms of government that can and have worked if they are managed properly. Capitalism is no better than Communism. Each has pros and cons. Just because your country operates one way doesn't make it better. Heck, look where America is now!
bachthoven1685 3 months ago 45
@bachthoven1685 i can't think of one instance where communism worked or was managed properly...
moreoreos123 2 months ago
@moreoreos123 Well, you obviously haven't thought very hard about that one. China. Largest exporter of goods and the second largest economy in the world. Although it has an adapted form of communism (with an economy) China represents a very successful nation under a communist government.
bachthoven1685 2 months ago
@bachthoven1685 Even china isnt true communism....their economy is quite capitalistic in nature.
moreoreos123 2 months ago
@moreoreos123 And the United States's government is not "true" capitalism either. It can't be, because it doesn't work. Public schools, libraries, hospitals, etc. are all SOCIALIST, yet the US has them. Those same people who send their kids to public schools claim socialism is bad (just because it is associated with Nazis). No form of government works perfectly (which is why China is an adapted form of communism like the US is an adapted form of capitalism). Cyprus and Nepal also are doing fine.
bachthoven1685 2 months ago
@bachthoven1685 oh no! socialism?!
*scared*
lol
moreoreos123 2 months ago
@moreoreos123 Yes, that is the point I was trying to make from the beginning, that socialism is not a bad thing.
bachthoven1685 2 months ago 5
@bachthoven1685 trust me my father grew up in communist europe. go figure. and yes they are different but not that much. true communism by the book is much different but the way its worked when it has been present isn't that different.
superstangs123 1 month ago