Sorry, double post.
Sorry, double post.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
"Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief and if believed it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
That is not a subsidy.
I see you wish to live in a society in which the working class lives in the street and has no access to health care. It is indeed a good solution for the vehicle problem, as people can simply sleep in their job's street, and they won't need an insurance for fire either.A vehicle, house, and insurance are not required to live.
God loves me, and He's monogamous. || Improve the world, start with yourself.
dude ,your point of view is good one to bad most of the people dont have it. Seem like John Lennon song "Imagine" lyric. anyway Russian already try socialism and you see it didnt work out,China too during Mao Ze Dong era. Did they didnt share the food ??? Yes they share. And still i didnt enough.
Modding is like accursed wine, you try a sip and you ended empty the whole glass
Under Proud Patronage of Shankbot de Bodemloze
Well communism and socialism aren't exactly the same thing, and typically when people talk about societal "sharing", they aren't talking about completely equitable resource distribution, just something that isn't as horribly warped as it is in the current market system.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
It's unfortunate that so many are falsely conditioned to believe that totalitarianism or communism are somehow synonymous with socialism. There are so many unfortunate and weak-minded individuals behaving like trained animals, constantly shouting of "freedom" and realizing they have none, nor will they ever.
It is my view that socialism is the most desirable and pursuit-of-happiness-conductive middle road between highly-repressive communism and highly-repressive capitalism.
But how will people trade goods, property, and services if not by force in a truly socialist state? There is no option but to be repressive if the government is to maintain order. Forcing people to take part in a collectivist society whether it be against their will or otherwise is not freedom, it's oppression.
Secondly, repression is impossible in a truly capitalist society simply because the state isn't powerful enough. The examples of a "capitalist society gone rogue" are generally mis-named corporate failures, which are not capitalist in any shape or form.
"Weapons of war have no place on American streets." (President Barack Obama), which is why the DHS needs 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, 7000 MRAPs to be delivered by 2014, and one M-16 per agent.
My guess for the same exact reasons as in every other society.
Capitalism has nothing to do with a government system and doesn't dictate what government system is "compatible" with it. Capitalism is just an economic system.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
That doesn't make the vehicle a need that should be subsidized by the government though. A need is something that you literally can not live without. You can live without a vehicle. You are restricted in what jobs you can take, but that still does not qualify a vehicle as a necessity.
Nope, health care isn't free in Australia either. But that doesn't make health care a necessity. Again, a need - something absolutely essential to survival that no human being could possibly live without. There are humans who live without health insurance or healthcare just fine. Again, it's far riskier but it isn't essential to your survival, which means it's not a need.
What's wrong with subjectively deciding the results of the market aren't moral, and that some people deserve to be have more money and others less?
But non-state actors certainly are.
These protesters were murdered on behalf of Shell in 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa
Last edited by removeduser_4536284751384; March 09, 2013 at 05:38 PM.
If a company is only able to make profit by not providing its workers with a decent wage, enough to cover their needs, it shouldn't even ****ing exist.
I don't know if you 've been living in a cave, but a house IS required to live. Not merely survive the harsh elements, but actually live. We are at the apogee of our civilisation and yet the poor are multiplying, while in just 4 years the combined wealth of the Forbes 500 increased from $2.4 trillion to $5.4 trillion. Something IS ****ing broken.
Hellenic Air Force - Death, Destruction and Mayhem!
Nobody is arguing this point. The point of contention is what exactly are "needs".
The way you phrase it, I take this to mean "own your own home". This is not a need, it is a desire. The need is shelter and you don't need to own a home to satisfy that need. You can rent apartments, apply for government housing etc. Forcing a company to pay someone enough to pay off their mortgage is indeed subsidization.
Well. I think its very wonderous that these market-fundamentalists are being so fundemental when there really isnt a free-market to be fundamental about, all while there is a very rigged market increasingly rearing its ugly head.
Why the hell would anyone just accept your nonsense as a given?
The market is all what we make it to be. Either driven by good intent for as many as possible by consious decision and checks and balances, or lead by this individualist religious doctrine "that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone".
Which is actually just oligarchy when you take into account the trans-national overarching power that is the finance-capital in the hands of these wicked men.
Who has wonderful faith in free markets right now? I've heard a lot of free market proponents criticising the lack of freedom and the evil of influence. Now argue against what they actually say by all means or keep fighting your phantoms.
Thorn. Always fighting phantoms.
They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.
And then your new found faith is actually worse and more stupid from a popular perspective. Its just neo-liberalism. At least the libertarians got some game-changers in stall, which wont happen, but at least they got an idea about some of the bad things. Still issue lemmings though...wasted energy better used elsewhere while on certain issues delivering the popular support needed for the plutocratic issues.
The guys from your new found faith are to me quite mysterious that I can only explain doing the outsourcing, privatization, and derugaltion jingoism, in that they dont want to change to a quasi dying out camp that feeds of people feeling the pain again(but growing in the GIIPS again) instead of being portrayed as a trendy and intellectual way to keep on believing in all those things you believed in pre 2008.
God forbid ever giving in to, or even worse changing the camp, to those godawful naive hippies and violent socialists.
Not even pure anarcho capitalists truly support unfettered, it is simply exchanging one form of regulation for another (whether that is workable or not is a debate for another time and not one I can answer). I think there is a big difference between pro market and pro business. I'm not sure that you can be anything but pro business and special interests to want absolutely no arbitration between the market and the consumer.
I have absolutely no idea whats in that pipe of yours but I'd like some. I keep asking for a translator to help me get what you are trying to say but no one ever comes forward.
Hiding behind the pop-opinion others might have as well. How intellectual and daring. And its FREE!
But essentially in your response to Spartan you agree with the post of mine you originally responded to. You just think doing wicked in coalition with govt produces non-wicked outcomes. And that my friend, is effective marketing.
But OK, let me not be as harsch and call your ideas neo-liberal, or neo-Thatcherite. Thats running out of fashion lately and has so much stinking old stigma. Maybe a bit Avant Garde but maybe Fascist gets trendy again, or how about that VOC Mentality? I know GB had the same thing in the East-India-Company. Perfect merge of state and corporate powers doing them wicked things and being all fancy about themselves and the markets they created.
Real wealth creators that make people like Nial Ferguson proud about who they are. That seems trendy. Go with that. Never give in to all that fail you supported over all these years. Just put on a new suit and demand more of it.