Socialism makes people worse

[Riverwind]

Afraid not as Canadian law decides that factor.

You are missing the point of this thread. The article posted by MB made the sneering claim that conservatives were morally superior because they gave more to charity where he was clearly implying that charity was a selfless act intended to help the less fortunate. I pointed out that it is impossible to make such a conclusion from raw donation statistics since the 'law' lumps donations to help out the poor into the same category as donations to churches (something you confirmed in your post).

[Darth Buddha]

It's true. Admit it.

Sure it does, in excess, Monty. Lot's of other "socialist" entities work just fine. Isn't the military "socialist" instead of individuals hiring mercenaries? Aren't the police a "socialist" entity that would be replaced by privately hired gaurds? Isn't the Department of Health, which we would look to for help in the event of an epidemic, just a socialist safety net? Even an insurance policy, a form of pooled risk, follows a socialist model even as it is marketed as a capitalist commodity.

I suppose that sort of thinking doesn't work well for anyone who thinks in pure black and white. Those examples are just a little too subtle for such types to follow.

Mismanaged socialism, socialism without feedback mechanisms to motivate individuals to be vigilant of costs (that would be a "mixed" model, in case you've never heard of it) truly degrade the system and eventually the people using it. If you want a really good essay on just this, check out "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin: http://dieoff.org/page95.htm. The only problem with his essay is that he never considers mixed models necessary for managing resources like water and air (currently I find the management of the former FAR to socialist and the management of the latter just an opportunity for capitalists to poison another commons).

So sure, I admit that poorly designed and/or pure socialism is bad news. Just like pure capitalism (which is just a word for "greed" - odd that religious fanatics are so wholly wed to the concept) makes people worse. Without regulations for the good of all you end up with folks like Ken Lay, and even the "protection racket" so often employed by the mob becomes perfectly legitimate.

Get back to me if you read the Hardin essay, as I suspect you'll get the broad strokes but not the subtle implications in the real world: you'll either miss them or ignore them because they won't stroke your dogmatic view of the world.

That's the problem with dogmatic extremists: you, Jerry Falwell, Al Zarcawi, Joe Stalin, Michael Moore and Osama... brothers of the brain though not of creed. I wonder if there will every be a treatment for this dogmatic mental illness? You know, provide a pill, create some kind of therapy, implement some sort of lobotomy and the world will NEVER have to suffer the poison of zealotry and dogmatic ignorance of irrational extremism ever again!