homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Your News!   » Socialism Run Amok? Or Something Else? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Author Topic: Socialism Run Amok? Or Something Else?
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 19, 2006 11:59      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Danimal:
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
I was applying Danimals "anyone who stops business doing whatever it likes is a socialist" definition [Wink]

By that definition, every political party in history (even the Libertarians) is socialist.

Hi,

I think what I said was, "When the government takss away the rights of a company by law it is, in effect, taking control fo the administration of the distribution of goods."


The definition of 'Socialism' is reasonable enough, it's your conclusion that any change to the rules governing business amounts to "taking control" of said business that I disagree with.

As I (semi jokingly) pointed out, the abolition of slavery took away the plantation owners right to own his workforce, and child labour laws took away the mine owners right to send 6 year olds down the pit. Neither change had anything to do with socialism.

There's a difference between "taking control" of a company, and setting a few ground rules that companies must operate under.

In this case, it seems that no laws have been broken and I find it hard to see how any consumer has been harmed. Apple (and other companies) have gone into the country of France not having broken any laws nor having harmed any of its citizens.

It's the whole question of 'harm' that's central to the debate. Some argue that locking consumers in to a particular supplier (because if they change, their current investment in music is lost) is harmful. Generally speaking, it's the hard-line free-marketeers who are the strongest proponents of this kind of law, not the rabid lefties.

It would appear that they are trying to change the very ground under which this business is being done.

Happens all the time.

Rules change in response to new circumstances.

There was no DMCA (or aussie equivalent) when I bought my first computer, as there was no perceived need for it. Then along came mp3, napster, DivX, et al, and governments around the world changed the ground rules to protect the film and music companies. The companies got more rights, consumers got less rights.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10668 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Danimal
Mini Geek
Member # 2016

Icon 1 posted March 19, 2006 13:53      Profile for Danimal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I appreciate your explaining your point of view.

I don't know if I can see such a clear parallel between slavery/child labor and digital copyright mangement. Businesses had/have no right in the first place to use these methods.

When it comes to copyright, this is something that already exists. If I write something I can copyright it. If I sing something I can copyright that, too. While it is two different mediums the underlying protections previously existed.

Now we have a new medium, digital computer files. It's just another medium over which copyright laws overlay.

If the French gov't wants to start taking down copyright protections (due to harm it is causing) shouldn't it just go after copyright law in general? Business either has a right to it or it does not.

Best,

Dan

--------------------
"Corporate America (or place your country here)" is one of those weird religions that still believes in human sacrifice.

Posts: 87 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Elvermere
Geek
Member # 2456

Member Rated:
2
Icon 8 posted March 19, 2006 21:50      Profile for Elvermere     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just chiming in my 2c worth to the debate.

Lets face it. DRM is all about controlling HOW we listen to music, not what music we listen to, or whether we have a license to play it.

Take CSS on DVDs. The decryption of this is trivial and was never designed to stop people from decrypting it. It was designed to enforce the region encoding on hardware players. Now the RIAA will tell you that is to combat piracy, however given that after numerous years it still hasn't reduced piracy. This is a fallacy. It is purely a way of controlling which regions can obtain access to which content. This way they can have a release schedule in different countries. And I personally think that this is ridiculous!

Now governments are there to legislate to protect their constituents. And if France is legislating to allow further access to AAC encoded files then that's great. It provides more ability for people to take advantage of the provisions of "Fair Use". Hey, New Zealand did. All DVD players sold there must be region free!

I personally believe that it is time for governments to wake up and realise that the media companies are redefining "Fair Use" around them and that they need to take a stand. I think that we need to almost atomise a recording and define that. Which means if I own a copy of "Bohemian Rhapsody" on CD, I can turn that into a MP3, Ogg etc. Likewise, if I download an AAC I should be able to MP3 it, turn it into an Ogg. And this should be made EASY, not have to jump through hoops and have to worry about legislation every time it is done. This should be clearly spelled out in law!

And in case you think I'm ranting (actually, it should go in another forum! ;-) here in Australia it is still technically illegal to rip music from a CD.

--------------------
Duct Tape is like the force.
It has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe together.

Posts: 113 | From: Perth, West AU | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 04:17      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesty:
Socialists did not end Slavery - It was a Republican!

The main thing wrong with Socialism is that socialists do not have a realistic view of human nature.

This is the fundamental flaw of Marxism - Orwell explained decades ago and yet there are some too thickheaded to understand this.

There is a logical error in your post Chesty, as you confuse Socialism with Marxism. This is something Orwell (himself a Socialist) was aware of, even if you (and much of America) are not.

I always assume that it is because the US still has not really come to terms with the evil wrought during the MacCarthy era, that you find socialist ideas so scary, to the bemusement of the rest of the world.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 07:32      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Danimal:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesty:
A democrat gave the blacks the vote because he said if he did "the democrats will have every nigger vote for forty years".

Chesty,

If this is, in fact, true I would really like to have an authoratative reference on it. It interests me. Would you be willing to PM that to me?

I'm not trying to open up a debate or challenge you. It seems like learning more about that quote, who said it, and finding out the back story on it would be a very interesting political study subject.

Best,

Danimal

PS: Please don't post that here. I think it would start a maelstrom.

After reading an interesting article on CNN.com this morning about slavery in the north, And then reading this post. I decided to do some internet investigating on the origin of the above quote. I have found nothing.

Specifically , who is the pronoun "he" refering to?

Eisenhower, who signed the Civil acts right of 1957 and 1960 into law, was a republican. Are you speaking of LBJ, who signed the voting rights act into law in 1965? This quote in not attributed to him. Are you speaking of Abraham Lincoln, again, he was a republican.

I call Shenanigans

I accuse you of talking out of your *ss to get a rise out of people or to defend a weakly held position.

I know in a way I am just encouraging you by responding but some things, like racism, I won't let lie.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 10:04      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesty:
Socialists did not end Slavery - It was a Republican!

The main thing wrong with Socialism is that socialists do not have a realistic view of human nature.

This is the fundamental flaw of Marxism - Orwell explained decades ago and yet there are some too thickheaded to understand this.

There is a logical error in your post Chesty, as you confuse Socialism with Marxism. This is something Orwell (himself a Socialist) was aware of, even if you (and much of America) are not.

I always assume that it is because the US still has not really come to terms with the evil wrought during the MacCarthy era, that you find socialist ideas so scary, to the bemusement of the rest of the world.

I always assumed that McCarthy was a symptom, rather than a cause, of the Red Scare. The often aggressive behavior of the USSR was particularly frightening to Americans. As independent as we tend to be, Soviet Marxism was a very scary thing. I believe McCarthy merely tapped into that in an attempt to further his political career.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
ChildeRoland
Alpha Geek
Member # 3880

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 10:32      Profile for ChildeRoland     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:


I always assume that it is because the US still has not really come to terms with the evil wrought during the MacCarthy era, that you find socialist ideas so scary, to the bemusement of the rest of the world.

I don't really care if you are "bemused." Socialism is scary. The idea that the government should control the people instead of the other way around is what this country was founded to fight, as well as being absolutely absurd and a relic of the very dark past of the human race.

--------------------
=====================
Childe Roland

Posts: 311 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 10:52      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:


I always assume that it is because the US still has not really come to terms with the evil wrought during the MacCarthy era, that you find socialist ideas so scary, to the bemusement of the rest of the world.

I don't really care if you are "bemused." Socialism is scary. The idea that the government should control the people instead of the other way around is what this country was founded to fight, as well as being absolutely absurd and a relic of the very dark past of the human race.
There are socialist democracies. All socialists are not Marxists. I guess I am using the "all salmon are fish but not all fish are salmon" argument. Socialism isn't a problem as long as everybody has a say in what "whole" is doing. I agree that some of the worst dicttators of the century have come from socialist communist states. Don't let that cloud the truth. Capatalism is far from the universal freedom we are all told is our birth right.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
ChildeRoland
Alpha Geek
Member # 3880

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 10:55      Profile for ChildeRoland     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just because they're not Marxists doesn't mean that they're not bad.

quote:
Capatalism is far from the universal freedom we are all told is our birth right.
And why shouldn't it be?

--------------------
=====================
Childe Roland

Posts: 311 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 20, 2006 14:20      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think of Hutterites as a decent example of what socialism can look like when done well. I just think it's problematic when you move beyond small communes.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 00:38      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChildeRoland:
Just because they're not Marxists doesn't mean that they're not bad.

quote:
Capatalism is far from the universal freedom we are all told is our birth right.
And why shouldn't it be?
I'm not saying it (capitalism) shouldn't be free. I'm saying it's not. The best men or women don't win elections. The richest do. I see this as no different from having a minority population political party running a country. (marxism, maoism)

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Danimal
Mini Geek
Member # 2016

Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 05:19      Profile for Danimal     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahem (clears throat), [Smile]

I think we are running a bit off of the track here, aren't we? I would like to keep this topic to the original post. Actually, I'd like to move it to the futre based on the original post. (Hey, can I do that?) [Smile]

Let's assume that France does force the file player to be "open/interoperable." Does anyone think that MS, Apple and others won't pull out? Does anyone think that the record companies will allow them to offer non-DRM music? Unless there were some way to control the interoperability to within Frances borders why wouldn't they?

If they could find a way what would stop France from making that illegal, too? [Smile] (Yeah, just being a wee sarcastic there.)

Does having a pullout of these companies help or harm the constituancy?

One last question. Since most users are aware of the restrictions before buying the iPod (or other device) and since many of them buy one anyway, shouldn't that serve as a signal that the government is doing something that its populace isn't really all that upset about in the first place?

Best,

Danimal

--------------------
"Corporate America (or place your country here)" is one of those weird religions that still believes in human sacrifice.

Posts: 87 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 05:57      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Danimal:
Ahem (clears throat), [Smile]

I think we are running a bit off of the track here, aren't we? I would like to keep this topic to the original post. Actually, I'd like to move it to the futre based on the original post. (Hey, can I do that?) [Smile]

Let's assume that France does force the file player to be "open/interoperable." Does anyone think that MS, Apple and others won't pull out? Does anyone think that the record companies will allow them to offer non-DRM music? Unless there were some way to control the interoperability to within Frances borders why wouldn't they?

If they could find a way what would stop France from making that illegal, too? [Smile] (Yeah, just being a wee sarcastic there.)

Does having a pullout of these companies help or harm the constituancy?

One last question. Since most users are aware of the restrictions before buying the iPod (or other device) and since many of them buy one anyway, shouldn't that serve as a signal that the government is doing something that its populace isn't really all that upset about in the first place?

Best,

Danimal

The French can do what they want to. As an american working at an american company abroad I will tell you something obvious that I have found americans don't like. If you operate an american firm abroad, you have to follow the rules of whatever country you are in.
The Frech have democratically elected leaders. If they say Apple has to open up, well apple can open up or leave. If they leave people will simply use other players or buy them in other countries. The point is if the French think it is wrong it is up to them to vote in other leaders and change the laws. It is of total inconsequence what the laws are in the USA or what Americans think France should do.
If thier democratically elected leaders make laws setting prices for goods or music downloads. It is up to the companies operating in France to obey. We Americans complain when foreign countries try to interfere with our politics. I think Americans should start being less hypocritical about this point.

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 09:22      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as I know the French having floated the idea have now decided not to pursue it, so the question is now hypothetical.

The reactions to my remark about socialism only confirms its truth. As far as the Red Scare goes, since the fall of communism it has become abundantly clear that the US hugely overestimated both Russia's desire and capability for war. You scared yourselves and MacCarthy was a major cause of that, not just a symptom.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sxeptomaniac

Member # 3698

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 10:33      Profile for Sxeptomaniac   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
The reactions to my remark about socialism only confirms its truth. As far as the Red Scare goes, since the fall of communism it has become abundantly clear that the US hugely overestimated both Russia's desire and capability for war. You scared yourselves and MacCarthy was a major cause of that, not just a symptom.

Hindsight is 20/20. We know now that the USSR wasn't as strong as it seemed, but they didn't know it then. Americans may have done their part in scaring themselves, but the USSR sure didn't put out a lot of friendly vibes at the time.

--------------------
Let's pray that the human race never escapes from Earth to spread its iniquity elsewhere. - C. S. Lewis

Posts: 1590 | From: Fresno, CA | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 18:54      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
March 20, 2006 04:17
... you confuse Socialism with Marxism. This is something Orwell (himself a Socialist) was aware of, even if you (and much of America) are not.

(Lifted quote) "Animal Farm, while obviously referring to the general scope of all forms of totalitarian governments, may be seen as a satire of the Russian Revolution of 1917 in particular."

"Socialism" has "problems of scalability." For a family living on its own in "the wilderness," it's "great," everyone gives their all to share with "everyone," without reservation.

quote:
March 20, 2006 14:20
I think of Hutterites as a decent example of what socialism can look like when done well. I just think it's problematic when you move beyond small communes.

"Large Scale Socialism" does not work because it contradicts human nature. Small: people are willing to give to "their own" people. Large: people are not willing to give (for nothing in return) to others who are "nothing like" themselves.

The simple result is that "all large scale" Socialism quickly becomes "Marxism" because large populations will not "conform to Socialist values" (of giving), and the only way for the "Socialist" government to remain in power is through totalitarian means. Just for fun, imagine a 50/50 mix of Jews and Arabs in the Mideast as a "socialist" state. (It won't work.... Of course, lots of other ethnic combinations would fail in an equally spectacular manner.)

quote:
March 20, 2006 10:52
There are socialist democracies.

Could you clarify that with examples? One could argue that unemployment benefits (policies), welfare, and social security are "socialist" programs in the US.

quote:
Capitalism is far from the universal freedom we are all told is our birth right.
IIRC: The Greeks considered "Democracy" to be "bad" because it was equated to mob rule (to include oppression of minorities). Representation (Democracy by "the enlightened citizens") was good. Regardless of the form of government, each could be Good or Bad, based on the leaders and the nature of the society itself.
quote:
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”
    -- James Bovard

quote:
Socialism isn't a problem as long as everybody has a say in what "whole" is doing.
[Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]     If "everybody has a say" then it's a "democracy." [Wink]

quote:
March 21, 2006 09:22
The reactions to my remark about socialism only confirms its truth. As far as the Red Scare goes, since the fall of communism it has become abundantly clear that the US hugely overestimated both Russia's desire and capability for war.

What do you think the presence of the USSR in Afghanistan indicated about Russia's "desire" for war? (I doubt you want other examples of "state-implemented-socialism," death tolls included.)

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 19:18      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 19:50      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Smile] I like the Bovard quote. [thumbsup]

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 2 posted March 21, 2006 22:44      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RE: Post on March 21, 2006, 19:18

Cap'n Vic, you're still an idiot. You're vulgar and have anal and homosexual fixations. If there was truly "Socialized Health Care" where you live, you would receive the medication and therapy that you need. Otherwise, it's probably far too expensive for you.

PS: A democracy can have "social" programs, but a socialist state will not have "democratic" programs. Social programs in a democracy are either approved or terminated (in the interest of capitalism for example). Historically, those who disapprove of "social programs" in a "socialist state" usually suffer "grave misfortune."

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 22:54      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^
|
|
Please don't feed the troll...

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rhonwyyn

Solid Gold SuperFan!
Member # 2854

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 21, 2006 23:27      Profile for Rhonwyyn   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
Historically, those who disapprove of "social programs" in a "socialist state" usually suffer "grave misfortune."

Was the pun intended? 'Cause I found that absolutely hysterical!!

But then again, I'm just wired tonight; who knows why?! [crazy]

--------------------
Change the way you SEE, not the way you LOOK!

Posts: 3849 | From: Lancaster, PA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ashitaka

SuperFan!
Member # 4924

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 22, 2006 00:01      Profile for Ashitaka     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 2006 10:52
There are socialist democracies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you clarify that with examples? One could argue that unemployment benefits (policies), welfare, and social security are "socialist" programs in the US.

I would consider Sweden a socialist democracy even though it's technically a constitutional monarchy. Yes, I do consider Welfare, unemployment benefits and social security Socialist programs in the US. FDR was obviously a socialist. Is anybody going to agrue against his ability to run the US?

--------------------
"If they're not gonna make a distinction between Muslims and violent extremists, then why should I take the time to distinguish between decent, fearful white people and racists?"

-Assif Mandvi

Posts: 3089 | From: Switzerland | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 22, 2006 08:15      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do not know whether it is intentional, in which case you must know that you are trollishly committing logical errors, or simply because of ignorance, but no matter how many times it has been pointed out, the people on the right are still confusing Socialism with Marxism. For what its worth Socialism is not necessarily an all or nothing dogmatic political ideology, unlike the extreme, weakest go to the wall, hard line market economics you espouse. In Europe most countries have democratic socialist parties of some description, and though we might not be quite as wealthy as yourselves, we all seem to be doing OK. Socialist values have something to do with wanting a society with humane values, and is in my opinion one of the marks of advanced, outward looking, and civilised nations.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted March 22, 2006 09:46      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:

Cap'n Vic, you're still an idiot. You're vulgar and have anal and homosexual fixations.

So, shall I add 'the gays' to your ever growing hate list?

You poor, angry, lonely, broken little boy.

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted March 22, 2006 11:30      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 20, 2006 10:52
There are socialist democracies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you clarify that with examples? One could argue that unemployment benefits (policies), welfare, and social security are "socialist" programs in the US.

I would consider Sweden a socialist democracy even though it's technically a constitutional monarchy. Yes, I do consider Welfare, unemployment benefits and social security Socialist programs in the US. FDR was obviously a socialist. Is anybody going to agrue against his ability to run the US?
I'd add Denmark, Norway, and Belgium to the list. There's probably others as well. Many EU members have socialistic elements, and the citizens, as far as I can tell, seem to enjoy high living standards. In Denmark (the EU country I am, for various reasons, the most familiar with) the rich-poor gap is much narrower than it is in the US, so you don't see huge houses, nor do you see really shitty neighborhoods. The Danes themselves have a very egalitarian attitude towards each other. They are also very proud of being Danish. So proud they didn't switch over to the Euro, but that's another story. Granted, European nations have their problems, but so do we.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam