Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

c_man

pO1Neil wrote: »

Do any workers in a EU country control the means of production yet?

My means of production is an open source compiler. Please, go on.

I am pie

Venezuelans it seems aren't capable of being angry to the point of wanting to kick out the government as a result of:

1. Highest murder rate in the world
2. Inability to meet demand for simple goods, toilet roll, milk etc because protectionist policies destroyed the incentive to produce anything. Impossible to source materials needed for production and keep pace with inflation = shut factory doors.
3. Violent repression of protests.

Oh no, those silly venezuelans, they need those clever americans to tell them to be all annoyed and angry about these things.

Once inflation and protectionism go beyond a certain tipping point they start to bite the poor who had previously benefited from them. When people with very little resources or ability to feed themselves are pushed to desperation you will see violence. Venezuela is a perfect storm of an ideologically strangled economy, poverty, violence and international isolation. All this with the world's biggest oil reserves.

bumper234

pO1Neil wrote: »

Fair enough I didn't honestly know that. It's strange that byumper234 liked your post tho because according to him no Irish people exist.

What an idiotic post.

Capt'n Midnight

titan18 wrote: »

I'd love to live in that country.

I always amazed at how many liberatarians would love to live in a fully deregulated country and how few have actually moved to places like Somalia

PopePalpatine

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I always amazed at how many liberatarians would love to live in a fully deregulated country and how few have actually moved to places like Somalia

Maybe it's because the likes of al-Shabab are in control there, and not Jordan Belfort wannabes?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Gringo180 wrote: »

Or else you could visit a place called Flint, Michigan in the richest most capitalist country in the world .

Or scanavia, where a mix of socialism and capitalism works well in create a bloody efficient country and people that regularly top the happiest nation polls.

jank

jank wrote: »

If there ever was a government program I would support it would be a 'cultural' exchange program whereby the biggest moaners and whingers are flown to places like Venezuela or Cambodia or India or mulitple places in Africa and see what real poverty actually looks like. They will all go home with a sense of perspective and thank their lucky stars that they were born in a country that has given them so much...

This 'thank your lucky stars you weren't born in Nicaragua' attitude sickens me.

OneEightSeven

stankratz wrote: »

This 'thank your lucky stars you weren't born in Nicaragua' attitude sickens me.

That's known as the "lesser evil" fallacy. You get a lot of that sillyness on a forum populated by liberals or socialists.

However, the poster who believes Ireland isn't much better off than Venezuela is just talking shíte because I personally don't know of anyone getting food rations.

Doctor Strange

fran17 wrote: »

Of course the elephant in the room as always is the good old u s of a.never a shrinking violet when it comes to manipulating south American countries and there economy's.might it be ripe for a cia backed coup? Time will tell

CT is that way

---

>

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Doctor Strange wrote: »

CT is that way

---

>

Oh, that's not theory. Have a quick look at a dicmemtary called 'The War On Democracy' and how Chavez was susted by US intervention and then tell me its a 'theory'.

The only way its a theory is in the same way evolution is s theory.

titan18

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I always amazed at how many liberatarians would love to live in a fully deregulated country and how few have actually moved to places like Somalia

Weather wouldn't suit me really, nor am I a Muslim

Wibbs

titan18 wrote: »

There has to be a basic level of care provided (e.g people shouldn't be dying of starvation, some standard of education provided etc), but it gets taken too far and you just end up subsidizing people, which if you're on about fairness, isn't really fair to be the people earning that money and having loads of it taken out in taxes.

In an ideal scenario, I'd rather low taxes and people had the responsibility to plan for themselves and their futures (e.g low pensions, no children's allowance etc). Just because some people won't plan ahead or aren't intelligent enough to, I don't see why other's should pay for them.

Then what happens to those people? What happens to those further down the foodchain(a lot of the time down to an accident of birth)? The fact is children of rich parents are significantly more likely to be rich and create riches than children of poor parents. Even middle class parents are more likely to have middle class kids. Increase libertarian thinking and that gap will widen, social mobility will drop. Unnatural selection with a stacked deck.

When everything has a price then you rapidly get a two tier society. Well more like a three tier. Those who accumulate the most wealth, wage slaves who make up the majority and the poor. Exploitation from the top down is a near given. Further consolidation of wealth and therefore access to pretty basic needs ramps up.

The thing is T, either way society will end up paying for them in one way or another. Either financially or socially.

As I said a balance needs to be struck between the extremes. It quite simply can't be black and white. Yes I agree socialist thinking can most certainly lead to a lack of motivation. Both for those in receipt of social welfare and those taxed to provide it. Unless a society is extremely stable and wealthy it's unsustainable. I would also agree with you that the levels in Ireland can be too high and/or wrongfully applied to the wrong groups. Take pensions. The state pension should be only given to people below a certain threshold and lower than it is. I'd extend that to other OAP benefits too like free travel etc. Again if above a certain threshold GTFO. This would free up a shedload of cash and those who actually needed it would still get it. I'd apply a fine toothcomb to medical cards and child benefit and the dole and school fees with it. Too often with socialist policies it's not just the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, but every wheel on the bloody truck and it just means a waste of oil. social support needs to be in place for a fair society, I would hate to live in a society where charity was the only option, but it needs to be targeted correctly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Or scanavia, where a mix of socialism and capitalism works well in create a bloody efficient country and people that regularly top the happiest nation polls.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich?utm_content=buffer9e25b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Jcarroll07

I think it can be safely said that there is not such thing as a Socialist paradise. The sooner people give up on the idea of far left wing and indeed far right wing politics the better off the world will be.

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich?utm_content=buffer9e25b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Sweden is a state that either side can and do point to in defence of their black and white arguments. The reality is greyer as one should expect. For a start the Swedish work ethic as a cultural thing. Sweden is wealthy, but if you look at their diaspora in the US they're also wealthier than the average bear. Two different systems, similar result.

I await the links that show Hong Kong to be another Libertarian example. That's usually good for a giggle. Then again Libertarianism has one big issue; namely that unlike socialism in its various forms from left to centre, there are no Libertarian societies to point to. Yes there are some more Libertarian than others, but they also operate a "socialist" angle with it.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Sweden is a state that either side can and do point to in defence of their black and white arguments. The reality is greyer as one should expect. For a start the Swedish work ethic as a cultural thing. Sweden is wealthy, but if you look at their diaspora in the US they're also wealthier than the average bear. Two different systems, similar result.

Yes, it is a cultural thing. It's also addressed in the long history outlined in the link, which is a very interesting read. Try it.
If any of the facts outlined in the essay are incorrect please do let me know

titan18

Wibbs wrote: »

Then what happens to those people? What happens to those further down the foodchain(a lot of the time down to an accident of birth)? The fact is children of rich parents are significantly more likely to be rich and create riches than children of poor parents. Even middle class parents are more likely to have middle class kids. Increase libertarian thinking and that gap will widen, social mobility will drop. Unnatural selection with a stacked deck.

When everything has a price then you rapidly get a two tier society. Well more like a three tier. Those who accumulate the most wealth, wage slaves who make up the majority and the poor. Exploitation from the top down is a near given. Further consolidation of wealth and therefore access to pretty basic needs ramps up.

The thing is T, either way society will end up paying for them in one way or another. Either financially or socially.

As I said a balance needs to be struck between the extremes. It quite simply can't be black and white. Yes I agree socialist thinking can most certainly lead to a lack of motivation. Both for those in receipt of social welfare and those taxed to provide it. Unless a society is extremely stable and wealthy it's unsustainable. I would also agree with you that the levels in Ireland can be too high and/or wrongfully applied to the wrong groups. Take pensions. The state pension should be only given to people below a certain threshold and lower than it is. I'd extend that to other OAP benefits too like free travel etc. Again if above a certain threshold GTFO. This would free up a shedload of cash and those who actually needed it would still get it. I'd apply a fine toothcomb to medical cards and child benefit and the dole and school fees with it. Too often with socialist policies it's not just the squeaky wheel that gets the oil, but every wheel on the bloody truck and it just means a waste of oil. social support needs to be in place for a fair society, I would hate to live in a society where charity was the only option, but it needs to be targeted correctly.

I'd agree to an extent, but then I'd argue a lot of the stuff in the first paragraph exists now, and unless you go far towards a socialist system, will exist in any system.

I wouldn't argue for a fully libertarian system, extremes are never good. Some taxes have to exist, that's unavoidable. You need infrastructure, you need basic healthcare and education (I don't agree on free college fees, free GP visits etc) and you can't leave people starve or go homeless.

You don't need large governments though, children's allowance is unnecessary (especially the way we run it, I'd argue for tax allowance on 1 or 2 children to a certain income and after that, nothing). Tax people less and give them responsibility to look after their own pensions and their own lives, rather than needing Governments to step in and provide from other people's money.

I'm not suggesting a society with no form of social support, that'd be crazy and there's enough money in the world that people don't need to die needlessly like that, but I'd rather people to make their own financial decisions and have their own fiscal responsibility, rather than relying on others.

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich?utm_content=buffer9e25b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Wikipedia wrote:

...From 2006 to 2007 he was a Senior Fellow with the Brussels-based think tank Centre for the New Europe.
Since March 15, 2007 he has been a Senior Fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute. He is also a member of the international Mont Pelerin Society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Norberg

So he's a member of no less than three well known free-market propaganda institutes - Cato, Mont Pelerin, and CNE - two of them known for propagating anti-scientific views, such as global warming denial (among much more).

Knowing this, why would anyone who doesn't already support the article, bother reading or addressing it?

Wibbs

KyussBishop wrote: »

Knowing this, why would anyone who doesn't already support the article, bother reading or addressing it?

Oh I'd read it and did, however one has to keep in mind the interpretation of the facts presented depending on the source. Isms have much in common with religion, both rely heavily on the converted and interpretation and obfuscation of things that may not agree with their catechism. Like I said the one country Sweden is held up as a model by both sides of the argument. That alone should tell the casual observer that the realities lay somewhere in the middle. The converted will rarely see that.

Balmed Out

The amazing thing about Venezuela is that it just has so much going for it. One of the most pleasant and agriculturally productive climates you could hope for, so much mineral resources as well as oil and a countryside with a massive diversity of scenery with so much beauty and so close to the USA it should nearly be able to get by on tourism alone.

KyussBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'd read it and did, however one has to keep in mind the interpretation of the facts presented depending on the source. Isms have much in common with religion, both rely heavily on the converted and interpretation and obfuscation of things that may not agree with their catechism. Like I said the one country Sweden is held up as a model by both sides of the argument. That alone should tell the casual observer that the realities lay somewhere in the middle. The converted will rarely see that.

True - true; I just like to check up on my sources

I try to avoid reading anything from questionable sources, because:
1: Not many people are aware, that everyone is susceptible to believing falsehoods/myths (that they once knew were false), through repeat exposure making it sink in - and

2: There are usually a gish gallop of 'facts' presented in such articles, that are too numerous/time-consuming to rebut - this also means, you start 'learning' them by repetition, since you don't have the time to stop and debunk every falsehood (so even if you rebut nearly all of them, the few you skip over, can still sink-in).

Grayson

bluewolf wrote: »

Yes, it is a cultural thing. It's also addressed in the long history outlined in the link, which is a very interesting read. Try it.
If any of the facts outlined in the essay are incorrect please do let me know

I believe he's talking about the protestant work ethic. Something that isn't mentioned in the article.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

bluewolf wrote: »

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich?utm_content=buffer9e25b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Talking more about modern Sweden (although the Sweden outline at the start of that document reminds me a lto of the US today).

There are, of course, other factors. Culture, as Wibbs pointed out. But also a sense of community amongst them, I find. Irrespective of the facts and figures and economic data, Swedes, in my experience feel happier and secure. Excellent facilities, good health care and education seem to be what makes people happier than lower taxes.

Just my take,

KyussBishop

Is there any proof that governments in the western world, nurture dependency on a wide scale?

People may come to depend on government (e.g. the unemployed), but to claim that government nurtured/caused that, is something else entirely.

Depending on government, when there are no other options and it is needed for a decent quality of life, is not a bad thing - that is a good thing; it means decent social supports are in place, for the unlucky.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

Is there any proof that governments in the western world, nurture dependency on a wide scale?

People may come to depend on government (e.g. the unemployed), but to claim that government nurtured/caused that, is something else entirely.

Depending on government, when there are no other options and it is needed for a decent quality of life, is not a bad thing - that is a good thing; it means decent social supports are in place, for the unlucky.

One could point to intra generational dole recipients.

JuliusCaesar

The problem with bringing in an argument of libertarianism is that it means so many different things to different people, from the extreme right wing crazies in their armed compounds in the wilds of the US, to the ideas of democratic socialism in Europe:

Chomsky (2004). p. 739. "The term 'libertarian' as used in the U.S. means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. Socialist anarchism was libertarian socialism. In the U.S., which is a society much more dominated by business, the term has a different meaning. It means eliminating or reducing state controls, mainly controls over private tyrannies. Libertarians in the U.S. don't say, Let's get rid of corporations. It is a sort of ultra-rightism."

From here

(Following on from the quote above, how about capitalism without limited liability companies? Where companies are not 'incorporated' or turned into bodies/personages? Where the stockholders and owners of the company ARE liable? Are liable for their debts and doings? We'd have a lot less flagrant breaches of law and ethics if they were, like the Lloyds 'names' held to account for their actions, and financially collectively responsible. Imagine if the boards of banks had known that they would have had to repay any money lost though their doings - they would have been much more careful.)

diveout

To compare Scandinavian nations to Venezuela is not going to get you anywhere.

For one thing, let's start with the Protestant work ethic, it just doesn't exist in Catholic nations where it's easier for a camel to get into the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven. I know people point to it as a socialist paradise, but they have a sense of kinship, one which may not correspond well with the ever evolving multi cultural Europe. And time will tell.

Secondly, when Chavez took over Venezuela, much of Venezuela's rich and middle class left for Florida. The other thing about South American countries is that they have always had instability and are post colonial. Some theorests have suggested that as a result of their colonial history it might work even if they put in place a figure head monarchy, one that had no actual power but that led to a feeling of security and would install as a bi product of symbolic domination, a stability. This is not a problem in Scandinavian nations.

Plus, I suspect that their version of socialism, is not exactly what is applied in places like Cuba or Venezuela. They did not have a revolution for example, and whatever romance you have about revolution, you cannot traumatise your people and then expect them to be rebuild a nation with any competancy or expediency.

CruelCoin

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Were not doing much better and were a capitalist paradise. top 1% have 10% of the wealth.

At least i don't have to queue 2 hours for bogroll.

Tail Docker

Is it possible that the headline should be "Long time shat-upon kip Venezuela proves to be a bit of a kip once more". Not sure what part socialism has to play, I think they could have a massive ideology shift to Green and Anti-Austerity and still prove to be a bit of a kip. South America tends to lurch from cleptocracy to dictatorship to foreign dominated puppet governance regardless of the prevailing/fashionable "ideology" adopted.

blatantrereg

pO1Neil wrote: »

Do any workers in a EU country control the means of production yet?

Small businesspeople?

Calibos

The Catholic/Protestant work ethic divide is a myth.

KyussBishop

KyussBishop wrote: »

Knowing this, why would anyone who doesn't already support the article, bother reading or addressing it?

I take you off ignore for one minute and this is what you're posting. Are you serious? Surely it would have taken less effort to read the thing than go off doing research to find out just how much you can poison the well?

I don't care if you don't agree with it, but it's an interesting history, and I've already said if any of it is wrong, let us know. Facts are facts no matter how much you hate campaign groups.
I think you'd argue the sky was green if someone in cato institute said it was blue

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

. Excellent facilities, good health care and education seem to be what makes people happier than lower taxes.

Just my take,

I think the lesson to learn from it is that the former is easier to achieve after the latter

mariaalice

Calibos wrote: »

The Catholic/Protestant work ethic divide is a myth.

That might be true but there is something cultural in all this there has to be, for example look at the water charges, if you look at my thread about saving water it eventually descended in to ...how will I cheat the system, you just do not get that in the Nordic countries or in Germany ( except to a minor degree ) even the uk is different, my husband grew up in the uk and came here as an adult and he comments all the time about the expectation people here have that they should be let away with things. All those things have to be routed in culture and maybe it is the same in south America.

ryan101

jank wrote: »

If there ever was a government program I would support it would be a 'cultural' exchange program whereby the biggest moaners and whingers are flown to places like Venezuela or Cambodia or India or mulitple places in Africa and see what real poverty actually looks like. They will all go home with a sense of perspective and thank their lucky stars that they were born in a country that has given them so much...

Bertie Ahern had a similar suggestion, i.e. that his critics should commit suicide.
I think Ireland should aim for higher things than parity with second and third world countries.
I would think it better to fly people who think Ireland needs no improvement over to a few Scandinavian countries.
We should be looking up and ahead, not back and down.

karma_

bluewolf wrote: »

I take you off ignore for one minute and this is what you're posting. Are you serious?

How about you put everyone on boards on ignore, that way you will never have to read an opinion you disagree with ever again.

Wibbs

karma_ wrote: »

How about you put everyone on boards on ignore, that way you will never have to read an opinion you disagree with ever again.

That's a tad unfair TBH.

karma_

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a tad unfair TBH.

I detest that old 'I took you off ignore' or 'I'm putting you on ignore'.. Just do it, no need to bleat on about it.

Radiosonde

karma_ wrote: »

I detest that old 'I took you off ignore' or 'I'm putting you on ignore'.. Just do it, no need to bleat on about it.

Telling someone you're ignoring them is like rayyy-eee-aaain on your wedding day.

Bedtimebaby

KB will be telling us soon how the banks magically create money as if they have a money printer.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

diveout wrote: »

To compare Scandinavian nations to Venezuela is not going to get you anywhere.

I wasn't. I was comparing it to Ireland.

And I don't think the attitude has anythign to with religion - Sweden is mostly athiest (I think most of Scandanvia is, but I'm not sure).

bluewolf wrote: »

I think the lesson to learn from it is that the former is easier to achieve after the latter

Achieve, ye s- but to maintain? And keep people satisfied and maintain some degree of equality?

In any case my point was that socially, they seem to be a satisfieed bunch. Of course there are other factors as well - their governments tend not to be as corrupt as ours for expample - but that's going on personal experience.

mr kr0nik

Hmmm, thought this was a thread about Vanessa Paradis for a second. Ah well.

Could do with a bit of food rationing around where I live.

I am pie

South America tends to lurch from cleptocracy to dictatorship to foreign dominated puppet governance regardless of the prevailing/fashionable "ideology" adopted.

In South America today there are no "military dictatorships", sorry to burst you cliche filled bubble of ignorance, but there aren't.

Neither are there "foreign dominated puppet" governments.

In fact, if you can find me a country without a democratically elected government in South America I will congratulate you.

There are of course post colonial structural issues to address, mainly wealth distribution and land ownership. Unfortunately trying to address these problems in a populist ham-fisted deepens the long term structural economic problems which serves to entrench social divides and economic immobility. Countries which had dictatorships some 30 to 40 years ago have experienced further structural damage to both societal bonds and their respective economies.

ryan101

I am pie wrote: »

South America tends to lurch from cleptocracy to dictatorship to foreign dominated puppet governance regardless of the prevailing/fashionable "ideology" adopted.

A very Irish trait, except the fashionable ideology is plutocracy at the minute

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I am pie wrote: »

South America tends to lurch from cleptocracy to dictatorship to foreign dominated puppet governance regardless of the prevailing/fashionable "ideology" adopted.

In South America today there are no "military dictatorships", sorry to burst you cliche filled bubble of ignorance, but there aren't.

Neither are there "foreign dominated puppet" governments.

In fact, if you can find me a country without a democratically elected government in South America I will congratulate you.

There are of course post colonial structural issues to address, mainly wealth distribution and land ownership. Unfortunately trying to address these problems in a populist ham-fisted deepens the long term structural economic problems which serves to entrench social divides and economic immobility. Countries which had dictatorships some 30 to 40 years ago have experienced further structural damage to both societal bonds and their respective economies.

If you stick to the literal definition of "democracy" then yes. But you could also claim that George W. Bush and Tony Abbot were also "democratically" elected.

The US has a history of intervening in south and central American elections in order to "protect our interests abroad". What entitles them to interests abroad is a different question.

I am pie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you stick to the literal definition of "democracy" then yes. But you could also claim that George W. Bush and Tony Abbot were also "democratically" elected.

The US has a history of intervening in south and central American elections in order to "protect our interests abroad". What entitles them to interests abroad is a different question.

The last US interference in South America was Venezuela, it failed spectacularly. After that it's rumour and speculation. I believe the new narrative is based more aggressive diplomatic and trade strategy backed up by the Pacific Trade Agreement. I think the narrative you're clinging to is aboput 20 to 30 years out of date. For the record, the Pacific trade agreement is a dangerous document.

South American elections are transparent and open, it's condescending to suggest otherwise, it's also condescending to suggest that it's the US manipulating dissent in Venezuela when they are confronted with extreme violence on a daily basis and an economic mismanagement which has crushed their ability to manufacture basic goods. They've hit a tipping point where the protectionist policies aimed at social inclusion have started to have the opposite effect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I am pie wrote: »

The last US interference in South America was Venezuela, it failed spectacularly. After that it's rumour and speculation. I believe the new narrative is based more aggressive diplomatic and trade strategy backed up by the Pacific Trade Agreement. I think the narrative you're clinging to is aboput 20 to 30 years out of date. For the record, the Pacific trade agreement is a dangerous document.

South American elections are transparent and open, it's condescending to suggest otherwise, it's also condescending to suggest that it's the US manipulating dissent in Venezuela when they are confronted with extreme violence on a daily basis and an economic mismanagement which has crushed their ability to manufacture basic goods. They've hit a tipping point where the protectionist policies aimed at social inclusion have started to have the opposite effect.

I agree they don't do full scape open invasions any more - they're far more subtle. You suggest it yourself: "aggresive dimplomacy" and "trade straegy".

Nor am I suggesting that elections aren;t open - which is why I said if definie "deomcracy" literally.

Zebra3

Blowfish wrote: »

The Venezuelan government nationalized (read stole) a lot of resources from private companies. Predictably enough, they then mismanaged them horribly, including using the governments energy company as a piggy bank to try and keep their exchange rate low.

It worked...for a bit, but the mismanagement (oil production is slowly dropping), distortion of the market (through price controls) and disincentive to invest (why invest in setting up a company if the government is just going to steal it from you through 'nationalisation'?) has caused to Venezuelan economy to weaken to the point that the official exchange rate (6.3 bolivars to the dollar) is an order of magnitude off (on the black market, it's 80-90 to the dollar). Anything imported is getting more and more expensive for the ordinary Venezuelan and now we've reached the point where food is getting too expensive for them.

Many governments nationalise resources because they were sold for next to nothing by corrupt governments in bygone days to foreign multinationals (usually with the strong support of their own government), so therefore they are merely taking back what was rightfully theirs.

It's always interesting to hear various US regimes down the years moan about nationalisation in Latin American states considering their own economic success came from their own federal government stealing from its own citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Clandestine

More proof that socialism does not work. I'm honestly stunned that socialism even exists in a place such as Ireland today. Socialism has such a terrible history of failure only a fool could ignore it.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I always amazed at how many liberatarians would love to live in a fully deregulated country and how few have actually moved to places like Somalia

Are people still seriously parading this argument? Libertarianism does not mean anarchy. Calling Somalia libertarian is like calling North Korea socialist.

Karl Stein

Clandestine wrote: »

More proof that socialism does not work.

There are two types of people who deny the achievements of socialism.

1. Idiots.
2. Liars.

Socialism has answered many many challenges. Clean water supply, sewerage systems, mass vaccinations, mass transit, rail systems, motorways, electrification of entire countries, public education, universities, public funding of research and development, public health systems, communication satellites, the internet etc etc...

Clandestine

Karl Stein wrote: »

Socialism has answered many many challenges. Clean water supply, sewerage systems, mass vaccinations, mass transit, rail systems, motorways, electrification of entire countries, public education, universities, public funding of research and development, public health systems, communication satellites, the internet etc etc...

All of those things can and have been provided for via private funds and not public money