The great Jimmy Carter

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Lacking state social security, familylife is richer in Indonesia, then it is in the Netherlands. Obviously I can't say that social arrangements are good enough in Indonesia, because people in Indonesia are sometimes still starving, but to have a social-security system like in the West that weakens family structure is also unacceptable.

---

Syamsu-
While I admit I have never been to Indonesia so I have no idea what extended families are like there, I have spent a great deal of time in the US, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The last two are clearly more "socialist" than the US, if not purely socialist by definition.From my experience family life-- not to mention extended family life--was much worse in the NON-socialist country.Maybe in a culture where parents can work their children as virtual slaves-- for the ultimate good of the family-- extended families can stay together and be enriched by poverty, but in most other cultures poverty destroys families.I am not an advocate for runaway socialist programs, but socialism in general does more good than harm. It can keep a family together when they hit hard times. Why not put in protections to keep families solid so that major health problems, unemployment, or costs of educating one's children don't become issues?Simply put, socialist programs are tools to help people, when those people have families it helps families. They do not by necessity,nor do many in practice,weaken family bonds.Weakening family bonds in the West are more likely due to other cultural mechanisms like championing individualism over family life, or valuing material success rather than emotional fulfillment.holmes{Fixed quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-24-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++:
"You are just blindly asserting that social programs do not weaken familybonds... the socialist agenda is not actually for people to be social themselves."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It seems to me your blanket statements regarding social programs and socialist systems of government are a bit more "blind assertion" than my simple statement that social programs are not INHERENTLY detrimental to family bonds.While I do not have the time to look up the articles I've read (so I can't cite them directly) regarding the correlation between poverty and rates of divorce, juvenile delinquency, crime, etc etc they are out there and indicate that poverty tends to bring out the worst in most people and families. One would think that's a no-brainer conclusion, but the evidence is out there if you need it.In absence of immediate citations of literature, let's look at this logically.The question being addressed is how to best deal with the issue of poverty so that families (nuclear or extended) remain cohesive through emergencies and "socialize" (different meaning) their children and loved ones regarding cultural norms (ie don't steal, don't abandon your wife and kids to make it on your own, etc etc).Socialism--- in its purest sense and not bastardized by totalitarian regimes--- answers this question by having the community pool it's resources (monetary or other) during good times. Then when a member of the community (or his/her family) encounters an emergency and enters a "bad time", there is ready access to funds or services so that basic NEEDS are met. With needs covered, one is able to focus on solving the problem and move out of the "bad time", whatever that cause may be.Socialism does not expect that when a person gets sick that they will take the money given them for medical services and unemployment to buy a new house and leave their family. Instead it expects that they will not have to worry about remaining ill, and trying to work through their illness, just in order to put food on their children's plates.I understand some totalitarian regimes have used "socialist" programs to make citizens feel dependent on the State (as a pseudo-parental figure) rather than giving them greater independence (able to walk through emergencies unscathed and achieve their own dreams). But that says nothing about socialism or socialist programs.Totalitariam regimes have used "capitalist" programs to achieve the same degree of alienation and control of their populations. Does that say something about capitalism?But forget socialist programs for a second. Let us look at your interesting solution to poverty... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++:
Shift a percentage of the huge social money (maybe not so huge in the USA) to extended families, on a cure for pay basis. You have to pay your family when they are in need, but when they are not in need, you can keep the money yourself. That would give an incentive for people to get of welfare. On the downside it would also create huge fights within families but uhm... dealing with the embarassment/power-issues of giving and receiving social help this way, is just a basic part of humanity that is very meaningful in my opinion. Giving and receiving money through some institutional social program doesn't have much human value IMO.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++and further detailed in a later posting [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++:
I'm just talking about extended-family, not primary family. There are modern communication methods to deal with distance, besides the then by law transfer of money to family in need would largely just be automatically deducted from bankaccount or paycheck. There would be no law that you have to visit your extended-family in need, just an incentive to do so.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'll call this solution Syamsuism (as I am not sure this fits any socio-economic theory I've heard before).Syamsuism--- assuming it is not bastardized by a totalitarian regime--- answers the question of poverty by pooling resources within a community defined by lineage ("the extended family") rather than socio-spatial-economic concerns (the neighborhood, city, state, etc etc). Thus, contrasted to the socialist solution, when a person within a family encounters an emergency, (s)he approaches the family for money (or services if they have the right providers available).Unlike the socialist program (which simply presents a resource to be used) the person in need must beg money off of loved ones, creating tension/embarassment/power issues which are necessary for good living according to Syamsuist theory, especially when one is facing (or in the midst of) a crisis.Of course, unlike the socialist program (which simply presents a resource to be used) a person in need may very well find themselves rejected and then have to go to the State (what else does "by law" mean Syamsu?) to FORCE their loved ones to fork over the cash... for fees which may be sky-high inflated since they are not controlled ala socialist services.What's great is that this system helps everyone in your family stay in contact with your bankaccount without ever having to stay in contact with you! But of course this DOES provide the necessary incentive for you to "visit" your family members more regularly... especially that special family member who was estranged long ago for their inability to keep a job, had a problem with gambling, drugs, etc etc and so constantly having money problems due to irresponsibility.Despite the obvious superiority of Syamsuism over socialism as so far examined, I feel it is important to address at least one minor problem with Syamsuist theory in general.While within a community defined by socio-spatial-economic concerns (the State) there will by necessity be people in "good times" while others move into "bad times" (except during epidemics, catastrophes), this necessity does not hold for families no matter how extended.In short, what happens if your whole family is POOR???? There's a difference between unwilling to pay, and unable to pay. Syamsuism leaves families trapped in poverty, trapped in poverty. Unless we bring in the notion of "by law" arranged marriages to extend a poor family into a rich family's bank account.Hmmmmmm. Imagine the wonderful embarassment/power issues involved with THAT! Very meaningful... and oh the humanity.Okay now, I'm just kidding with you Syamsu. It should all be read in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way and not strict sarcasm.I understand your point, and agree, that families (nuclear or extended) have an important role to play in society and make things more "human." It's just that family is not the best answer to everything, especially weathering financial crises within laissez-faire capitalist (or feudal) systems.Crises are where systems designed to provide a safety net for all, help families stay together without the tension/embarassment/power issues which ultimately tend to drive them apart.Frankly I don't feel such issues, while admittedly human, are all that meaningful anyway, unless by that you mean "traumatic." And I certainly don't think they help anyone during a crisis, except as examples of what one should not have during a crisis.Leave embarassment/power issues for whether little johnny decides to smoke with his friends, or little susan wants to date her 50 year old piano teacher.In the end I think socialism, as I have outlined it, provides a better structure to answer the questions raised by poverty than the one you have outlined.Agree? Disagree?holmes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++
[B]Disagree. You quite legitimately identify some possible problems with family social structures, however there are some problems with socialism too. Totalitarianism is obviously (as history and logic shows) one of them. The state is even felt to be overbearing in countries such as Sweden etc, let alone Cuba, or North Korea.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm not sure what there was to disagree with. Not only did I identify the problems INHERENT in trying to solve poverty issues using your proposed method, I also (quite correctly) pointed out that "totalitarianism" has NOTHING to do with socialism.Let me re-address that second point as it is probably the most important.Totalitarian states are political entities that have no direct connection or causal relation to any one economic structure. They are all equally viable to crush dissent and empower the ruling class.While socialism has been used by many totalitarian regimes, so have capitalism and feudalism. Don't believe me? Check out the recent histories of many poor Central/South American governments, most fundamentalist middle eastern governments (Saudi Arabia is a great example), and many current African governments.In quantity, capitalist (or feudal) totalitarian regimes tend to outnumber socialist totalitarian regimes. Only the glut of media attention paid to "socialist" countries like Cuba, China, North Korea, and the ol' Evil Empire during the last several decades, make them seem more numerous than they are. Certainly they produced more headlines. Of course that may have been due to their superpower struggle with a certain capitalist nation for ultimate domination of the earth. That might have led to a bit of propagandizing on the latter nation's part to link socialism to totalitarianism (and neglect to mention counter-examples).Thus "totalitarianism" is not an obvious problem (historically or logically) of socialism at all.Totalitarianism is EVERYONE'S problem. And if you think any economic system will prevent totalitarianism, you are helping someone somewhere pull the wool over your own eyes.As an aside, Sweden's government can hardly be compared to those of Cuba or North Korea. A more offensive and delusional comparison I cannot imagine. The standard of living in Scandinavian countries is generally higher than that enjoyed in the US, even if conspicuous consumption is not. And without question the level of poverty (as well as the standard of living amongst the poor)in Scandinavian countries is nowhere near as horrific as the rates of poverty (and squalor among the poor)as that enjoyed in the United States, much less Cuba or North Korea.While some within Sweden may complain about taxes, you get that in the US too. There may also be some social restrictions particular to Sweden that some do not like, but again, the same goes for the US. Anywhere that you have laws and taxation, you will have dissent and feelings that the government is overbearing... and please let that always be the case!Wow, I just cannot believe anyone could make that comparison. But let me get back on track.The problem with any economic theory, or program based on an economic theory, lies in how a specific program is designed and put into practice.Socialism itself has no inherent functional problems when it comes to dealing with poverty, though any particular social program can be flawed and contain functional problems which need to be fixed.On the other hand, and this is what I was trying to point out, your proposal had at least one major functional problem inherent in the theory itself, as well as many smaller functional problems that it would face in practice.My conclusion from that comparison, and I'd hoped you'd agree, was that as a general solution to poverty issues, socialism held a better answer than the one you had proposed... assuming that a totalitarian regime had not usurped either. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++
No social system is going to work, without it being based on people acting social in the human sense. That means that systems based on enlightened self-interest won't work, as well as systems where the social action is deferred to the "expert" political leaders or "scientific" organizers. I wonder if you can agree to that principle, if not agreeing that family social structures are the solution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I'm not sure if I understood exactly what you meant by "based on people acting social", though I am pretty sure I understood what you were trying to address with the rest of it.Here's my 2 cents, and you can tell me if that means we agree, though I think we do not (in principal or in specific).Government and economic systems are by definition "social", and they are all based on people acting social in the human sense. Even in a totalitarian regime, if people do not act according to social arrangement then the system will break down.The difference between systems are what types of social interactions get utilized, stressed, and changed in order to achieve their results. For example totalitarianism uses and tightens hierarchical (above/below) social interactions to legitimate the movement of decision making up toward one person or group.IMHO the best systems solve problems with the least amount of reliance on or tinkering with specific social interactions, and take into account (allow for) the myriad social relationships which do exist.This is because in reality, there is NOT ONE social relationship common to all individuals within a nation, not even "family" relationships. For example, there will always be orphans without families, or family members that would have been better off orphans. No amount of social engineering will change this. Because of this FACT, reliance on any specific social relationship (even families) as a panacea for life's problems is merely wishful thinking, and trying to actualize "what should be", rather than recognizing and using what resources a nation has.Or stated as a more positive definition: at their best, systems provide unintrusive and easily accessed mechanisms (financial or service-oriented) that empower individuals or communities to solve their own problems as they see fit. Once empowered, individuals and communities are in a better position to aid others they are in social relationships with (including families).Hope that's clear.holmes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++
[B]The tendency for totalitairianism in socialism comes from deferring the social action to a few political leaders, or "scientific" experts. Even if the people are good intentioned, this will create such an enormous amount of pressure on these few people, that it might easily lead to abuse of power.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++What about the tendency to defer social action to a few political leaders or scientific experts, because of their wealth of resources (capitalism) or lineage (feudalism)?Socialism by itself does NOT require deferrence to a few political leaders of any type, and as such has no greater tendency toward totalitarianism than any other economic model.Once again, totalitarianism is an imposed political structure NOT contingent on, or better served by, any particular economic system!As clear cut counter-examples to your stated position, socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark, and semi-socialist countries such as the Netherlands do NOT defer power to a few political leaders (or parties) at all. While they continue to have monarchies, their governments are actually run by congressional or "parliamentary" systems using similar representational systems to the ones employed by the US and Britain.They have very active (some might say overactive in the case of the Netherlands) democratic processes which ensure the public has sway over the actions of the government.I agree, putting power in one person's or "elite" group's hands is a terrible idea. Witness congress handing Bush the ability to make war or not "as he sees fit." Hmmmmmm, this happened even though we're capitalist. Lesson learned... the isolation of power to one man or one group CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE, AND UNDER ANY ECONOMIC SYSTEM!!!!!The more I think about how you have used the likes of Sweden and Netherlands as examples, the more I wonder if you know ANYTHING about these countries, or the people that live there.More counter-examples, did you know that in practice the US restricts one's choice of representation in government to one of two political parties? It's called the "two party" system which appears to fit your "deferring the social action to a few political experts" definition to a T.In contrast, the socialist governments you like to malign have many competing parties which must build consensus coalitions in order to move agendas through. This fluidity and many-voiced approach prevents single parties from ever gaining too much power. Over the last two years that fluidity has proven a problem for the Dutch government (which has collapsed twice), and even when functioning well gets ridiculed as "inefficient" by proponents of the "two-party" system in the US. Inefficiency defined by a lack of power centralization.So you see Syamsu, even in capitalist regimes, the focus of power can just as easily shift to a small group of political experts. It all depends on what a citizenry allows their government to do. Do they want the answers provided for them (authority based), or do they want to provide the answers themselves (consensus based)? The economic system is irrelevant. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++
There's just no getting away from people being financially social on a personal basis. To try to get away from that by creating mechanisms and non-intrusive resources is the fantasy. I don't like the sort of people socialism creates that are "empowered individuals", and have a "myriad" of different social relationships, but when push comes to shove, they don't actually know how to deal with the responsibility of giving or receiving aid on a personal basis.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++More assertions. You haven't addressed any of the gaping holes I revealed in your proposal, and simply reassert it as the best option.And by the way I never said governments should enact laws or social programs in order to "get away from people being financially social on a personal basis". I simply said governments shouldn't BASE programs on, or try to artifically (re)construct, social relationships in order to form solutions to social problems.It seems you have had some bad experiences with an individual that was impersonal, and you believed, or they claimed, it was due to being socialist. That's too bad. I've had many wonderful experiences with people who are socialist and personable. In fact, they were arguably more so because they weren't on the edge of economic ruin due to emergencies, including the simple "family act" of having children (try that one in america when you are poor).You argue that States should impose laws which will force people to be more sociable. I can think of no greater fantasy than thinking that will work in reality. And I can think of no greater nightmare than a government designed to crush individualism in a vain attempt to make that fantasy come true.As it stands, you still have not answered what happens to orphans, estranged family members, and entire families trapped in poverty within the system you proposed.Once you get around to actually filling the holes in your own theory, and stop re-asserting as fact something which has already proven to be inaccurate (ie socialism tends to totalitarianism), I'll respond to your future posts.If you keep posting without addressing these points, I'll have to assume you are simply arguing for the sake of argument (not very social I'd say) and are not interested in changing/refining your position based on the facts presented to you. Unless of course you have some credible counter-evidence to support your theory that Northern European socialist countries are less representative, more totalitarian than other countries?NOTE: For anyone else reading our discussion (who happen to live in one of those Northern European Socialist countries), and as a nod to reality that those countries don't have the solution to everything... The bureaucracy some of those countries have in place are byzantine and therefore burdensome to say the least. Sometimes I got the feeling that Nazis remained in occupation, simply shifting into clerical positions and those of their rule-making superiors. Papers! Auspassen!And on a similar note, it is sad to see that within the last six months the Netherlands has begun to adopt the US model of police enforcement in the name of the "war on crime" and the "war on terrorism." In other words, give police all the power they need to provide you with security. They actually passed a law allowing for searches and interrogations of ANYBODY walking through certain areas that the police set up as they deem necessary. Bad Dutch people! Baaaaaad!Thankfully this has not been adopted, or at least not to my knowledge, in the Scandinavian countries, and Sweden had the balls to hand Jimmy Carter the recognition he deserves. Not only has Carter (whatever his record as president) been active in defusing totalitarian regimes around the world, his receipt of the award was a perfect slap in the face to those powerful groups which have recently been advancing the totalitarian dictates of one nation (ie Bush and the new Bush Doctrine).Actually syamsu, I'd love to read your opinion on how Bush's assent to power (though not actually winning an election), and his subsequent enactment of the Bush Doctrine do not perfectly fit your totalitarian definitions. And if you do reconize this as the centralization of power to one man or group of people, how that squares with the fact that they are dismantling remaining "social" programs in order to promote capitalism? To me it's yet another powerful counter-example to your basic premise.holmes

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu
I think Sadam of the ruling socialist Ba'ath party is the dictator, and Bush is the elected president. It's a bit convenient for you to not mention the socialist dictators Bush is fighting against. I think what Bush is doing is warranted as a response to the WTC destruction. It's his job to come up with ideas like the Bush doctrine, where if it was generally decided that it was a bad idea, he could be corrected by congress etc.

---

That's it Syamsu, having been proven wrong using the specific examples you gave in the first place (Netherlands and Sweden), you simply switch examples and ignore what's been said!All I ever did, and all I had to do, was bring counter-examples to your claim that socialism leads to totalitarianism. I admit that some totalitarian regimes have used socialism (though Iraq is not one of them), but such regimes have also used capitalism. Where is your admission that this is true??????It has only been convenience on your part to ignore the counter-examples presented and re-assert your basic premise.As far as Iraq is concerned, it is unquestionably ruled by a totalitarian regime. However, it is not socialist by any stretch of the definition (or imagination). He could have named it the "absolutely democratic peace on earth party" if he wanted to, it wouldn't change a thing. You give me one example of how they pool the nation's resources to create a safety net for ANYONE in need and I'll buy you a cookie.Oh yeah... and Bush is an elected President. Didn't you know that Saddam was elected, and just re-elected as well? These two guys have quite a bit in common: both elections were shams.Don't get me wrong, I did not vote for Gore and infinitely preferred Bush in the White House (at that point in time). But what happened during that election turned my stomach and I will vote for anyone but Bush next time. Maybe you don't get papers where you live Syamsu?Without question Bush LOST the popular election. Even his party admits that point. And his victory in the electoral college is less than dubious.It all turned on one state: Florida. The popular vote in that state was so close, that the electoral votes for that state could have gone for one or the other (although the popular vote in the nation would still be for Gore).There were charges of vote corruption (and I'm not talking about the mispunches of crappy ballots) which were later found to be TRUE in a court of law... but too late to do anything about an election 1 1/2 years back (Bush and co held the court cases off this long).I'm not even going to address the fact that at the time, the election came down to vote-counting in a state led by his brother, and the person in charge of the vote-counting was a campaign manager for Bush, as it would eat up more space, but you get the idea of the corruption inherent in that situation. Oh yeah, and not to mention that the republican led Supreme Court reversed years of policy not to interfere with State procedure in order to appoint Bush president... one of the Justice's sons being on the legal team which wrote some of Bush's briefs in Florida.No let's just leave it to the FACT as has been discovered: if there had not been voter tampering by Republicans (blocking legal voters from voting), Florida's electoral votes would have gone to Gore and then the electoral votes would have matched the popular vote and Bush would not be in office today.Anyone can win an election if they have the machinery to do it. Saddam and Bush had the machinery... only Saddam got more out of his machinery. Glad you brought that point up Syamsu. Yet another example of "deferring social action to political experts" and thus heading toward totalitarianism in a capitalist country.And if you care to explain what other socialist dictators Bush is fighting against I'd love to hear about them. Afghanistan's government at the time of the WTC attack was NOT socialist. It was capito-feudal totalitarian (installed by the US after ousting socialist-totalitarian Soviet forces) and supported by the capito-feudal totalitarian regimes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.It might also be mentioned Bush is not fighting anyone in Scandinavia or the Netherlands, or China for that matter (which I think IS a totalitarin socialist regime... though they are gradually accepting capitalist ways as they have found it does not interfere with the overall totalitarian structure).By the way, do you know what the Bush doctrine is? While Bush claims he made it because of the "different world we face" after the WTC attack, it has NOTHING to do with a RESPONCE to the WTC attack. I don't think he'd even say that.Further showing your ignorance in these matters, the "Bush doctrine" does not need approval of congress. It would help, but Bush doesn't need it and the next President would not be bound by it. And even if he had once required the approval of congress, he no longer does because in a fit of knee-jerk shortsightedness Congress handed over control of our military carte-blanche to Bush. Congress NO LONGER has control over military decisions at all.Power has been left up to the whims of one man. Where is your wrath Syamsu? You said you hate this kind of thing. Well as long as it is deferring power to one political expert (who can't even pronounce "nuclear") in a capitalist country, that's okay, right? Once again, I should remind you I started out kind of liking the guy, so this is not party bias talking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu
The electionsystem in the Netherlands is somewhat tribal still. The big chiefs of the tribes settle the political questions among themselves. The concensus of the manyparty system which you praise, is settled among a small group of politicians.

---

What the hell kind of government are you advocating????? Unless you have a true democracy, where every single citizen votes on every single issue, you will have to leave it up to representatives and so a "group of politicians."Your criticism of the Dutch system holds true for every democratic-republic government in power today. The point I was making about the many party system is that it is more representational/less totalitarian as it focuses power to a larger "group of politicians" then the two-party system.Do you not understand your criticisms are stronger against the US system than the Dutch system?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu
I don't think it's very interesting to discuss the technicalities of a family social structure, I just assume that there are solutions to the problems you raised. Living in a society that has family social structures might be a benefit to orphans for instance, because they might more easily integrate into a family. You are wrong on one fundamental point though, family social structures are not about lineage, they are about marriage. The husband of your sister would be closer to you, then the son of your sister, where in lineage the son would be closer then the husband.

---

That says it all. It's not interesting to discuss the "technicalities" (ie major problems) with your theory, you just assume there will be solutions. That's strike two for you. If you aren't interested in discussing things seriously, maybe you shouldn't discuss things at all. After all, solutions can get worked out for everything eventually.By the way I understand the patriarchal family structure. I've had friends which came from loving "family-centered" countries that still have arranged marriages, and so understand the offspring of a daughter is always worth less than the man she marries. I used "lineage" because I could not think of a better word to describe how power is shared in that system. "Caste" would be too large, and I thought "hereditary" would be what you just described above. I hoped "lineage" would kind of sneak in marriages as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu
In democratic socialist countries you have participation of people through politics yes, so in that way the social action is not completely deferred to political leaders. However if you look to the attitudes and opinions expressed by people commonly on the social system, it is much a greedy hatered from those who give, and on the other side a lazy consumerist attitude of those who receive that seems prevalent. So now in correcting that "abuse" of the system, countries are moving to more and more intrusive measures on those that receive.

---

Northern Europeans tend, in general, to be more independent and so less helpful or requesting help from others. Is that what you mean? This trait was in place before Socialism. From what I've read it came from their basic cultural focus, which was on independence.Otherwise I have no clue what you are talking about, or rather, believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Your description of hateful givers and lazy/greedy/consumer receivers best fits the US model than anything in Northern Europe.Rampant consumerism is frowned on in those societies, socialist societies I might add, that we are talking about. Capitalism promotes consumerism, which is why in the US (where the only social programs around simply throw money at people, and not enough to help) its not surprising that those who are recipients of social aid, with no assurances of any way out of their predicament, would consume as much as they can.Kind of funny actually. I'm seriously trying to figure out how someone approaches a socialist medical system with a lazy, consumerist attitude, and exactly how many givers to that system hate those receiving medical attention.And where are those greedy consumers in Iraq (since you posit it's the model of a socialist country)?As ever, your commentary actually knocks capitalist systems more than socialist ones (as modeled in Northern European countries), yet forgives anything the capitalist systems might do.Tell me, have you EVER lived in ANY of the countries you are speaking about?holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2003]{Fixed quote structures - Need to have [/quote] at end, to close quotes - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-15-2003]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[B]The other socialist country I was talking about that Bush is fighting against is North Korea. A tendency for totalitairianism does not mean that in each and every case there would have to be a totalitairian regime. I think it's not credible if you deny that there is this tendency in socialism. Even on a small scale you can see social workers and the like revelling in the control they have over people's lives.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Uhhhhhhh.... what the hell are you talking about? Bush is FIGHTING North Korea? Wow. How about that? I just came from the CNN website where they were saying how Bush is trying to pursue diplomatic channels to solve the crisis between our nations.Oh yeah, and more careful reading seems to indicate it has nothing to do with socialism or even totalitarianism. While Bush and most peoples of the free world aren't too crazy about N Korea (I'm certainly not), the crisis is over proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--- in N Korea's case, nuclear weapons--- and NOT their imminent takeover of the world.What you have failed to understand is that I concede that there is a tendency towards totalitarianism in socialist countries. IT IS THE EXACT SAME TENDENCY TOWARD TOLITARIANISM SEEN IN EVERY OTHER KIND OF COUNTRY!!!!!ALL governments tend to scope-creep or outright shanghai their way into greater power over the lives of their citizens. It is a fact the founding fathers of the US government warned about many times.As far as your commentary on social workers... pure ad hominem. "Revelling in the control... over people's lives"??? I want to see anything solid to support this claim of yours. And I'd love to see how they differ from anyone else in a position of power. I've certainly seen family members revelling in the control over other people's lives. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't know about the voter corruption to which you refer, anyway the population was about evenly split in their choice for Gore or Bush, and in great majority they are now happy that it was Bush and not Gore AFAIK.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yes, you obviously don't know. I guess you won't go and try to find out either. See how much you care about people seizing control of power in a government... as long as it isn't socialist!And I love that "about evenly split" garbage. HE LOST SYAMSU. Do you believe in giving power to the person who has less votes just because the vote was close (if you consider 100,000's of people "close")?Did you know that if what happened in Florida (and eventually the Supreme Court) had happened in ANY OTHER COUNTRY, the election would have been ruled invalid (or "corrupt") by the general rules set in place for monitoring elections? Jimmy Carter, who helps monitor elections around the world to ensure their validity, has spoken publicly on this matter.BTW, Bush's approval ratings shot into high gear because of the WTC attacks, like any standing president when the country is under attack. We'll see if that "great majority" keeps him in office after the next election. I'm sure he'll try and work this "war with Iraq" to try and save his sorry presidency. Hopefully it will fail, much like his daddy's war with Iraq failed to keep him in office. 2nd BTW "Daddy" Bush also had high approval ratings during the war: He lost the next election.MMMMmmmmmmmm. I hear Saddam has quite a bit of popularity over in Iraq as well right now. Guess the "great majority" are happy Saddam won and not anyone else. Wait a minute, Kim Jong II has that same popularity in N Korea too!!!Look at all of these thoroughly elected leaders proven more legitimate because of how popular they are. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You're right that a family social structure would put a lot of pressure on marriage to turn into a purely economic arrangement, and that is how such a scheme might fail. I don't think that a plan having some weaknesses therefore makes it useless.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++A plan that may have some weaknesses (and some major inherent problems) does not make it useless. And from your last posting we are understand you aren't interested in discussing these weaknesses anyway. Things'll "just get worked out".According to your own statement then, why should anyone dislike socialism? Tendency toward totalitarianism is just a weakness in the theory right? Oh... or is it a MAJOR problem? Like say having no way of getting families stuck in poverty out of poverty? Like stripping human emotion out of marriage and relegating it back to a barter system for goods and services? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AFAIK the Bush doctrine is to go after countries which harbour terrorists. How you can say that this is not in response to the WTC destruction by terrorists is beyond me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The Bush Doctrine is about many many things, many MORE IMPORTANT THINGS, than terrorists. A doctrine in response to the WTC attacks would be one specifically addressing those responsible for the WTC attack. This doctrine has NOTHING to do with that. I see you have never read or at least have not understood what the Bush Doctrine is.The Bush Doctrine deals with the proliferation of WMD and the buildup of military might by ANY AND ALL countries other than the US. The doctrine is about the US adopting a "first-strike" policy toward any nation which has reached a strength in arms (not terrorists) which could rival our own. The implications of this ought to offend your stated sensibilities.There IS a portion of this Doctrine dealing with nations which harbor terrorists, or aid terrorist organizations, but it is not referring to just those terrorist organizations involved with the WTC attack. It is a way of dealing in general with nonmilitary threats which after WTC we recognize can be just as devastating as military strikes. After all, the WTC attackers only used some knives and box-cutters... WMD were not an issue in that attack at all.It is the WMD proliferation portion of the doctrine which has us going head to head with Iraq (non-socialist, glad to see you didn't try and rework that fable), Iran (nonsocialist, another capito-feudal totalitarian regime), and N Korea (socialist, I never said there weren't bad socialist countries, just they aren't in the majority and don't "tend" to be more than any other).Only one of these has become a FIGHT, and that is with Iraq. Iran remains a heated sore-point, and N Korea (due to its own angry actions in response to the Bush Doctrine) has been elevated to a crisis. N Korea could become a fight at some point. I tend to think it will. But Bush isn't fighting socialist countries. He is fighting any country (as we just saw with Afghanistan) which does, or may, pose a military or security threat to the US. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are misinformed about the democratic content of many-party coalition government. The socialist party in the Netherlands (where I lived) for instance, hasn't even announced it's candidate for prime-minister, in the upcoming elections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Uhhhhhh. You lost me once again. How does one party's (especially the socialist party's) lack of a candidate for prime minister indicate one iota that the "democratic content" is less in the Netherlands (much less for many-party socialist systems elsewhere)? I mean really. What you just said means absolutely nothing.I also lived in the Netherlands (actually I just got back from there a few months ago). I am well aware of their system and current goings on in the government. Obviously much more aware than you are, even if what you just said made any sense at all.I history is has any meaning, the socialist party in the Netherlands has about 0 chance in hell of getting a prime-minister into office, so it's not that important to be talking about one. My girlfriend and her whole family vote socialist and this has never fazed them from voting for the party.This is because, unlike the US "two party" system, the fact that they don't ever get a prime minister in office does not mean they have thrown away their votes.In Holland, people vote to to fill seats in their version of "congress" (I'll use a more common term than what they call it) with members of their party. Rest assured the socialist party has enough members to fill any seats they win. Unless the party chooses not to fill them. Well then that's their choice isn't it? And isn't that democracy in action?Unless of course by "socialist party" you mean the social-democrats? Or are you talking about the LFP? The VVD? I mean any Dutch Party could be called "socialist" as none are out to remove the overall socialist economic system currently in place.As regards to prime ministers in general, no party has an "end all" prime minister candidate anyway. The Prime-Minister is not handled like the Presidency is in the US. A party may front their more popular member as a potential candidate (or as the shoe-in selling point, as in the case of the late Pim Fortuyn's party), but the final say of who becomes minister isn't till AFTER THE ELECTIONS.In the present case, Balkenende was the prime minister (from the christian party) who was put into power AFTER the Xtian party won dominance in the "congress." He had been touted as the man they'd put into office, but it was not definite until the time came to choose a prime-minister which is AFTER THE ELECTION. Once in office he was unable to to pull a coalition together from the other parties (most notably Fortuyn's party) and it has gotten so bad new elections for all the seats (not to mention prime-minister) need to be held.I already said the Dutch government is arguably "over-active" and has collapsed twice in the past two years. But all that demostrates is an absence of power, which is the exact opposite of a totalitarian regime.A totalitarian regime would not only have a candidate announced, they'd already have told you who you're voting for.It's kind of sad to see that you were unable to understand the very basics of how the Dutch government functions given that you lived there... did you live long enough there to vote? Did a nasty bureaucrat toss you out on a bizarre technicality and that's why you've come to hate them so much? (I can sympathize with that issue)Oh yeah, and with time to spare: Socialist Party candidate is Jan Marijnissen. Does that make anything more democratic for you. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely people hate those on social-assistance who smoke and drink too much and thereby go into the hospitals a lot, hospitals which have long waitinglists. As an example of consumerism, there are close to 1 million people on disability benefits in the Netherlands on a population of 15 million. Again, as I argue, this is because the relationship between those who give and those who receive is too impersonal. You can deny family social structures as a solution to this problem, but then you would have to find another way to make the relationship between givers and receivers more personal, since otherwise the relationship will rot by greed and lazyness, and the whole social system will rot with it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++So what you are saying is that people hate those who take advantage of a system, or hate those who end up getting more out of the services provided by the government than themselves.While the first category is a legitimate issue in ANY system (how many businessmen take advantage of laissez-faire capitalist systems and are hated for it?), the second is just plain silly.I think it is far fetched to claim people smoke and drink too much in order to get sick so that they can get the most out of the medical system. As it is, I would be glad to pay the health costs for a bunch of smoking whinos, as well as premature babies and heart attack victims and cancer victims who never smoked, and yet I never NEED to use one dime of ANY MEDICAL SERVICE AT ALL.As long as when I did NEED to use it, it was there to help me, I'd be just as happy as if I was a chain-smoking booze hound getting sick every other day.The point of a social program is to provide a safety-net for ALL when emergencies occur. We don't know when they'd occur or how much they'll cost as then they would not be emergencies. But we do know emergencies WILL occur. So resources are pooled so that when physical emergencies occur (to whomever and for whatever reason) they don't also become financial emergencies, and potentially create more physical emergencies.If you are talking about the impact smokers and drinkers (or anyone that lives in a way that makes them prone to illness) have on cost of living in general, you will find that same "hatred" held against them in capitalist systems where they get no coverage at all. Illness prone people cost money in time lost (productivity) to the businesses they work (even when the business is not providing healthcare). This cost injures businesses and may even get passed on to the customer.Don't worry. Everyone these days seems to hate smokers and drinkers. They don't even need to get sick in a country using a socialized medical system to generate anger.On the other hand, the large numbers of people on disability in the Netherlands is an issue, which reflected to some people the first category mentioned above (those intentionally using a system). I've seen disability and unemployment services in action in Netherlands and Denmark and have even seen it misused in those same countries.All I can say is, having watched it in action, the abuse of these systems were based in functional weaknesses of particular programs which need to be worked out, and do not merit scrapping of the system altogether. It is much better to allow sponges to exist (which the system can try to deal with), than leave honest people broken by emergencies.BTW, your ignorance on the Dutch disability issue is showing. The ACTUAL issue,which the government recently announced after a thorough investigatuon, is not that most of these people are sponging (though clearly there are sponges, as in any system) but that due to practical issues (rules and regulations), people are better off getting sick than going on strike.Their answer was not to scrap the socialist system put in place to aid people when they get ill, nor scrap the unemployment scheme when people get laid off. It was to create better problem-resolution mechanisms between employees and management, and allow for better transitions from jobs where there is a falling out, to somewhere new. "Illness-strikes" were distorting the reality of what was actually going on and hampering the progress employees might have wanted.Is this not a more humane and personal solution?No wait, Syamsuism is much more humane and social. Throw all the disabled onto their relatives for support, because of a flaw in the rules regarding management-employee relations!In summary:1) You state you have no interest in discussing the flaws in your own theory.2) While bringing you have given examples of socialist countries that are totalitarian (some of which I am in complete agreement on), you conveniently refuse to acknowledge the socialist countries which are not totalitarian and the more numerous capitalist and feudalist countries that currently are or have been totalitarian.3) You do nothing but use ad hominem (and unfounded) charges against anyone using social programs (giver and taker), as well as making totally misinformed statements regarding governments and policies (frankly it sounds like you just read the republican party press literature, and not even all of that!).Last inning, strike three, and the ballgame's over. You lost Syamsu. Until you address those critical problems with your ability to construct reasonable arguments in general (or on the specific issue we are discussing) I'm taking a shower and going home.Don't feel too bad. There's always next year.holmes

Still swinging? Well at least you came close to addressing 1 or 2 of the points and that's a start. Let's see if you're arguments are worth a double-header. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++
[B]Having dismissed and belittled people's personal capacity for acting social financially, you are left with the central powerstructure to act socially. That is where the tendency for totalitairianism comes in with Socialism, through the centralization.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++If I agreed with the "dismissed and belittled" portion, I might agree with the rest. In fact, there is some substance to this when analyzing how totalitarian regimes use socialist programs to dominate others... by dismissing and belittling the individual's capacity for their (and their family's) own financial wellbeing and replacing it with the STATE as a parental figure (with an EGO figure as the embodiment of that parental figure).The problem with your criticism is that socialist systems do not by their nature dismiss or belittle the social aspect of financial (or any other aspect) of life.In many (I'd argue most) socialist systems all that happens is that resources become available to address individual or family NEEDS. It is a resource bought and paid for by those individuals (though at a reduced cost due to its shared and regulated cost structure).And what's great is that it frees families from worrying about "what happens" if dad loses his job, if johnny gets hit by a car, if susan wants to go to law school, by reducing the impact of these events and allowing them to use their financial resources to IMPROVE their standard of living, instead of just scraping by or scrabbling to get out from under the debt of an emergency.I have watched very poor people survive very well in Netherlands and Denmark, and watched rather well-off people tumble into poverty in the US... all in the face of an emergency. In direct contrast to your assertion, families were more likely to help and be sociable financially in the socialist countries.Here is ONE example. My girlfriend had her foot crushed in an accident at work. Thankfully she was wearing steel toed shoes at the time and didn't lose anything. However it did send her to the hospital and had the potential for a lot of lost hours. This would be catastrophic in the US. In the Netherlands she simply went to the hospital. For time out of work she'd have it covered by disability (which she does not get at the US company she currently works at).Here is a SECOND. Due to the socialist system, her family (and all other families in that system) gets 4-5 weeks of base vacation time a year which they have the ability to ENJOY as a family because they do not have to worry about saving up for emergencies. All the families I knew were close because they had the time to share together and were not driven apart by financial matters or worries.In the US families are lucky to get 1-2 weeks of vacation time and often cannot enjoy all of that time because of having to save for other things. When someone is injured in the family the result is panic. Emergency room costs (which have set me back quite a bit), or even regular doctor visits = $$$$$$$. Forget about education too. Oh yeah, and let's not mention unemployment either. When major emergencies or life's events happen, families get nailed and not empowered by any stretch of the imagination. But to be honest I'd simply love for you to address how a family unable to spend time together (as is true for most families in the US) are more social than those in socialist countries where they do spend time together.You have also missed one major point with your criticism: centralization of power can happen in any system! This is my main point and you continue to duck it, despite its basis in FACT, which reveals to me you simply don't want to admit when you are wrong.In a capitalist system like the US, people's financial wellbeings are left up to companies. In Feudal systems (even capito-feudal) it is just as if left in the hands of the State, in this case your local sovereign, as in any socialist country. The difference is instead of being pooled by the people and distributed by the will of the people (assuming a non-totalitarian regime), it is pooled for the benefit of the company or the sovereign and there are no guarantees of how it will be spent!Likewise the capitalist and feudal systems can (and usually do) dismiss and belittle EVERYBODY'S ability to create and achieve prosperity and security for themselves. This shifts power to the state for maintaining peace in neighborhoods and across borders and creation of jobs (that last one is a great example in the US where Bush's answer is give money to the rich so they can create jobs for you).ALL GOVERNMENTS strive to gain greater control over their populace.ALL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS allow for some manner of dismissing and belittling the individual to address events in their own lives (ie act socially) in order to shift power to an elite group or individual. I wish you'd realize (and admit) that this is true. If you keep your blinders on and say that any one system is above this tendency or is more likely to avoid problems of totalitarianism, the more you help totalitarian states exist. After all, the best totalitarian state is the one that has dogma on its side that it can't possibly be totalitarian! [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++
When you talk about "functional weaknesses" in the social program, then that shows me you just don't get it. There isn't going to be any system that is functionally perfect, all social systems are based on a human emotional effort to keep the relationship between giver and receiver healthy. To build in an endless amount of laws into a social system, which in the end all have the violent force of the courts behind them, would make that emotional effort harder, not easier.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Other than you're comment that I just don't get it, I am in total agreement with everything you say here. The less LAWS regulating human behavior, the better. The more efficiently pooled/divided resources (which does not require laws about how people treat each other, but instructions regarding how we believe money that is pooled can best be managed), the better.My secondary criticism about your system was that it is all about social-engineering using the violent force of the courts, to influence how families treat each other and that the "embarassment and powersharing issues" which you admit (and praise) will occur will in reality make "that emotional effort harder, not easier."However my PRIMARY CRITICISM, goes to a much deeper problem with your system and your lack of desire to address it shows how flawed your system is. As mentioned above, I agree that no system (socio/capito/feudo)is perfect and will always have to deal with the functional weaknesses of specific programs put in place. The problem with your theory is that it has INHERENT functional weaknesses. This means that no matter what you do you cannot tighten the bolts to stop the leaks. With other theories there are methods for tightening the bolts (fixing the practical functional weaknesses).Your system, by its very definition, pools resources in unsecure "locations". They neither guarantee a surplus will exist (from which to derive a pool), or that all members in the society will have access to those locations. There is no amount of fixes that can be had, without reworking the definition of your system, or through major socio-engineering to rework the definition of family. Either way then, you have sunk your original theory.So first comes the primary criticism of your theory, it's INHERENT functional problems, which are not shared by social, capital, or feudal systems. Then comes the secondary criticism, the practical functional problems, which it does share with any system. Keep your eye on the ball. It's the INHERENT problems which cost your theory the game. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++
I don't believe Carter is right in saying that the UN would declare an election invalid, which turned on a couple of thousand, if not hundreds of apparently corrupt votes, on a total of 75 million votes or something. I find it highly unlikely that the elections in a country such as India would then be ruled valid, or most any 3rd world country, since corruption is rife there.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Again, keep your eye on the ball. Bush LOST the popular election. There is no debating this issue and it was not by hundreds or thousands of votes. It was by HUNDRED'S OF THOUSANDS of votes.Are you really telling me that a guy that lost an election (even in India) by 100,000's of votes deserves the office more than the guy who won? Isn't that the most undemocratic statement you could ever make in your life?That said, in the US the popular election (with millions of voters) is not what ultimately elects the president. Your lack of knowledge on this matter, once again proves you should refrain from making statements when you have no idea what you are talking about.In the US, the voters merely elect representatives (mere hundreds) which then go vote for the president. I will not address the stupidity of maintaing such a system in this day and age, as there are more pressing matters to discuss.Bush was pushed into winning the electoral college vote because:
1) republican machinery kept democratic voters out of the booths and off registered voters lists (fact),
2) the brother and the campaign manager of the candidate, who happened to be in charge of the voting procedures in that state, refused to investigate these issues (fact),
3) when the state court system decided this lack of investigation was improper, the republican led Supreme Court reversed years of precedence (not to mention general republican policy, and Bush's own call for it not to intercede on Gore's behalf when he thought Gore was going to lose the state court case) in order to reverse the state's decision and while admitting there were problems with the election, gave the state no time to fix the issue and declared Bush victor by legal fiat (fact).I should add one more point (fact). Bush's victory was also due to Florida's law concerning how their electoral votes are divided. In this case they are "winner take all" which is the most undemocratic form of vote-counting in existence. If they had been representational (divided based on percentage of voters) Bush would have lost the electoral college vote!After reading this Syamsu, if you do not understand and agree completely that the election was problematic, and problematic to a degree that it would be invalidated (as Jimmy Carter claimed) then I am straight out calling you a liar. Either you do not believe all of the statements you make about democracy and anti-totalitarianism, or you are simply refusing to acknowledge the FACTS and wish to intentionally make statements with no validity.And I want to make this clear. I had nothing against Bush legally beating Gore. While I hate Bush, I LOATHE GORE. I thought it was hilarious to watch both of them squirm and take back statements they had just made prior to the election when it was commonly thought Bush would win the popular vote, yet lose the electoral college vote. I even think Gore's losing to political machinations is slightly poetic given what he did with his wife to push through legislation that they wanted.But I stopped laughing when the democratic process was thrown out the window and a president was installed, rather than elected. That is because I give a shit about democracy and freedom. I'd love to hear that, despite our economic system differences, you'd at least recognize and stand against political coups when they occur. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++
The social-democrats yes, they haven't announced their candidate for prime-minister yet. When you don't get to chose who takes the top-job, then that is a clear lack of democracy IMO.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++If a party chooses not to submit a candidate that is their choice.If it is the government telling them not to, then it is a clear lack of democracy. Actually if a government told a party it MUST have a candidate that would equally be a lack of democracy.I am completely baffled how a nation that is able to vote for every party that chooses to run a candidate is less democratic. According to your theory they shouldn't even have parties then and everyone in the nation should be a candidate. After all there are unlimited POTENTIAL parties which might have had that person as the candidate.A good example for you to mull over is this: If the democratic party, so in shambles after the last two elections that it couldn't find a suitable presidential candidate, was unable post one for the next election: would you consider that less democratic?A second FACT to mull over: After Senator Wellstone was killed (or murdered if you watch other threads) the Republican party lobbied heavily to prevent there from being a Democratic replacement, even though there was still time to put one on the ballot. Who was being undemocratic then?A third FACT to mull over: In the Netherlands you have many more parties to vote for, which means more choices, and a brand new party gets equal airtime and can potentially sweep to victory over old standing parties (witness the Pim Fortuyn party which may have totally won if Pim had not been murdered). In the US, in prectice, you have only two choices, or you have "thrown away" your vote. By LAW, no parties outside those two parties get equal airtime until they win a near victory (a major catch 22). And if one of those two parties fails to post a candidate, what exactly are you left with?If you are honest, you MUST admit the Dutch system is more democratic. There is no escaping this. Just because one party has not offered to run a candidate yet (which is their choice, no one is stopping them), how does that affect the overall race or system itself? It still beats the US system into the ground.I'm glad to see you tried to address some of the issues, but you still need more determination in finding facts, admitting when you are proven wrong (instead of reasserting falsehoods), and just plain being more consistent about what you believe in and how they connect with what is going on in the world.New ballgame, and you're already down in the count.holmes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++
The social-democrats yes, they haven't announced their candidate for prime-minister yet...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Given the overwhelming precedent you have set, I really should have known better than to accept any statement you assert as "fact".My only excuse for not checking your "facts" before my last post, is that it was irrelevant to how democratic the Dutch election system is.As it turns out I had a few minutes free and checked their party website just to see what was up with them going into a major election leaderless (ie, no prime ministerial candidate).Uhhhhhhhh, did you mean some other party? D66's leader is the same guy from last election! That means there wasn't even a temporal gap, much less a currently missing candidate.I think it's time for you to name a party that is leaderless and give proof that they have no leader, or it's time for you to admit you were making everything up.For everyone else's edification, we are out of "socialist" parties for Syamsu to name, which was his original claim.And before you respond Syamsu... don't bother naming Pim Fortuyn's party. Besides not being a true "socialist" party, Pim was murdered before the last election, leaving them leaderless going into that election. Though they still managed to win a huge number of seats, the party fell apart due to internal squabbling without Pim's presence. They are currently fractured and set to take a HUGE reversal in the upcoming election. If they don't have a stated leader, I would not be surprised. I know one of their candidates just posed topless for a man's magazine to garner attention. The line between desperation and novel approaches to campaigning are pretty blurred with that move.I'll be watching your post with avid interest.Though I think we both know what's going on at this point.holmes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++
[B]You can also use the argument that extended family is too small a pool in reverse. Primary family and individuals saving are too small a pool, therefore social financing should go through extended families. In socialism there are only individuals, citizens of the state that has the big pool, the existence of the primary family is largely ignored, and sometimes even questioned. So really how large is this pool supposed to be for it to be a good pool? Your answer seems to be as large as possible, without considering any human size. Should smaller countries perhaps make arrangements with other countries to create an even larger pool? Aren't you just creating a big risk by putting everything into one pool? So you see, you can discuss these technicalities endlessly, but I think these technicalities are irrellevant. You just have to make a decision whether or not people should be personally socio-economically responsible for each other, or whether that should be impersonal. That is essentially a decision about human nature, how people are able to deal with their greed and lazyness, not about technicalities of a system.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This has to be the lamest argument I have ever heard since the Spinal Tap guitarist refused to use small bread to make a sandwich because you had to keep folding the sandwich ad infinitum (thus destroying the sandwich). NO, you do not have to discuss these technicalities endlessly, just as you do not have to keep folding the sandwich once the meat fits the bread!It is PATENTLY OBVIOUS that a nation cannot dictate policies of other nations (unless that nation happens to be the United States). Yes the bigger the pool the better, but there is no need to grow it beyond your borders.Within ONE NATION, by necessity, as some lose money others gain money. The only way this would not be true is if a nation bought all of its goods and services from outside it's borders. In that case a nation has so many other problems facing its existence, we don't need to address general problems of socialist theory.Socialist systems create a pool of money (and thus resources) using the money from those who have gained, in order to create a net to prevent those who have lost from slipping below a certain "necessary" standard of living (unemployment,disability), as well as making sure that both winners and losers have access to basic services which could adversely affect their standard of living (medical, education).In your theory the pool is limited to each family. There is NO necessary relationship that as one person in the family loses money, one gains money. An entire family can go right down the drain together. And your theory actually creates greater suction as unfortunate or reckless family members have a solid chain tying them to other unfortunate family members who must pay even if they are simply in a better position "relatively" (ie, they have rats to eat, instead of cockroaches).And woe to those without families.Once again, you have ignored the faults or your own system to reassert your own theory as equally plausible. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++
The violence of the courts in a family social structure would be similar to that in marriagerelations. It's a lot different to be criminalized by the state, then to be criminalized by your own family. A very large percentage, if not the majority of people in state social programs are criminalized for not absolutely obeying the stringent and intrusive rules in it. They aren't prosecuted that much, but in theory the state could prosecute them for fraud.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I see, in actual practice people aren't prosecuted too heavily in socialist systems, BUT IN THEORY THEY COULD BE!!!!While, in actual practice people wouldn't be prosecuted by syamsuist systems much more than in marriage relations...
can't you see the inevitable conclusion here?.... BUT IN THEORY THEY COULD BE!!!!Any system has the potential to be abused by a power hungry government.The point is making the practical systems practical. Don't allow service agencies to become intrusive or agents of punishment. That's what separates practice from theory (in socialist or syamsuist systems).To be totally frank though, I don't see anyone buying your system if gaining access to emergency medical procedures one is forced to go through the equivalent of divorce proceedings or forced marriage counseling or even a "family quarrel". That'll help you get better! [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the USA people commonly give money to single-mother families. You won't see such common personal social financing in the Netherlands, or any socialist country I think. There are already many socialist programs in the USA so I think you should compare extended-familyrelations prior to these socialist programs, with present extended-family relations. In effect you argue that social programs have not lessened but actually bettered these relations, because it left extended families free of worry about emergencies. Apparently this supposed benefit to extended-family relations has been swamped by the "cultural drive" towards individualism. How you can argue that people at once are much dependent on moneyworries, and at the same time have a cultural drive that increases moneyworries is beyond me. Isn't it more likely that the drive towards individualism much originates from socialism in it's democratic interpretation, in stead of it being some kind of cultural drive based on what movies?, books? That in the USA as well as Sweden and the Netherlands, extended family relations have increasingly been replaced by socialist programs?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You have no idea what you are talking about. Don't you even listen to your own champions (Bush for instance)? Giving is OUT in the United States. It has dropped to such a low level that even Bush is calling on people to get out there and give to others.In contrast, while places like the Netherlands don't NEED to give charity, as basic needs are taken care of, there is plenty of charity work going on. And people are giving. I don't know how many "charity collectors" came around every month, but it was more than I've ever seen in the US in any given year, and while I've never seen one person support a charity in the US, everyone I saw gave to charity in the Netherlands.This is not to say that no one ever gives in the US and everyone gives in the Netherlands. Just in practice, it is much more popular to give to the needy in the Dutch culture than it is in the US, even though it is not necessary. This may be because when you are not in need yourself (as most in the Netherlands are because they have a safety net under them) you are more willing to give to those less fortunate.Name a truly socialist program in the United States at this point. That is: a program in place to offer financial assistance or to provide an essential service whenever (and for however long) individuals require them.I dare you. I double dare you. The republicans have vocally claimed victory in defeating social programs in the US. Oh wait, you are totally right. I forgot about corporate welfare! That is the only safety net given to anyone (as long as they are rich corporate types) in the US. You got me on that one. But let's be reasonable. Name one program remaining that caters to people in NEED (and of all economic status): medical, unemployment, disability, education?You simply have no idea what you are talking about.As far as the cultural drive toward individualism in Northern European countries, I was talking about the tendency for people not to meddle in other people's affairs and to become independent from their families (in a more detached emotional way) which has reduced the existence of true extended families. This did not relate to families helping each other out financially, just in being less "social" in the emotional and physically "living together" sense. That is a cultural drive which predates socialism by centuries. It can be argued whether it found its basis in the sporadic clan life of "viking" societies (which while families lived together, promoted members to get away and achieve personal glory), or from the influence of harsh (emotionally prudish) religions which swept these regions later.Or maybe its just their cold, dark, windswept climates which breed a certain melancholy and so turning inward for self-contemplation. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry but capitalist systems never belittle people's personal capacity to take care of themselves or each other, that's just nonsense. They many times forget the personal capacity to take care of each other, and focus all on the personal capacity to take care of yourselves, that's true.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++What the hell are you talking about? Ever see a corporation take over and enslave a small country? What is the sales pitch for corporations moving into 3rd world countries? It is that we (the corporation) will move in and can take care of you, where you have been unable to do so by yourself! We have the power to exploit your resources to generate income, where you do not.Have you never heard of trickle down economics (Reagan's working economic theory, and now Bush's)? Give money to rich people and powerful corporations and they will be able to take care of you!How about HMO's (US's capitalist version of socialized medical care). You cannot afford medical care by yourself, so pay us (a for profit business) which will pool your payments with payments from others and then WE will pay your bills when it comes time (or NOT as many refuse to pay for treatments, after all they are for profit).How about ALL INSURANCE SCHEMES!?!?!?!?You are right though, capitalism has the added attraction of reducing people's "social" responsibility for each other.The capitalist-totalitarian states love you Syamsu. Keep preaching their virtues to the enslaved populaces in South America, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim so they know how free they are. I mean, these people are SO empowered to create wealth for themselves! Don't you see all of them working long hours for low pay for US corporations, just to make their dreams of independence come true? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is more democratic if the US would have Gore as a president eventhough the majority doesn't now want him, and is happy with Bush? I can't support corruption of votes, eventhough it was apparently just a couple of hundred out of some 75 million, but I'm not so interested to find out the details because majority of people are happy with Bush. Are you really sure UN monitors would invalidate the election of a popular president on the basis of such a few corrupt votes? I find that highly unlikely. The hundred thousand or so votes that you refer to are not corrupt votes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yes you can support corruption of votes. Yes you DO support corruption of votes. You are a lying sack of capito-totalitarian-agency, disguised as a freedom-loving mouthpiece.I say this in all confidence as you just ignored the facts once again, and underwrote a flawed election which goes to support the same flawed elections as those in Iraq and N Korea (where just like in the US, the people are content to live with and support the leader they didn't actually vote into office.. does that make them legitimate?)!It was NOT just a couple hundred votes out of millions which made the difference in the US election. No matter how you say it, it does not make it true. If it were up to the millions of voters (the popular election) then Gore won by a margin of at least 100,000. There IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS.It is because our elections come down to a flawed and archaic electoral college system of some few hundred representatives who ACTUALLY vote for the president, and that the representatives from one state were incorrectly alloted due to party influence and initial voter tampering, that Gore lost. There is no question, but Gore lost the electoral college vote due to eight or so votes of a few hundred, and which has no bearing on the actual millions of votes cast!Please stop speaking about a system which you clearly have not one ounce of actual knowledge!By the way, you should be able to answer your own question. If a man has won an election through a flawed and corrupt system, which UNQUESTIONABLY reversed the actual choice of millions of voters, shouldn't the OTHER MAN be given back the office? If you really like freedom and democracy, there is only one answer to this question.However, there are realities which make the actual question being faced more complicated than the one you proposed. If a man unjustly won an election, but that fact was not definitely proven until he has already acquired office and has held it for some time, and a reversal at this point will complicate matters (as the OTHER MAN is not in any position to move in on short notice), is it better to let him remain in power till the next election (and see how he does) or is it better to make the switch? Add to that, the fact that your country was attacked by forces from another country and thus a war has begun, does it make sense to complicate the situation by changing leaders?Even as freedom loving and democratic as I am, I recognize that this is a much different question. I say let the bum keep his job, unless he does something really stupid. During his time in office, he has a chance to redeem his unjust acquisition of power (and so will be re-elected) or he won't (and will lose power).But I will never say that means you pretend what happened didn't really happen! I will leave that for the people who pay lip-service to democracy in order to prop up corruption.I am very sad to read that you have no real interest in democracy. It also means I have lost almost all interest in what you think. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++
D66 are liberal democrats, PvdA are social democrats, I was talking about the PvdA. You think it's democratic if for instance the Democratic party won the election and after that decided who's going to be the president? After much public pressure it seems the PvdA is going to say who is going to be candidate. Not now, but later *maybe*, if they feel so inclined, they are finally going to announce who their candidate actually is. Democracy is much an afterthought in a coalition system, it is not an obvious selfinterest of parties. Smaller parties manipulating policy through exploiting the parliament majority needed for policy is the political game. It is also very much tribal, where a great many positions get awarded according to political color, not achievement. In the Netherlands it's totally unthinkable that a minister would get appointed who supported a party not in coalition, while in the USA sometimes Democrats get posts in Republican cabinets, just because they're better at the job.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Want to hear something shocking? YOU ARE RIGHT AND I AM WRONG!As their names are not truly indicative of what they are and I don't vote for them anyway, I confused the liberal-democratic party with the social-democratic party. You are dead on RIGHT!Now please shock me and the rest of the world by announcing your lack of knowledge on ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG ABOUT!!!!! Including this one other FACT: The Pvda HAS A LEADER! His name is Wouter Bos.Your attempt to rework the plight of the Pvda for your own agenda (scaring people about the Dutch system) is just more proof you are an agent for capito-totalitarianism.The Pvda originally lost its leadership when Wim Kok and the rest of his party resigned EN MASSE, and in total disgrace, resulting in the first recent collapse of the Dutch government. A veritable death blow to ANY political party, they lost almost half of their party members (voters) in the follow-up election. The future of the party was itself in question.During the next government (which has now collapsed) the interim "leader" also bowed out due to perceived ineffectiveness, and lack of future of the party.How you spin this unfortunate up and down tale of a party facing internal problems, as evidence for an undemocratic voting process... It is just absurd and self-serving.This is not to mention your lies about the Pvda going to say who their candidate is, because of public pressure. I mean I don't know how old the newspapers are in Indonesia, but if you have the internet connection to make it to this site, you can certainly make it to all the party sites in the Netherlands. His name is Wouter Bos.It is also self-serving to portray "small parties manipulating policy through exploiting the parliament majority" as somehow vastly different and (more inconceivable to me) less democratic than what goes on in the US congress.Since the Prime Minister in the Netherlands is not the same thing as the President in the US, it does not matter whether they say who it's going to be before or after. That position is about providing leadership in the parliament and guidance for the coalition government by the ruling party by one of its leaders (and they usually have plenty of candidates listed to choose from). It's not usually about who is going to end up the leader, but about what agenda they are going to work for. It helps to have a strong presence leading the party, but "follow the leader" is not the name of the game there.Ahhhhhhhh... How refreshing that system is, where you can't base an entire (presidential) campaign on "character" rather substance of the issues. In the US it often comes down to a cult of personality to win the election. You're telling me that's better?Anyhow, once parties have their seats in parliament, I want one stitch of evidence that their multi-party system operates ANY DIFFERENTLY than the US congress, other than that in the Netherlands people have proportional representation of various political views rather than in the US where it is the "winner take all" of Democrats or Republicans (which excludes any representation of REAL minority views).And finally, your assessment that token Democrats getting chosen to fill token roles by Republicans (and vice versa) is a sign of greater democracy or equanimity between parties is such a pile of, well it's just not true at all. I triple dare you to come up with one example of an opposite party member being placed in a position of any real importance to dictate policy. Hell, Bush won't even let Powell affect foreign policy and Powell's a Republican!What's really funny about your condemnation is how it ties back in with the phony election of George Bush. The Republican led Supreme Court voted down party lines to install a member of their own party as President. This was of course in great anticipation that a member of their own party (as president) would fill the Supreme Court with more members of their own party. That's how the Supreme Court gets filled and which the republican party has been vocally supportive of using to remove the legality of abortions. No one against party lines gets appointed to the Supreme Court (unless they turn out to be party traitors later and are reviled). How does that square with your sensibilities?You seem so phony to me now it's like watching a ghost trying to play baseball, you'll simply never connect because you aren't even there.Last inning, two strikes. You have anything to admit (come on now, I was big enough to admit when I was mistaken)? Do you have any concrete evidence for any of your assertions, or patches for your theory?holmes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[B]Sorry but you are again mistaken since Wouter Bos is not the candidate for prime minister for the PvdA, he explictly said he won't do it. It *might* be the current mayor of Amsterdam, who in his current job as mayor is supposed to be above partypolitics actually. They *might* announce who it's going to be just when there isn't much of any time at all anymore to take a critical look at the person. I can easily understand your mistake, it's completely bizarre the way they handle democracy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It's bizarre the way "they" handle democracy? You mean the PvdA? Certainly you can't mean the Dutch in general. After all, in a free country a party is always free to put up a candidate or not. And you are free to vote for that party or not, even if your choice is based solely on whether they front a candidate for PM (if that issue is so important to you).Sounds pretty democratic to me.Once again you try to dodge the bullet by finding some minute detail in the complex history of a SINGLE POLITICAL PARTY to say "this is strange", in hopes that you don't have to deal with the real issue under discussion which was the democratic vs totalitarian nature of the system itself.The goings on within one political party have NO BEARING on the process itself.And anyway, let's be honest, "mistaken again" is a rather inaccurate term for my position in all of this.Wouter Bos IS the leader of the PvdA. In lead position he is likely to be the prime minister if no other candidate is presented by his party by election time. So he IS the leader of the party and defacto candidate for PM. This is not guaranteed of course, especially as he HAS expressed his disinterest in being PM. I admit he has expressed disinterest. Does that mean he's not the candidate for PM? No. He is the most likely candidate, given that he is the leader... and this fact has been discussed openly (that he would likely be PM despite his saying he doesn't want to be, if no one else comes forward).But let's say for sake of argument that Bos WILL NOT be the PM, and so they have no candidate. And I am "mistaken again."To recap what this means: Yes, I thought D66 were the social-democrats and they were in fact the liberal democrats. Huzzah for you (never mind that you initially referred to the PvdA as the socialist party which is equally untrue). And now I am wrong that the PvdA has a solid PM candidate. Huzzah for you again.I am perfectly willing to concede these points, these very tiny points, just to get back to the more important point I most correctly made in my previous post, and which you conveniently have ignored: it makes no difference if the social-democrat party HAD a candidate or NOT to the true democratic nature of the many party system in Holland.You have not explained or demonstrated why systems in which two "cult of personality" figureheads fight for domination of government, are somehow superior (or more democratic) than those having many "parties" running for proportional representation in government, especially given reallife comparisons between the two systems.Example #1: The people were upset with current political leaders/parties and wanted a change. A brand new party formed under the leadership of a charismatic individual, advocating changes that the people wanted. On the threshold of the election the leader (and the PM candidate) was murdered. This did not necessitate the loss of representation for this party. Their hopes were not tied to the existence of one cult of personality figure, which can always be killed off. They made huge gains in the election (though not enough to gain a PM position for the party). In other words, a group of people were able to change their government and wield power over it (in proportion to their numbers in society), even though in the last moments before an election their leader was murdered.Example #2: A party candidate is killed in an "accident" shortly before the election. The opposing party uses that accident as a device to remove ANY representation for all of those within the dead candidate's party. Luckily the first party was able to put someone up as a replacement, but this was not a guarantee and if the accident had happened two days later they all would have been out of luck. In other words, once ONE MAN was killed, an entire party (no matter if they were the majority in society or not) no longer had a voice at all.Example #3: A party under the successful leadership of a charismatic individual (who was elected president) pulled the country out of recession and into prosperity (I will ignore for this argument his horrendous civil rights abuses which I disliked). That individual made a personal mistake and the opposing party used "character" to try and drive him from office and discredit the party as a whole. In other words, political movements--- even if held by the majority of a society--- are tied to the personal foibles of a single man... and his cult of personality.I realize you have no interest in democracy so these examples are lost on you. But they serve as a good example of where democracy is best served, and that stands in NOT tying the hopes and political will of an entire group of people to one individual representative.Only totalitarian states are best served by this system, which you clearly feel more comfortable with, as long as they promote "family" values. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are likewise mistaken about the democratic content of coaltion government. Coalition government is only really meritable IMO when the population is so divided among themselves that they won't even have much social contact outside of the group they belong to, such as in tribal societies, and some religiously divided societies for instance. That is when it is more oppurtune to let the chiefs decide things among themselves, in stead of having the winner takes all system which would lead to oppression in the societal context.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I am not mistaken on this point at all, as I pointed out above, and you couldn't have sung the praises of a democratic government better. You said you lived in Holland, yet you think a coalition government is not suited for them, given the conditions you just said coalition governments are meritable? Sounds like they were way ahead of you.Holland has an increasingly diverse population, which thrives on tolerance. Just like the US has, and what virtue it claims to espouse. Maybe that's why I see the merits of the Dutch system of government, over the "winner takes all" system of the US. It is more suited to diverse populations living in tolerance.Such systems give all voices in society a FORCE in the government which cannot simply be ignored, and so shapes government agenda by mutual compromise and cooperation (ie, coalition), and not on shortterm legal fiat.I take from your derisive tone that only barbarians (tribal societies) allow for diversity to exist. Whereas, civilized societies will be united under one true god or faith and so understand that they must vote for god or the devil (republican or democrat) with each election. And each candidate will embody the whole and the all of that party, the icon and champion of their collective virtue (or vice). Bullhonky.IMHO civilized humans are more complex than that and should allow for diversity to exist. Admittedly that diversity will mean true political (and religious) division. As long as political representation is secure for each group those divisions can be worked out using a ballot box, instead of a cartridge box. And thus coalition governments ARE more democratic.This is not to say that the Dutch system is without flaws, or stands as the greatest government in existence today. For pete's sake, they still have a Queen! I have used them simply because they were the example YOU gave of an undemocratic system. When compared honestly, they obviously have it better off than the US. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As far as I can tell, you haven't actually made a decision if or not people should personally take care of each other's basic income, or if acting social financially should most all be done more impersonally, through big state social structures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++This is no wonder. You can't seem to figure out much of anything.I have made concrete statements on whether I think people should help each other out personally. I have also said I don't believe it is the business of the state to IMPOSE LAWS against individual freedoms in order to ENFORCE that aid. That takes humanity right out of the picture. The best bet is providing resources that enable all individuals to help themselves, and in turn to aid others. Those without fear of debt, are in the best position to aid others. Only your ludicrous theory posits that those in debt, as long as they are related, are best able to give.Sorry for getting more bitter and resentful with each post. However, I assumed I was getting into a concrete discussion of ideas, where progress toward something was possible based on the acceptance of facts as based on evidence. But we are not in such a discussion, and each post you make (save one) has taken us further from it.You do not bother to address the problems of your own theory, saying they will simply go away.Once faced with facts, you simply shut up and don't even admit you were wrong, then REassert your falsehoods as if nothing had been said to counter them.Many of your assertions are based in ad hominem characterizations (stereotypes) for which you give no concrete support.You have proven your complete ignorance of the US system of government, yet parade it as a model of wonder and goodness.You have also proven a near complete ignorance (or deliberate mischaracterization) of the Dutch system, using one party's internal problems to paint a whole system (with many other parties to choose from) as corrupt and less democratic.Jiminy Crickets, you still haven't admitted that the Dutch PM is not the same thing as a US President! That makes your comparisons between these systems of representation merely scare tactics on your part, where only those in the know can understand you are discussing apples and oranges.... wait a minute. hahahahahaha. How appropriate: American "apple" pie and Dutch "orange" flags.You claim to love freedom, while championing its opposite, and refuse to acknowledge the existence of totalitarian regimes if they serve the side of capitalism.Straight out Syamsu. You are either a liar or wish to cultivate willfull ignorance (personal and/or public).I cannot stand such people, especially when they act as mouthpieces and apologists for corruption and tyranny.The game is no longer a-foot, dear Watson, for it has most certainly revealed itself an-ass.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-19-2003][This message has been edited by holmes, 01-19-2003]

Just in case Syamsu scared anyone about the threat to democracy posed by this year's dutch elections, they are now over and it seems democracy is still intact.On the eve of the election, Wouter Bos of the PvdA announced that Amsterdam's mayor would be the official PM candidate for their party (Meaning syamsu was correct on this point... though not correct regarding whether it makes a difference to the democratic nature if they announced one at all).The PvdA staged an astounding (historic) comeback, but was 2 seats shy of unseating the current majority party (the CdA) who will keep their current PM, Balkenende.While I am sad to see the CdA remain in power, especially as they have supported Bush's push to war in Iraq, the great news is that the PvdA's massive comeback will force the CdA to move toward the center when shaping legislation.Bos, maybe he read Syamsu's posts, began pushing for the PM position to be separately elected by the public. D66 and some other parties chastised Bos for trying to steal their thunder as they have made similar proposals in the past and wish to continue that drive in the next term.So it seems that the Dutch may at some point have a separately elected PM, which Syamsu feels would be more democratic. This means even if I granted his position that the PM not being elected directly was less "democratic", his own theory that socialism leads to totalitarianism has just been unseated.Let me state this again: a socialist country is looking to adopt a greater level of democracy (by Syamsu's own definition), thus logically refuting Syamsu's assertion that socialism must tend toward totalitarianism.Of course that is even if I accept Syamsu's position on this matter, which I do not (which simply makes him more wrong). So take your pick: he's either just wrong, or REALLY wrong.Syamsu's opinions aside, there are coherent arguments to electing the PM through a separate and direct election. It would add a separate check of power to the legislative process, as well as removing parties from having to hold "presidential" and "congressional" style campaigns at the same time.Clearly this dual style election was not in PvdA's favor as some who might have voted for PvdA congressionally may have been put off by their lack of a PM candidate.Of course even if they switch to this separate PM race, it will not change the fact that the PM is NOT the same thing as a US President, and that Syamsu will probably have the same problems he did during this election, when specific parties decide not to run a PM candidate.Anyhow, most people seem happy with the results of this election. I would have preferred SP or PvdA to have the majority, but this result was not bad. It could certainly have been worse.And unlike any US election, 20 parties ran and many (not just 2-3)have a voice in their government. They also did not need a party-line vote in the judicial sytem to override the electoral system and decide by legal fiat who the leaders of the coutry would be.Syamsu will undoubtedly remain silent on this obvious lack of tyranny in the Dutch system in general, and relative greater democracy in specific.doei,
holmes

[Quote] Syamsu++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And now the biggest party is going to decide who to govern with. Will it be leftwing, will it be rightwing? Who knows. They will decide it amongst themselves, paying lipservice to the "will" of the electorate, in largely secret negotiations, which only the despot (the queen) has a right to be informed about. That is the reality of coalitiongovernment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Yawn. The electorate already decided who to govern with. They voted in an election which resulted in a "congress" consisting of representatives from many different parties.It is the "congress" that governs. Your inability to understand this fact and your repeated declarations otherwise (making it sound like the PM is the US President) just underscores your willful ignorance. You simply DO NOT WANT to understand how the dutch system works.As it stands the "majority party" (CDA) cannot do anything all by itself. It may have the majority of seats relative to other parties, but it has a minority of seats with respect to the whole of the congress.The "majority party" must form a coalition with other parties (other political viewpoints) to form a "majority coalition." This means that (unlike the US) one party cannot dominate the entire congress and pass party line votes for the whole country.If you knew half of the garbage going on in the US government, especially now that one party owns the whole system, and you were honest, you'd be railing against it instead.Afraid of things done behind closed doors? Aren't you aware that the President and Vice President of the US are conferring with business leaders and Xtian fundmentalist organizations (not to mention Ariel Sharon who's not even a US citizen) on how to shape our government and its policies behind closed doors? That they have blocked access to crucial information on this topic (when one of those businesses was found to be corrupt and directly linked to Bush and Co)?I already said I don't like the fact that the Dutch have a Queen. Not like she's really a despot, I don't see her holding the world hostage and telling other countries what governments they have to have... like Bush. But a person living off the masses for no other reason than to be a show pony, it's anachronistic.On the other hand Syamsu, it should be noted that the majority of dutch people like the Queen. Doesn't that mean using your own logic that she is good and should be there?You are ignorant, and worse than that, willfully ignorant. Get a book on dutch government before you spout off again, and one on the US government and maybe some current newspapers on what's happening in the US. And if you have such things, close your mouth, open your mind and read them carefully.I wasn't surprised when you ignored the fact that they want to move to an elected PM (which is more democratic according to your own logic), and so are refuting your whole theory.Any omission or lie to make your point.holmes

[QUOTE] by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++
Any system reform in the Netherlands would be away from coalition government, towards a more US or UK style system, since people are dissatisfied with the democratic content of the coalition system.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Like I said... any lie to make your point.No one said anything about changing from a coalition government.It is only about changing procedures on how to select a PM (which you still have not recognized is different than a US president).And Syamsu, I just LOVE how you are now making "coalition" sound like a dirty word. Coalition just means a cooperation between different parties. You don't get a more democratic system than that (unless such coalitions are designed to be only two parties of almost the exact same nature... as in the US system). I mean any congressional government is essentially a coalition government in practice, if not specifically in name.What exactly do you think of Isreal's government, #1 ally of the US? They have a coalition government.Uhhhhhhhhhh, and even if what you said above was correct, just for sake of argument, it STILL means your basic theory is WRONG. You are saying a socialist government is changing due to the will of its people to be more democratic (I might add, no one is talking about doing away with socialism). [QUOTE] by Syamsu+++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you are just another angry socialist, and your arguments don't have much of any content besides your angry socialism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++It's funny that for such lack of content you have not provided one bit of evidence to the contrary. Where is YOUR content Syamsu?I listed facts. None of which you have countered (other than PvdA was the name of the social-democrats, and that Bos was not the actual PM candidate).You have made assertions, all of which I countered with facts, and then you dropped the argument or made reassertions (without support).You say you don't want to discuss any problems in logic or fact about your positions.And now you are down to saying I am an "angry" socialist. Angry about what? I didn't say I was against electing the PM. I said I was against having a queen. I am against totalitarian regimes of any kind, including the socialist regimes (and I DO recognize such things exist).About the only thing I can see myself getting angry about is some mouthpiece for totalitarian regimes trying to convince others (through blank assertions, omissions of facts, and outright lies) that democracy is socialist-slavery and only capitalist-slavery is freedom.I only hate totalitarianism, which you apparently love.Long live your NewSpeak Syamsu.holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 01-25-2003]

Oh yeah and another thing... and this one is pretty funny... who said I was a full blown socialist (ie government running everything)?All I ever said is that socialist systems do not tend toward totalitarianism any more than other economic systems, and that some socialist programs are the best way to deal with specific problems every nation faces (especially poverty).This does not mean I believe governments should dominate the economic structure or everything within it.As it happens, I am a business owner! I make my money by selling goods and services to the public for a PROFIT without aid from the government. I certainly DO NOT like when governments interfere with (ie micomanage) honest businesses, or the free choice of their patrons.If anything Syamsu, I am an ANGRY CAPITALIST.The pathetic leader of a budding capitalist-totalitarian regime has decided to bail out all of his cronies, giving them massive amounts of money in corporate welfare, and shielding them from harm while they steal from the base population of money spenders.Furthermore, having already dumped a prosperous economy into the toilet, he has decided to complete the job and flush it into the sewer by starting a war (or at the very least disrupting the nation... not to mention the lives of families... by pulling 200,000 people out of the economy and threatening war).This horrific economy has already bankrupted one business very close to me, and nearly bankrupted two close friends of mine who own their own businesses. If it doesn't shape up soon, I'll be looking for other work to support my business until we get a president and congress in office that will restore peace and prosperity to the US.Oh yeah, and if you think Bush is for small business just because he says so (Ye gods he tries to pretend he was a small business owner because daddy bought him a football team), you are totally delusional.I can't wait for your response to that bit of news. Once again, you speak of things for which you have neither knowledge nor proof.Or did you think I was some militant socialist because I said my girlfriend and her family vote for the socialist party (and that I like that party too) in a nation that is socialist? If that's the case then, let me put your mind at ease, the brand of socialist economic system operating in Northern European countries allows for free choice and capitalist-style free markets.They are more or less capito-socialist, than hardline socialist. Certainly they aren't despotic militant socialists (unlike Bush's form of militant capitalism... kneel to corporations or we invade).Hahahaha... I mean really, if you are about to tell anyone that capitalism (free market exchange of goods and services for PROFIT) does not go on in the Netherlands you are the biggest fool I have ever known. The Dutch thrive on trade for profit. Small businesses can operate there, do operate there, and go on to great success.And they do so with less restrictions on business practices than in the US (although bureaucracy there is mind-numbing).With the socialist structures they have in place, resources are pooled using the financial successes, to create a safety net for everyone within the system, without diminishing the overall capitalist nature of business. Free choice and profit and safety.Huzzah for them! one cannot say so much for the US.holmes