[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
™ Version 4.2
