[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

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?

I don't. I never said that Capitalism can exist on its own.
Actually, if you ask me, Capitalism (Free Markets) and Democracy go hand in hand.

Once you depart from Free Markets, you will also gradually depart from Democracy.
We see this in Europe and the US, where the political and banking elite f*ck the country and goose it like there's no tomorrow. Sure, people are shut up by giving them handouts and making them codependent on government, which is EXACTLY what Socialism leads to.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't. I never said that Capitalism can exist on its own.
Actually, if you ask me, Capitalism (Free Markets) and Democracy go hand in hand.

Once you depart from Free Markets, you will also gradually depart from Democracy.
We see this in Europe and the US, where the political and banking elite f*ck the country and goose it like there's no tomorrow. Sure, people are shut up by giving them handouts and making them codependent on government, which is EXACTLY what Socialism leads to.

-t

I don't think the results of banks f*cking the country indicate that we are headed towards socialism, I think this is a sign of the fact that as a society we haven't figured out what to do when companies benefit from capitalism so much that they become a problem. I think that there are people on the right who think that there are no inherent problems with companies having too much wealth and power, or at least none that require any sort of built-in safeguards.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think this is a sign of the fact that as a society we haven't figured out what to do when companies benefit from capitalism so much that they become a problem.

They are NOT benefitting from capitalism.

Where in capitalism do you find TBTF, bailouts, huge monetary assistance for banks & companies by the central banks ?

And guess who's paying for all this crap: the tax payer, either through direct taxes, or through subversive taxes (e.g. inflation).

So, let me ask you: If you take money from one group (tax payers) and give it to another (in this case banks), is this Socialism or Capitalism ?
I see a 70% chance that you don't get the answer right.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

They are NOT benefitting from capitalism.

Where in capitalism do you find TBTF, bailouts, huge monetary assistance for banks & companies by the central banks ?

And guess who's paying for all this crap: the tax payer, either through direct taxes, or through subversive taxes (e.g. inflation).

So, let me ask you: If you take money from one group (tax payers) and give it to another (in this case banks), is this Socialism or Capitalism ?
I see a 70% chance that you don't get the answer right.

-t

The bailouts and such were the response to the problem, I'm talking about preventing these problems from arising in the first place. This is what we haven't really figured out.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

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?

It is a economic system because China which is a socialistic government is becoming more and more a capitalistic economy.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The bailouts and such were the response to the problem, I'm talking about preventing these problems from arising in the first place. This is what we haven't really figured out.

I don't know what you're saying here.

Are you saying that Socialism (bailouts etc...) were the response to the problem (Capitalism), and it just didn't work ? BS.
Revisit WHY the bank and compan ies needed the bailouts. Hint: It's not because we had Free Markets that made them do corrupt things.

-t

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WHY did the banks and companies need the bailouts. Hint: It's not because we had Free Markets that made them do corrupt things.

Given that all these problems started to spiral out of control after a whole pile of deregulation in the financial sectors I'd say thats near enough exactly why it happened. Except I would have said it was because they were free to do corrupt things rather than anyone made them. If you give greedy a**holes (with greater than average sociopathic tendencies) an inch, they'll take a mile and charge you for the privilege.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't know what you're saying here.

Are you saying that Socialism (bailouts etc...) were the response to the problem (Capitalism), and it just didn't work ? BS.
Revisit WHY the bank and compan ies needed the bailouts. Hint: It's not because we had Free Markets that made them do corrupt things.

-t

I think the lack of enough socialism in America's capitalistic society help lead to the problem that required large bail outs. If there was more socialism along side capitalism the bail out situation wouldn't have occurred or have been as bad.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't. I never said that Capitalism can exist on its own.

Allow me to rephrase then in the form of a question.

If you were to ask 100 people "what is Capitalism", how many do you think would respond with "a system of governance"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

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?

I'm telling you (again) it doesn't matter. Socialism is not this program or that program, it is a pervasive governing model for a country. Before you try to pin me with "but so many of you right-wingers claim this program is socialist and that program is socialist" (because I can see the inherent dishonesty in the move), please understand I've not said this. I've said we are either moving to the principle or away from the principle. It is about the compilation of these programs and those programs that move us toward the socialist model. Going forward, it'd be great if you were to quote me in context or not quote me at all. You suck at it.

Anything else?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

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.

You're making this all up. There was no massive deregulation leading to all the horrific things you mention. The government creates a regulatory environment that chooses winners and losers. There's your monopoly big shooter. It's really quite simple. A company abusing the public trust does not stay in business without the help of government. It's as simple as that.

As for that garbage collection example, sounds like the city manager needs to be fired.

Did you already forget your own post? So... where's your "city manager" whatever the hell that is?

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.

Way to show off that classic Canadian xenophobia. Garbage collectors earn anywhere from $12-$25/hr.

The good folks of BC have been victimized with privatization of what used to be public services.

Where's your city manager?

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.

Weren't you complaining at one point that there were too many colored people and foreigners hanging around Vancouver? I'll bet that's why you stopped going there. So dirty.

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.

I always love drama queens who get so worked up they can't formulate a reasonable argument. If this is your view of business owners, capitalists, and employers; you must've been an uber-shitty employee.

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.

Yeah of course. Anyone who doesn't think exactly like you is selfish, greedy, and evil. You're in good company.

[ebuddy]

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.

Good points. Of course I've explained this in several different ways, but too many aren't interested in conversation. They're still looking for gotcha moments.

[Chongo]

How does this sound?
What is the difference between socialism and communism

Socialism Vs Communism

" Socialism is the idea that the working class, the class that produces the profits, the wealth, the cars, houses, planes, steel, should take over and run things collectively, democratically, for the benefit of the majority (who also "just happen" to be workers too).

Communism is the idea that society should not have classes - exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, and so on. "
Socialism generally refers to an economic system, while communism refers to both an economic and political system.
Socialism seeks to manage the economy through deliberate and collective social control.
Communism seeks to manage both the economy and the society by ensuring that property is owned collectively, and that control over the distribution of property is centralized in order to achieve both classlessness and statelessness.
Both socialism and communism are based on the principle that the goods and services produced in an economy should be owned publicly, and controlled and planned by a centralized organization. Socialism says that the distribution should take place according to the amount of an individual's production efforts, whilst communism asserts that that goods and services should be distributed among the populace according to individuals' needs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm telling you (again) it doesn't matter. Socialism is not this program or that program, it is a pervasive governing model for a country. Before you try to pin me with "but so many of you right-wingers claim this program is socialist and that program is socialist" (because I can see the inherent dishonesty in the move), please understand I've not said this. I've said we are either moving to the principle or away from the principle. It is about the compilation of these programs and those programs that move us toward the socialist model. Going forward, it'd be great if you were to quote me in context or not quote me at all. You suck at it.

Anything else?

Do *any* of the following exist in *any* aspect of US society? Do *any* of the following exist in *anything* being proposed by liberals?
- 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

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Comrade Stalin once said:


Don't forget, Putin was trained by the KGB

Were you able to locate a source for this yet?

[Chongo]

It's listed as "attributed" on any of the quote sites that come up.

This one is always there as well
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It's listed as "attributed" on any of the quote sites that come up.

Can you provide links to a few of the quote sites where you've seen it? I've been having difficulty tracking it down.

[Chongo]

Josef Stalin Quotes :: Quoteland :: Quotations by Author
wikiquotes does not have it on their site. That's the first place I looked.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Josef Stalin Quotes :: Quoteland :: Quotations by Author
wikiquotes does not have it on their site. That's the first place I looked.

Yes, that's the only place I've seen it as well, that wasn't a seriously right-wing political site. Unfortunately, Quoteland borders on useless since it doesn't offer any citation-worthy details for their quotes. Without any details and with very few quotation sites carrying the quote, it is difficult to believe that Stalin actually said this and makes one consider that the quotation may have been fabricated as a means to fuel attacks on left-leaning principles.

There seems to be quite a bit of debate around the validity of this quote, mostly with respect to the unlikeliness of Stalin referring to a capitalist system as a "healthy body".
If Stalin said America is “a healthy body,” why can’t anyone find the source? � Millard Fillmore's Bathtub
Josef Stalin Quote - Liberty Quotes Blog

[hyteckit]

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.

Preamble of the Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, Social Security, and Welfare falls under 'promote the general welfare'.

General welfare means the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”



But I guess Big Mac knows more about the Constitution than Thomas Jefferson.

[hyteckit]

By the way, Obamacare isn't socialism.

It's just government regulation over the healthcare insurance market.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Josef Stalin Quotes :: Quoteland :: Quotations by Author
wikiquotes does not have it on their site. That's the first place I looked.

Actually. The original Stalin quote is:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: Guns, God, and Gold. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you were to ask 100 people "what is Capitalism", how many do you think would respond with "a system of governance"?

So what ? People have all kinds of ideas about all kinds of things, often not correct. What else is new.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Good points. Of course I've explained this in several different ways, but too many aren't interested in conversation. They're still looking for gotcha moments.

If I was looking for a "gotcha" moment I would have rushed to point out "this is in the Constitution therefore it is not Socialist" is just a premise and a conclusion. It contains no actual argument.

If there's something you feel I'm failing to address, please point it out.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I think the lack of enough socialism in America's capitalistic society help lead to the problem that required large bail outs. If there was more socialism along side capitalism the bail out situation wouldn't have occurred or have been as bad.

You know that this is absolute nonsense. Let me show you.

• The lack of Socialism made the Federal Reserve pursue loose monetary policies
• The lack of Socialism lead banks and GSE to lend money for mortgages at ridiculously low lending standards
• The lack of Socialism caused GM to be overly burdened with union-mandated wages, health care cost and pensions plans
• The lack of Socialism makes the government to waste money on bridges to nowhere

Seriously ?

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You know that this is absolute nonsense. Let me show you.

• The lack of Socialism made the Federal Reserve pursue loose monetary policies
• The lack of Socialism lead banks and GSE to lend money for mortgages at ridiculously low lending standards
• The lack of Socialism caused GM to be overly burdened with union-mandated wages, health care cost and pensions plans
• The lack of Socialism makes the government to waste money on bridges to nowhere

Seriously ?

-t

Turtle is seriously confused between socialism and government regulations.

Haha... keep banging your head. Hopeful it will knock some sense into you.


I can totally see how conservatives would think this way though.


Anything good is not socialism
Anything bad is socialism.
Thus socialism is bad and can't be good.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Do *any* of the following exist in *any* aspect of US society? Do *any* of the following exist in *anything* being proposed by liberals?
- Direct worker-ownership

Union ownership of GM (the rest owned by the government)

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

- No one can get kicked out for poor performance and/or other impropriety.

*caugh* Unionized companies *caugh*

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

- You can't choose not to join

*caugh* Forced union membership in non-right-to-work states *caugh*

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Union ownership of GM (the rest owned by the government)

*caugh* Unionized companies *caugh*

*caugh* Forced union membership in non-right-to-work states *caugh*

-t

Someone banged his head too much.

It's cough, not caugh.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So what ? People have all kinds of ideas about all kinds of things, often not correct. What else is new.

For those interested in fruitful discussion, an accepted definition of what's being discussed needs to be agreed upon.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Union ownership of GM (the rest owned by the government)
*caugh* Unionized companies *caugh*
*caugh* Forced union membership in non-right-to-work states *caugh*

-t

Are any of these union ownerships funded via a wealth redistribution taxation scheme? It's my understanding that union members all contribute the same amount. (though, I did forget that the Bush admin bought a portion of GM.)
Are any mandated through law?
Are any of these employees prevented from moving to an employer that doesn't force ownership or membership? (note, this was suggested as a solution for those who didn't like that their employer wouldn't allow their health insurance to cover costs for birth control).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are any of these union ownerships funded via a wealth redistribution taxation scheme?
Are any mandated through law?
Are any of these employees prevented from moving to an employer that doesn't force ownership or membership? (note, this was suggested as a solution for those who didn't like that their employer wouldn't allow their health insurance to cover costs for birth control).

I don't see your point.
You asked "Do *any* of the following exist in *anything* being proposed by liberals?"

The answer is yes. Some "liberals" propose to require unions in all companies and states.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

For those interested in fruitful discussion, an accepted definition of what's being discussed needs to be agreed upon.

Regardless of what definition people give, how about you refuting my point that Socialism doesn't work / exist without a system of governance that goes along with it ?

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Regardless of what definition people give, how about you refuting my point that Socialism doesn't work / exist without a system of governance that goes along with it ?

-t

Sure. Give me a bit.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't see your point.
You asked "Do *any* of the following exist in *anything* being proposed by liberals?"

The answer is yes. Some "liberals" propose to require unions in all companies and states.

-t

The answer is actually 'no', unless any of your examples are funded through tax dollars.

The union requirement proposal is disappointing. I can't imagine it ever flying though. Who is proposing this? It sounds as bad as the conservative who is proposing to give employers the freedom to fire employees for birth control use.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Regardless of what definition people give, how about you refuting my point that Socialism doesn't work / exist without a system of governance that goes along with it ?

To be clear, I don't refute the truth of the statement, I debate its utility.

The whole point of reducing an incredibly complex system down to one axis is simplification and abstraction. The Socialism-Capitalism axis is going to be used when one wants to discuss the most important element of what is an incredibly complex system, namely, its economics.

You can add another variable (system of governance), but then you aren't dealing with a single axis anymore. I don't buy your implied claim economic system correlates enough with system of govenance not to need its own axis. Certainly not based on the example you gave of democracy and Capitalism going hand-in-hand. Sweden's a democracy.

What about the US? Was the US not a democracy when Roosevelt went social program crazy? If about a quarter of the people in this country changed their mind we'd go social program crazy again while maintaining the same system of governance. It sounds more like what you need to support an economic system is people who support the economic system.

So, people need to support Capitalism for you to have Capitalism. A true statement with no utility.

[Wiskedjak]

Can Capitalism exist without a system of governance that goes along with it? How would it handle issues of defense?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Can Capitalism exist without a system of governance that goes along with it? How would it handle issues of defense?

Geez, dude, we've been over this.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

To be clear, I don't refute the truth of the statement, I debate its utility.

It's utility was that I successfully debunked the idea that Socialism and systems of governance are completely unrelated entities. They are not. Same with Capitalism, btw.

That's all I wanted to achieve.

-t

[subego]

I'm not sure what you have achieved considering no one has claimed economic systems and systems of governance are completely unrelated entities.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're making this all up. There was no massive deregulation leading to all the horrific things you mention. The government creates a regulatory environment that chooses winners and losers. There's your monopoly big shooter. It's really quite simple. A company abusing the public trust does not stay in business without the help of government. It's as simple as that.

Natural gas customers stuck with costly contracts - British Columbia - CBC News

Way to show off that classic Canadian xenophobia. Garbage collectors earn anywhere from $12-$25/hr.

Your private garbage collectors make more then first year US Airway pilots?
Airline Pilot Salaries: How Much Does Your Captain Earn? - The Middle Seat Terminal - WSJ

Weren't you complaining at one point that there were too many colored people and foreigners hanging around Vancouver? I'll bet that's why you stopped going there. So dirty.

... Vancouver Island is a name of a Island that has nothing to do with Vancouver. The City of Victoria is on Vancouver Island. Go Go American Geography skills. Where you one of the people that pointed to Australia as Iraq in some of those how dumb are American videos all over the place?

I always love drama queens who get so worked up they can't formulate a reasonable argument. If this is your view of business owners, capitalists, and employers; you must've been an uber-shitty employee.

Performance review says otherwise but since I work for a US company for the last year and a half my opinion has gotten even lower to how scummy corporations are.

Yeah of course. Anyone who doesn't think exactly like you is selfish, greedy, and evil. You're in good company.

Are you talking about me or you with that last one.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You know that this is absolute nonsense. Let me show you.

• The lack of Socialism made the Federal Reserve pursue loose monetary policies
• The lack of Socialism lead banks and GSE to lend money for mortgages at ridiculously low lending standards
• The lack of Socialism caused GM to be overly burdened with union-mandated wages, health care cost and pensions plans
• The lack of Socialism makes the government to waste money on bridges to nowhere

Seriously ?

-t

Social policies would help those in a bankrupt situation to not go bankrupt. Social policies would be taking care of health care costs and some of the pension costs instead of it all being off loaded on a company like GM. Social policies would have prevented deregulation that was bad for consumers and good for business like the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. Socialism puts people first not business which is why Business hates socialism so much.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't know what you're saying here.

Are you saying that Socialism (bailouts etc...) were the response to the problem (Capitalism), and it just didn't work ? BS.
Revisit WHY the bank and compan ies needed the bailouts. Hint: It's not because we had Free Markets that made them do corrupt things.

-t

The problem was not capitalism, but unchecked capitalism without safeguards to prevent this sort of fraud and abuse.

If you don't like this example you can look at monopolies that have gotten out-of-control and left unchecked, the effect of Walmart on local small business, short selling, derivative trading, failure of the auto industry, all the other risky investment games that people have proposed addressing with financial reform, SuperPACs and their effects on elections, lobbyists and their effects on politics, whatever floats your boat. It's all the same basic point: our capitalist society is great at providing opportunities, but not so great at the "and then what?" when people abuse our markets, some entity grows too big, aspects of it become unwieldy and open up room for unfair loopholes, etc.

I'm not saying that these problems can't be fixed, but that they do exist (however much of this you would categorize as being a problem) and that we attempt to fix some of them with the government bailing out stuff doesn't mean we're headed for socialism, it means that we haven't really figured out a better way to prevent these sorts of problems from occurring in the first place so that we even have to consider government bailouts as a fix-er-upper.

The best remedy agaisnt bailouts is not simply to not bail stuff out when stuff goes wrong, it is to prevent stuff from going wrong in the first place.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Socialism is a socioeconomic system, democracy is a political system. They should be able to coexist, without other influences pushing things around and distorting one or both.

Historically, "socialism" has been used as the bait to entice a population to follow a demagogue (think 1930s Germany) or as a justification for total control of the population (think 1920s Russia). In contrast, Israel is a fairly solidly democratic country (with some extra-political issues, of course) with a fairly solid socialist social system, and it works OK for them. Certainly not perfectly for anyone, but pretty much OK. But the big sign over Israel is "Jewish Homeland" rather than "socialist desert nation" so much of the West doesn't even think about them in those terms.

In short, it's all about the track record of the use of the word, not about what it stands for by its definition. IMO, anyway.

Four pages and this is the only post that seems to come close to answering my original question. I suppose maybe it is as simple as guilt by association. Sad.

And Turtle....you still haven't answered my question from page 1. I'm still listening...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Four pages and this is the only post that seems to come close to answering my original question. I suppose maybe it is as simple as guilt by association. Sad.

And Turtle....you still haven't answered my question from page 1. I'm still listening...

He did. His argument over the last 4 pages.

Anything good is not socialism.
Anything bad is socialism.
Thus socialism is bad and can't be good.

[hyteckit]

Instead of our military being funded through socialism, why don't we replace it with capitalism?

The US military is still run by the US government, however the funding is from private sources instead of taxpayer's money. Socialism sucks right?

Put the US military on the stock market. The military will grow as long as Americans are willing to donate or invest into the US military.

People who support the Iraq War can fund it. People against the war can sell their share in the US military.

Putting the military funding on the stock market will make it more democratic and capitalistic, instead of the current government run, socialistically funded military.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Geez, dude, we've been over this.

-t

So, you agree that capitalism also cannot exist without some form of government.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Natural gas customers stuck with costly contracts - British Columbia - CBC News

From your link;
Badry said in 2007 she inadvertently signed up with Universal Energy, after she found a flyer on her doorstep saying she could go online and sign up to win a free TV.

You're kidding right? Other interesting tidbits;

• Badry was one of 135,000 customers who signed on with new companies after the province opened the natural gas market up to competition.
• Unlike fixed mortgages or cellphone contracts, rules set by the regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), do not allow consumers the option of paying a penalty to get out of their contracts.

Oops! Seems your precious regulators screwed ya on that one huh? They opened the market and some lady trying to win a free TV failed to read the flyer and was unwittingly switched over to the new provider.

Your private garbage collectors make more then first year US Airway pilots?
Airline Pilot Salaries: How Much Does Your Captain Earn? - The Middle Seat Terminal - WSJ

Blogs and documentaries again? Okay... I'll use a source provided by one who commented on your article then; per the US Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual commercial pilot salary for the year 2008 was $65,340 although in the 10% highest-earning bracket earned almost $130,000 that year.

Interesting. According to this link regarding Canadian Airline pilot salaries; Will fly for food, First-Year Capt. and First Officer paid annual salary of $37,300 per year. Second-Year First Officer paid annual salary of $42,400 per year. Second-year Embraer 175 and Embraer 190 Captains paid $42,400 per year.

This is a perfect example of what I mean by classic Canadian xenophobia. You're so busy trying to indict the US for maltreatment of certain occupations that you botched the wages of US garbage collectors, you botched the wages of US airline pilots, and then you attempt a lame-assed argument from bogus information related to the US pay structure for various occupations by claiming that US gargage collectors earn more than US airline pilots without realizing that per your own information, it's no different in Canada. Your documentaries and blogs are doing you a great disservice here. I'm now reminded why I've pretty much been ignoring you for the past several months.

... Vancouver Island is a name of a Island that has nothing to do with Vancouver. The City of Victoria is on Vancouver Island. Go Go American Geography skills. Where you one of the people that pointed to Australia as Iraq in some of those how dumb are American videos all over the place?

Actually, there's no problem at all with my geography skills. What happened here is your audience becoming fatigued with your line of reasoning resulting in little more than skimming your words. Okay, so it wasn't Vancouver you were avoiding because of colored people and foreigners, it's Vancouver Island. Thanks for the correction.

Performance review says otherwise but since I work for a US company for the last year and a half my opinion has gotten even lower to how scummy corporations are.

On behalf of the Americans reaping the rewards of your Canadian labor, thank you. Your choice of employers is likely as discriminating as your choice in reading and viewing material.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you agree that capitalism also cannot exist without some form of government.

I believe this addresses your question.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't. I never said that Capitalism can exist on its own.
Actually, if you ask me, Capitalism (Free Markets) and Democracy go hand in hand.

Once you depart from Free Markets, you will also gradually depart from Democracy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I believe this addresses your question.

Right. So, as you've said, the point that " Socialism doesn't work / exist without a system of governance" is rather useless, since almost *any* economic system needs a system of governance.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Right. So, as you've said, the point that " Socialism doesn't work / exist without a system of governance" is rather useless, since almost *any* economic system needs a system of governance.

That wasn't a "point," that was a "rebuttal." Turtle was asked to start talking about only economics and not government, for the reasoning that "socialism" and "capitalism" are not forms of government. I think the point that both are inextricably tied to government is a fair one, and this thread is clearly more about socialism (look at the darn title), so the people attacking turtle for emphasizing socialism's ties to governance and not capitalism's similar ties are acting pretty silly.