[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it could be. It would have to suck pretty hard for it to be worse than what we have now.

How do you get around the problem of parents that couldn't afford to send kids to school. Would all schools be required to accept students regardless of ability to pay like Hospital Emergency rooms are now or would they be left out in the cold, perhaps made to work for income?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think it could be. It would have to suck pretty hard for it to be worse than what we have now.

Maybe, but it is not a given just because it is in the private sector. There are many questions which would have to be asked, including the net effect of having people that are not educated at all because their family decides that they can't afford to pay for school.

Turtle will jump in about people needing to be responsible for themselves and all of that, but as you know, this is wishful thinking.

[Athens]

I've seen first hand what has happened to Public institutions turned into private or semi private, profit driven systems and not one of them have been for the good. BC Ferries, BC Transit (Lower Mainland) BC Gas, BC Tel....

In every case, it got more expensive, more restrictive and oh more expensive. Nice high tech pretty buses, but less routes and higher cost. nice pretty really comfortable ferries but more expensive. More choices of gas providers but all more expensive. In every case of a public system being turned into a private system it became so much worse in every area that mattered most. And P3 Projects which involves private and public funding and private control/administration has resulted in high costs to every one as well. Sure the government saved a little money but now I have to pay out of pocket to use what should have been a public resource in the first place.

[subego]

@ Athens & besson3c

I'm not an expert on alternatives to our current public education system, but wouldn't a voucher system address to some extent the (important) issues you bring up?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When conservatives decry socialism, they're decrying the momentum toward greater, centralized control of assets and the means of production within the broader system.

When *some* conservatives decry socialism, they're decrying the momentum toward greater, centralized control of assets and the means of production within the broader system.

However, many of the loudest decriers of socialism, appear to do so only with respect to the socially funded programs that they don't like. The military is a classic example of a socially funded program that decriers of socialism typically *do* like, and therefore don't complain about, sometimes going so far as to try to claim that it's funding model isn't socialist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

so in your perfect world, Fire departments would compete against each other for business, police departments would compete against each other for business, what is considered public schools now would compete for business. And of course lower costs of doing business by cutting corners every where it could, 40-50 students per class room, reduced heat in the halls, user fees for all and every kind of supply used, infraction tickets, lower paid teachers. And of course because its profit driven charge for each student and at a rate higher then it was as a public system because profit is now a requirement. Sounds wonderful for a private company that makes the money from it and awful for every one else involved. Sticker shock will be the new association with 911 calls. Call the cops and get a $300 bill...

Of course the restaurant you frequent most has the crappiest food. You likely see the doctor with the worst reputation in town and your favorite family theatre is the one that made the headlines last week for a child abduction. Oh the horror of choices. You must put up with inferior services everywhere you go and have never expressed displeasure for poor quality by at least opting to go elsewhere. The good folks of BC have been victimized by evil capitalists because the more options one has to choose from, the less discriminating they should be right? Anecdotes abound as you know. In my city for example, you can directly compare public garbage collection services with private. The differences are stark beginning with the fact that the private service won't throw your cans back up to the walk making your entire neighborhood look like a tornado rolled through. For about the same cost.

Why were the particular services you mentioned above privatized in the first place?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The military is a classic example of a socially funded program that decriers of socialism typically *do* like, and therefore don't complain about, sometimes going so far as to try to claim that it's funding model isn't socialist.

Calling military funding a "socialist funded program" is bullshit.

Military funding through taxes was around for thousands of years, in ALL forms of government.
It definitely is NOT a hallmark of Socialism. So can we please stop this nonsense.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

However, many of the loudest decriers of socialism, appear to do so only with respect to the socially funded programs that they don't like. The military is a classic example of a socially funded program that decriers of socialism typically *do* like, and therefore don't complain about, sometimes going so far as to try to claim that it's funding model isn't socialist.

That's because the loudest decriers of socialism are conservatives. Conservatives generally favor a more rigid interpretation of the separation of powers and the intended scope of government; basic principles conceived at our founding and at one time a very liberal ideal. While military spending can often become egregious, this is less conspicuous than an entirely new reach or niche or program of government. Why? Most understand that a country either has a formidable military of their own or are heavily dependent on another country that does. Simply put, a socially-funded military does not Socialism make. Over time however, new reaches begin to compile from our collective resources and too often in duplicitous fashion. The military, operating within a much broader and more profound sphere of influence seems a more reasonable use of funds than studies on jello-wrestling in Antarctica or countless other, growing abuses of the public trust.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

@ Athens & besson3c

I'm not an expert on alternatives to our current public education system, but wouldn't a voucher system address to some extent the (important) issues you bring up?

No.

The problem with vouchers is that it encourages and perpetuates part of what has been leading to the problems with public education, and that is the thinking behind policies like No Child Left Behind where funding and resources are deallocated from failing schools. Instead of this though, with a voucher system schools that are poorly run or have various business problems in certain areas would suffer. Good teachers are not going to want to work in schools that are only funded via these vouchers, because this means less extra-curriculars, less opportunity for pay increases, and a less enriching teaching experience. Kids needing vouchers would be more likely to be poor students that would make teaching difficult.

The Republican mentality would be "so what? Let failing schools fail", but the problem with this attitude is that it leads to increased poverty, kids that do not go on to pursue higher education, etc. In some areas these schools are failing because of language issues, and there is nothing at all wrong with the attitudes, motivation, or intellect of these kids, but they just need some extra attention to catch up to their peers as far as comfort with English.

In many districts it is impossible to get kids to other schools because of the distance, transportation issues, or in some counties it may be legally impossible for parents to get vouchers to put their kids in the school they want. The concept of "No Child Left Behind" is the right attitude, it has just been executed poorly. Instead of taking away funds from failing schools, we should be figuring out how to better these schools. I would be willing to bet that in most cases the problems are not due to funding excesses where cutting off funds would improve the situation, but much deeper and cultural problems with the kids and families in that particular area.

I'm not suggesting that instead of cutting off funds to these failing schools we should just be pumping funds into these schools, but we need to figure out how to improve these schools. I'm not saying that this is through more federal oversight, definitely not more standardized testing, not more administrators and other mucky mucks doing stuff, but this problem is where we need to focus our attention.

I'm also not suggesting that we should just siphon resources into trying to coax loser kids into taking their education seriously, but there has to be a balance, you can't just take the attitude of "screw them, there is absolutely nothing we can do to make them not destined for poverty and welfare", because you might be able to lift some of them out of this future with the right approach.

With public funding resources can be allocated in a way to facilitate these sorts of goals, rather than just letting the voucher kids flounder in bad schools and convincing ourselves that this won't come back to bite us in the ass.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Calling military funding a "socialist funded program" is bullshit.

Military funding through taxes was around for thousands of years, in ALL forms of government.

Just because the model has been around for thousands of years doesn't mean the model isn't socialist. Taxing the citizens in order to fund a program that provides equal service to all citizens sounds like Socialism to me. A proper capitalistic military would sell it's services a whatever rate the market could bare, and those who couldn't afford the fair market value should fend for themselves ... much like what is proposed by conservatives for medical care.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It definitely is NOT a hallmark of Socialism.

No one is saying that a military is a hallmark of socialism, but the method of funding it in the US and the practice of providing the service equally to all citizens certainly sounds like wealth redistribution to me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Simply put, a socially-funded military does not Socialism make.

Certainly. I'm not suggesting that US conservatives are socialist. I'm only saying one of their favourite institutions is funded via the same methods they decry for services such as universal health care ... universal military protection.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Calling military funding a "socialist funded program" is bullshit.

Military funding through taxes was around for thousands of years, in ALL forms of government.
It definitely is NOT a hallmark of Socialism. So can we please stop this nonsense.

-t

What did they teach you Socialism was in school? That's usually meant as a snotty rhetorical question, but I actually want the answer.

As I've implied, what they taught me was as the opposite end of Capitalism, it's an economic system, not a system of governance.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

What did they teach you Socialism was in school? That's usually meant as a snotty rhetorical question, but I actually want the answer.

As I've implied, what they taught me was as the opposite end of Capitalism, it's an economic system, not a system of governance.

If we as a society can't really agree upon what socialism really is, why does it create such knee jerk reactions even among those who were too young or weren't around to remember the whole cold war thing?

America's history has to be a part of this, I'd be highly surprised if there were other democratic free market countries as afraid of the whole socialist boogeyman as many of us are.

[subego]

What did they teach you in Canuckistan?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

What did they teach you in Canuckistan?

That I'm the best?

About what?

[subego]

The definition of Socialism.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The definition of Socialism.

More or less what you or somebody else said...

The concept of no ownership in being able to earn stuff that you get to keep, and there not being businesses that provide services to its people for profit, but the government facilitating the provision of stuff to its citizens, etc.

Another important point is that, and I could be wrong about this but this is my understanding, there are different flavors of socialism. I.e. Lenin Socialism/Marxism is different, and seemingly more benign, than Stalin Socialism/Marxism.

[hyteckit]

Does wanting to tax the rich more makes us a socialist?

Guess most Americans are socialist.

http://news.yahoo.com/most-americans...044459219.html

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

why does it create such knee jerk reactions even among those who were too young or weren't around to remember the whole cold war thing?

My guess is that when racism became publicly unacceptable for the right wing, communists were drafted in as the goto scapegoat. This behaviour was then passed from one generation to another by kids overhearing their parents saying things like "Goddamn commie ****!" everytime they tripped over something, had to pay more taxes or their team lost a football game. Much like racism used to be.

Just a guess though.

[ghporter]

Conservatives were anti-Communist long before racism became off-limits for them. Richard Nixon got his House seat in part for characterizing his female opponent as being "pink down to her panties" (as in "red"). As far back as the turn of the 20th Century, there was a significant blurring of concepts of Communists, Socialists, Marxists and anarchists. History is dotted with extreme acts by nihilists who were called "anarchists" by the press were thought of as "bomb throwers" and eventually took on the labels "Marxist" and/or "Communist" because of incidental (or absolutely no) connections made by yellow journalists. The whole American public saw little difference between actual bomb throwers and people advocating improved social justice, and the press syndicates (Hearst and others) kept that going-the confusion sold papers AND helped them retain their riches. The anti-trust movement at about that time ran into stiff opposition because of this confusion, as well.

Social justice at the time meant not allowing robber-barons to effectively own not only the means of production but where the workers lived and their access to groceries, yet suggesting that this was even "not so good" drew some heated responses invoking bomb-throwing and anarchist ideology instead of just pointing out that serfdom was so 15th Century...

[Big Mac]

Terrible guess, War.

Socialism is reviled because it corrupts and perverts once great Republics. Socialism is a spreading disease on a healthy body politic that should be killed with fire. Socialists and their sympathizers should be deported, exiled or otherwise neutralized by any free citizenry that values its liberty, security and morality.

Sorry guys. It's time to tell the cold, hard truth. No more sugar coating.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Conservatives were anti-Communist long before racism became off-limits for them.

Yes, thats why I think they saw it as a ready made solution to their problem of needing someone to blame for all societal problems. Now that the Soviet Union is long gone, the anti-communism is just a hangover and its liberal lefties, gays and atheists who are destroying everything (according to the right).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Terrible guess, War.

Socialism is reviled because it corrupts and perverts once great Republics. Socialism is a spreading disease on a healthy body politic that should be killed with fire. Socialists and their sympathizers should be deported.

This statement contains no explanation or justification, its just restating an opinion we already knew you held.
"Socialism is bad because its bad."
Interesting choice of words though, killing bodily diseases with fire tends to kill the body too or at least damage it irrepairably.

The question about whether or not military funding can be considered socialism or not is an interesting one. On the one hand, this sounds perfectly reasonable to me but on the other, it implies that you almost cannot have government without this type of socialism. The bigger problem with this inability to properly define socialism is that if you don't like a particular government policy or service, all you have to do is call it socialist and half the US will start opposing it by default.
Its a clever tactic if its actually that calculated.
More republican wordplay for you to admire Besson!

[Big Mac]

I wasn't trying to give you justifications or an argument. I was stating simple fact. Sorry if you misinterpreted.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism-all immensely destructive, evil political doctrines of the Left, all of which need to be eliminated from the planet.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Certainly. I'm not suggesting that US conservatives are socialist. I'm only saying one of their favourite institutions is funded via the same methods they decry for services such as universal health care ... universal military protection.

I still don't readily accept the idea that the military is socialist. For one, there is no direct worker-ownership of the military and its "means of production" being protect the country is kind of a stretch for those not bent on catching the right in a gotcha moment. It has ranks and related pay variables and one can get kicked out of the military for poor performance and/or other impropriety. You can pay for housing, food, and taxes. You can vote and you can choose not to join the military etc... so it seems even the best example you can find of a socialist model supported by the right is really not socialist at all. This is not the case with your example of universal health care. Having the government tell the entire collective what they must buy from ACME CORP and funding it through a centralized authority from the collective resource is worlds apart different than merely maintaining the most critical element of a country's founding.

[Big Mac]

In addition, National Defense is arguably the most important and explicitly Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Socialism in health care (Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare), pensions (Social Security) and assistance to the poor (Welfare) contravene the Constitution.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I wasn't trying to give you justifications or an argument. I was stating simple fact. Sorry if you misinterpreted.

The point its not simple and its not a fact. Facts require evidence and stating your opinion without reason as to why you hold it doesn't really get anyone anywhere.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Communism, Socialism, Nazism-all immensely destructive, evil political doctrines of the Left, all of which need to be eliminated from the planet.

Most people I know consider Nazism to be the ultimate example of extreme-right.
So what definition of socialism are you using when you say its evil? I assume you are using a fairly specific one unless you just think that all sharing is evil?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In addition, National Defense is arguably the most important and explicitly Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Socialism in health care (Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare), pensions (Social Security) and assistance to the poor (Welfare) contravene the Constitution.

I've never read your constitution but if it expressesly forbids the provision of government healthcare, pensions and assistance to the poor then I would suggest its not worth the paper its written on any more dated a bit.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Socialists and their sympathizers should be deported, exiled or otherwise neutralized by any free citizenry that values its liberty, security and morality.

And, people are complaining about *class* warfare. It's ironic that, in the name of liberty, you're advocating the elimination of anyone who holds a political perspective different from your's.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still don't readily accept the idea that the military is socialist. For one, there is no direct worker-ownership of the military and its "means of production" being protect the country is kind of a stretch for those not bent on catching the right in a gotcha moment. It has ranks and related pay variables and one can get kicked out of the military for poor performance and/or other impropriety. You can pay for housing, food, and taxes. You can vote and you can choose not to join the military etc... so it seems even the best example you can find of a socialist model supported by the right is really not socialist at all. This is not the case with your example of universal health care. Having the government tell the entire collective what they must buy from ACME CORP and funding it through a centralized authority from the collective resource is worlds apart different than merely maintaining the most critical element of a country's founding.

Where is the worker ownership in universal healthcare?

Again, I wasn't speaking about the *structure* of the military, but of the military as a government service that is owned by the general population via taxation that provides equal service to all citizens regardless of the amount of their contribution to it's funding. If it isn't funded under a socialist model, can you tell me what *is* the economic model that funds the US military?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In addition, National Defense is arguably the most important and explicitly Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

So? That's not an argument against it being a socialist service provided by the government to the entire citizenry and funded by taxation that half the citizens don't pay. That's only an argument for it's importance.

I wonder if defending the *health* of the citizenry could be considered "National Defence"? Maybe if it generated some big defence contractor budgets?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Does wanting to tax the rich more makes us a socialist?

Guess most Americans are socialist.

Most Americans back "Buffett tax": Reuters/Ipsos - Yahoo! News

46% of Republicans support imposing a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on those who earn $1 million or more a year? Interesting, but not super surprising.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, people are complaining about *class* warfare. It's ironic that, in the name of liberty, you're advocating the elimination of anyone who holds a political perspective different from your's.

Yes and I thought Nazism was evil according to Big Mac too. This sounds rather similar to me.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Terrible guess, War.

Socialism is reviled because it corrupts and perverts once great Republics. Socialism is a spreading disease on a healthy body politic that should be killed with fire. Socialists and their sympathizers should be deported, exiled or otherwise neutralized by any free citizenry that values its liberty, security and morality.

Sorry guys. It's time to tell the cold, hard truth. No more sugar coating.

Comrade Stalin once said:


Don't forget, Putin was trained by the KGB

[Wiskedjak]

ebuddy's Socialism criteria:
- Direct worker-ownership
- No ranks
- No related pay variables
- No one can get kicked out for poor performance and/or other impropriety.
- You don't pay for housing, food, and taxes.
- You can't vote
- You can't choose not to join

Therefore, Universal Healthcare cannot be socialist, since none of the above criteria can be said about it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Comrade Stalin once said:

Can you provide a source for that quote?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ebuddy's Socialism criteria:
- Direct worker-ownership
- No ranks
- No related pay variables
- No one can get kicked out for poor performance and/or other impropriety.
- You don't pay for housing, food, and taxes.
- You can't vote
- You can't choose not to join

Therefore, Universal Healthcare cannot be socialist, since none of the above criteria can be said about it.

How do you have a choice to NOT join when its the only choice?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How do you have a choice to NOT join when its the only choice?

Right! I forgot about that. That was one of the criteria ebuddy used to describe how universal health care is socialist. The same can be said about the universal military protection service currently provided by the US government.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Having the government tell the entire collective what they must buy from ACME CORP and funding it through a centralized authority

[Waragainstsleep]

Since when does universal healthcare mean no-more private healthcare? We have both over here.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course the restaurant you frequent most has the crappiest food. You likely see the doctor with the worst reputation in town and your favorite family theatre is the one that made the headlines last week for a child abduction. Oh the horror of choices. You must put up with inferior services everywhere you go and have never expressed displeasure for poor quality by at least opting to go elsewhere. The good folks of BC have been victimized by evil capitalists because the more options one has to choose from, the less discriminating they should be right? Anecdotes abound as you know. In my city for example, you can directly compare public garbage collection services with private. The differences are stark beginning with the fact that the private service won't throw your cans back up to the walk making your entire neighborhood look like a tornado rolled through. For about the same cost.

Why were the particular services you mentioned above privatized in the first place?

Choices? Choices? Perhaps you missed this over the last 20 years but corporations have been buying each other out or merging into single massive companies. Unrestricted free market has taken freedom out of the picture. They combine, reduce capacity and competition and choice and create monopolies or duopolies. This choice you speak of was during the 70's, 80's and mostly the 90's. Once deregulation occurred and government became puppets to corporations they got away with a lot of Anti competitive things. The funny thing is you don't even know who owns what any more. You could try to avoid one chicken product in the store because you herd bad things about the brand, but at the same time the other brand chicken product you buy avoiding the first one is still owned by the same company who owns 20 different brands from the companies they bought out over the years.

As for that garbage collection example, sounds like the city manager needs to be fired. Neither our public sector garbage collectors or private contractors with the cities or people toss garbage cans around, but then again here you start out at $16 - $17.00 a hour as a garbage man where I bet yours get paid 8 or less.

The good folks of BC have been victimized with privatization of what used to be public services. And we have taken a big hit in the bank accounts and reductions in service with it. BC Ferries is one example that people are voting by not using it leaving the company in a massive hole which will have to be bailed out with tax dollars anyways. The American CEO who finally got chased out never expected people to stop using the service once it got to damn expensive for people. Was under the illusion because it was the only link between places people had no choice but to use it. I personally stopped going to Vancouver Island for the last 6 years because prices as a PRIVATE company was to expensive.

Round Trip to Victoria by Car with 2 adults today is $151.50, In 2002 before it was privatized the same trip was $85.00. Once something has to take into consideration Profits it becomes more expensive or the service gets degraded and the workers get decimated. I bet those private garbage collectors you speak of above who do a better job are getting paid less for the same job too. Would have to so they can build in profits and compete against the city service. If the city service disappeared bet prices would go up.

I am always amazed at how capitalist who defend the system with every breath they take really have no concept at how it really works and at what costs to people. The idea that the market will do the right thing is flawed on so many levels. The market ONLY cares about profit and nothing else.


Oh and why, because our current Right Wing provincial government put ideology ahead of peoples wishes and sound policy. After selling off BC Rail which turned into a big scandal on its own the people had enough. Any attempt to sell off BC Hydro and the last of the crown assets would have resulted in the government being collapsed. Especially after the epic failure of BC Ferries privatization.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

What did they teach you Socialism was in school? That's usually meant as a snotty rhetorical question, but I actually want the answer.

As I've implied, what they taught me was as the opposite end of Capitalism, it's an economic system, not a system of governance.

What the world knows of socialism is totally different to what Americans think of socialism. US Governments for YEARS drilled in to American children that socialism was bad. It was a hallmark of communism. It is ingrained in American culture that socialism is evil for all the wrong reasons.

Socialism by itself CAN NOT WORK. Just like CAPITALISM by itself Can't work. Extremes of both models leads to different disasters. Takes a healthy mix of the 2 for a good society to work. Europe went socialism heavy and is paying the price for it because it was unsustainable. The US when capitalism heavy and is paying the price for it too. The sub prime business that damaged the US Economy is one example of it. So is the uneven distribution of wealth and the large gap of have and have not's thats have been growing for decades. If you tossed in a bit more socialism into the US and a bit more capitalism into Europe both would be in a better position.

Capitalism sustains socialism and Socialism sustains fair standards in capitalism.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I've implied, what they taught me was as the opposite end of Capitalism, it's an economic system, not a system of governance.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but you apparantly never even thought about what you just wrote for a single second.

If Socialism was NOT tied to any specific system of governance, how the hell would you coerce one group of people to pay for what another group receives ? They would never do this voluntarily.

Alas, even Capitalism can NOT be completely separated from a system of governance, because true capitalism requires boundaries to protect free markets. That can only be done by a system of governance that agrees with free market principles.

So, Socialism can never be implemented w/o a system of governance that supports and shares the Socialistic ideas and ideals.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but you apparantly never even thought about what you just wrote for a single second.

If Socialism was NOT tied to any specific system of governance, how the hell would you coerce one group of people to pay for what another group receives ? They would never do this voluntarily.

Alas, even Capitalism can NOT be completely separated from a system of governance, because true capitalism requires boundaries to protect free markets. That can only be done by a system of governance that agrees with free market principles.

So, Socialism can never be implemented w/o a system of governance that supports and shares the Socialistic ideas and ideals.

-t

Socialism, according to the Wikipedia definition, is not a system of governance.

Maybe you are thinking of having a dictator, marxism, communism, fascism, something like that?

[Athens]

Social democracy = Socialism in the governance part of things

So is Libertarian socialism and Democratic socialism.


Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism and Maoism are all forms of revolutionaries to effect government change. In the case of some of these the change created was a highly socialized system with a command economy which is why socialism is associated with Marxism. The revolutionaries could have done the same thing to create a free economy as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Socialism, according to the Wikipedia definition, is not a system of governance.

An operating system is not a computer, but one cannot function without the other. The presence of socialism implies a pairing with some form of governance designed to support it, otherwise it could not exist.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Since when does universal healthcare mean no-more private healthcare? We have both over here.

I never understood that argument either.

Seems that many conservatives have a black and white mentality. EIther/or. Can't have both.

You can have both public and private schools.
You can have public roads and toll roads.
You can have government run police and have your own private security guards.

Why can't you have government run healthcare and still have private health insurance providing additional coverage?

[Athens]

im not sure you want government run healthcare. Single payer insurance system is the part that would make things better. Its the insurance industry that is adding costs and breaking the system and killing people. Not the delivery.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Socialism, according to the Wikipedia definition, is not a system of governance.

Care to take a look at my argument ?

How could you possibly have Socialism w/o a system of governance agreeing to and supporting it ? You can't.
Therefore, to say that Socialism is completely independent of governance is wrong and misleading.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Care to take a look at my argument ?

How could you possibly have Socialism w/o a system of governance agreeing to and supporting it ? You can't.
Therefore, to say that Socialism is completely independent of governance is wrong and misleading.

-t

Fair enough.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever, but you apparantly never even thought about what you just wrote for a single second.

Not really sure what prompted this abrupt departure from civility, but I don't really feel like playing along.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If Socialism was NOT tied to any specific system of governance, how the hell would you coerce one group of people to pay for what another group receives ? They would never do this voluntarily.

The same way all governments do it regardless of economic system, you throw people who don't pay in jail.

People don't voluntarily pay to the government for what another group receives under any system of governance.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Alas, even Capitalism can NOT be completely separated from a system of governance, because true capitalism requires boundaries to protect free markets. That can only be done by a system of governance that agrees with free market principles.

This is correct. Yet for some reason, people call Capitalism an economic system and not a form of governance. What is your interest in holding Socialism to a different standard?