Burgerman wrote:Here comes the snark: Anybody ever tried to move their chronically weakening body around in a super happy libertarian paradise? It's loads of fun. Anybody notice that the USA spends more per capita on health care than any country, period, with sadder quality of life outcomes?
Really? Our nationalised socialist NHS in the UK has people unable to get treatment, months to years wait to get operations, many treatments refused on the grounds of the cost, people dying on trollys in corridors days after they went into hospital with no treatment or beds in sight, and most people waiting half a day or longer in accident and emergency to see a doctor. And you think the US system, where WE go to get care and medical treatment when we cant get what we need here is worse?
In most countries in the world, the disabled like us dont have houses with flat screen 80 inch TVs, food, disabled adapted vehicles, air conditioning, care, powerchairs, iphones, and cable internet. How are the US doing worse?
Watch if only the first one. Socialism always fails. Its been tested to death. The experiment has been run. It ALWAYS ends badly. With millions starved or killed.
The more socialist a country is, the poorer it gets and the LESS the poor eventually have. The more capitalist a country is, the greater the wealth, and the bigger the gap between the super rich and the poor. But they still live better than under any other system since society ends up richer.
youtu.be/fNjtpksJD4s
youtu.be/CCIdm3cM6zQ
youtu.be/Jt6HU24Brh4
youtu.be/DS2bvTDIq-I
sacharlie wrote:Oh how you guys beat your chests about capitalism, socialism and what nation is what. Wake up LG there is no brain-power of a handful or brain-power of a nation; it's the control of corporations. We over here have NAFTA which is nothing more than corporate control and direction over government. Corporations don't want capitalism and don't allow capitalism in their business dealings. If corporations did allow capitalism to exist there would be no NAFTA.
Lord Chatterley wrote:sacharlie wrote:Oh how you guys beat your chests about capitalism, socialism and what nation is what. Wake up LG there is no brain-power of a handful or brain-power of a nation; it's the control of corporations. We over here have NAFTA which is nothing more than corporate control and direction over government. Corporations don't want capitalism and don't allow capitalism in their business dealings. If corporations did allow capitalism to exist there would be no NAFTA.
That's not capitalism - that's cronyism.
LC
Capitalism does not work within any government.
A country, to exist, must have a government.
If you want capitalism you will have to buy an island and be content to twiddle you thumbs.
Burgerman wrote:Capitalism does not work within any government.
A government has nothing to do with free trade, or capitalism. Its a group of people elected to look after our safety and out property, and our rights. And as soon as it goes further and starts growing bigger, meddling in anything else its no longer a capitalist government.A country, to exist, must have a government.
Must it? If the voters decide this, then yes. As long as the government do as they are elected to do, and stop trying to control anything else, and do not ever interfere with property ownership or trade in goods, services, or labour, then they are a good capitalist government.If you want capitalism you will have to buy an island and be content to twiddle you thumbs.
See above. Not true. You need a SMALL group of individuals to run the stuff that we all vote for, like services, border control, and to upkeep infrastructure, protect rights and safety and protect property. And to support the weakest in society. To control standards such as education, or fuel, or whatever. Even laws etc to protect innocent people from dangerous practices, goods, or nuts with guns for eg. It should keep its claws off the economy, and stop trying to redistribute wealth, because that always works against the prosperity of a country. And it should go no further.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone." - A.J.P.Taylor.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests