Socialism is evil.

[Pliny]

A brief review of the early history of the Industrial Revolution rather suggests that Capitalists would do the same thing too, if they were unrestrained.

Is there somewhere where capitalists have been left unrestrained? Where anyone is left unrestrained?

If so, what happened? Probably they were restrained. Government, with it's monopoly use of force cannot be fairly compared to a capitalist enterprise.

Frankly, I think both political ideologies, if not tempered by an admixture of the other, would lead to tyranny of one form or another.

As long as there are individuals destructive to the peaceful and voluntary co-operation of individuals there will probably be a need for government to temper them. There is no necessity for individuals of government to expand it's mandate to engineer all of society. Most people, left to their free-will, are constructive, rational and compassionate individuals. Certainly, behavior differs in times of scarcity and in times of plenty. It helps to know that men act to improve their lives. The call for welfare is no different - people attempting to improve their lot and what's important to them. The collective system of welfare that we have today is not sustainable over time because it depends upon an expanding economy which is always a preferrable condition but artificial expansion of the economy will eventually create the largest swings of scarcity and plenty until it collapses. It can't help but do that because one man or ten politicians cannot decide the efficient progression of a macro-economy. The larger influences in an economy is not what efficiently and sustainably drives it. It is the micro-economic action of individuals which drives it.

[Pliny]

I'm sure it doesn't really cost all that much to raise 8-10 kids either.

It costs absolutely nothing to have them. It's great. The apparency is that some people just don't consider what happens after.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Pliny

[pinko]

Is there somewhere where capitalists have been left unrestrained? Where anyone is left unrestrained?

If so, what happened? Probably they were restrained. Government, with it's monopoly use of force cannot be fairly compared to a capitalist enterprise.

As long as there are individuals destructive to the peaceful and voluntary co-operation of individuals there will probably be a need for government to temper them. There is no necessity for individuals of government to expand it's mandate to engineer all of society. Most people, left to their free-will, are constructive, rational and compassionate individuals. Certainly, behavior differs in times of scarcity and in times of plenty. It helps to know that men act to improve their lives. The call for welfare is no different - people attempting to improve their lot and what's important to them. The collective system of welfare that we have today is not sustainable over time because it depends upon an expanding economy which is always a preferrable condition but artificial expansion of the economy will eventually create the largest swings of scarcity and plenty until it collapses. It can't help but do that because one man or ten politicians cannot decide the efficient progression of a macro-economy. The larger influences in an economy is not what efficiently and sustainably drives it. It is the micro-economic action of individuals which drives it.

How about a guaranteed annual income to meet the needs of those in our society who are less fortunate than you and I.

[Pliny]

Sometime and I hope soon, people will wake up and realize that this current market-money system is extremely flawed and we must produce a new more sustainable system that works in favour for all people.

This is not a money market system. There is no money per it's legal and useful definition. There is only a system of accounting. People talk about money and call the entry on their bank statements "money" or the fiat currency in their pockets "money" but those things only represent a method of accounting and is missing key purposes that define money.

[Pliny]

How about a guaranteed annual income to meet the needs of those in our society who are less fortunate than you and I.

This involves the creation of income. If income is merely an entry upon a balance sheet it doesn't represent purchasing power and the more income created in this manner the less value it has.

Once again it is necessary to envision how these things will play out over time. The first people to receive the guaranteed income will have the opportunity to spend it at it's initial value. All looks well. Over time, income created in this manner will act inflationary, reducing everyone's purchasing power and reducing the standard of living in society. What do we do then? The people now dependent upon their guaranteed annual income will not have developed skills to sustain themselves and we find society deteriorating.

[Pliny]

I don't seem to recall "extolling the virtues of our wondrous welfare system" becaus it's not wondrous at all. There are a number of problems with it. The barriers to re-entering the workplace are numerous and those are not addressed by the system. Maybe it wasn't this thread where I mentioned a number of these barriers, but don't make the mistake of thinking I believe our welfare system is a thing of perfection, far from it.

No. I don't believe even the most fervent advocate of our welfare system thinks it is "wondrous" or perfect - like our perfect and wondrous healthcare system - just don't try and change it.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Pliny

[Smallc]

All those people in rural areas should just hop on a bus and... oh wait.

No, they shouldn't, but I'm sure there's a better solution that could be found.

[Smallc]

It would appear to me you are having a discussion with a person who has a closed mind on the topic. Apparently his anecdotal experiences extend to all in his mind.

Apparently you haven't read anything that I've posted. I said that this is a problem specific to rural northern areas and I said that there has to be a better solution...I'm just not sure what it is.

[Oleg Bach]

Christ the first real socialist with a capitalist share holders twist said one thing in regards to good socialism..."I have not come to save the whole flock of sheep but to save the ONE - that has fallen into the pit" - To para-phrase...what he is saying is that the individual is of utmost importance. If the rights of the singular are trampled on then the rights of the collective is tainted and weakened.

This buisness about the "greater good" is bullshit...just because there is a majority to please should not trump the individual..George Bernard Shaw a socialist once said "The majority is always wrong" - Capitalism is a bit like homosexuality...the participants love you and there is nothing wrong with that - But when one sex mimics the other then there is a problem - at present our capitalists mimic the socialists..and corporate socialism enslaves..under the guise and ruse of freedom and prosperity - What the hell is this when I see a young person working for a corporation or an NGO --makeing a cheezy 400 bucks a weak...for god's sake I was making 600 40 years ago as a kid...

Right now socialism is not much better than communism or capitalism...Under the old way - the imperial principle of service - Britian for instance has a "COMMON WEALTH" - the empire was based on Christian socialism..."all to take their wealth and put it into a common purse and those in need can come and take what is needed...That sounds fair - but then in buisness as at the Vatican - Hording took place - common greed destroyed capitalism - Christianity and socialism...now we have nothing.