Socialist Party's policies

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

Gotcha, free markets and economic liberalism killed the animals.

Why when arguing socialists is anything even remotely bad in human nature fobbed off onto the shoulders of capitalism?

Humans are deeply flawed creatures in many ways, but by free markets and small governments allowing us to be what we have it in us to be and to allow us to interact (trade) in mutual beneficial fashion we build a better society . I do believe in leaving people alone. Socialists think they can legislate away our human nature.

do you really believe what you just wrote? about "free markets" and all? and you did hear the news about deforestation etc. and the reasons behind it? or about the fish in the seas? or about the carbon emissions? have you tuned in for the past 50 years? Capitalism is the problem, what is the figure, something like 30-60% of carbon emissions caused by less than 100 corporations. Wake up!!!

Dyr

One thing I know is the socialist party would not approve of anarchism

lord no.

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

not true socialism

Someone sound the trope klaxon!

I love how whenever socialism reaches it's inevitable failure it is dismissed as 'not really socialism'.

The one true constant amongst socialists is that socialism apparently ceases to be socialist as soon as any ever come to power anywhere in the world.

From the warsaw pact, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe to now Venezuela... socialism enjoys its 100% failure record... but is apparently not really socialism anyway....
Of course not!

Labarbapostiza

RobertKK wrote: »

What next, the farm land belongs to all the people and not just the people who own the land and we have collectivisation?

Well, actually.....there might be an issue over who actually rightfully owns the land and who does not rightfully have a claim.

The vast bulk of Irish farmland was purchased by the government from the English land owners. The land was effectively paid for by the landless proletariat of Ireland.

So, as far I and history are concerned, the land belongs to the proletariat and not the free loading bums, who claim ownership over something they never paid for.

Niall Keane

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Someone sound the trope klaxon!

I love how whenever socialism reaches it's inevitable failure it is dismissed as 'not really socialism'.

The one true constant amongst socialists is that socialism apparently ceases to be socialist as soon as any ever come to power anywhere in the world.

From the warsaw pact, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe to now Venezuela... socialism enjoys its 100% failure record... but is apparently not really socialism anyway....
Of course not!

Cuba

Niall Keane

kbannon wrote: »

I'm interested in how a socialist government will encourage innovation through R&D.
How will this research be funded?
How will the research interact with research being done elsewhere in the "free world"?
Given the costs spent by a socialist government into say healthcare, will some of these costs be recouped through selling in capitalist markets?

Please , please , please ... Just research who paid for all our modern inventions.. Clue.. It wasn't the corporations!
Hint. Who funded our universities?

What model did they follow?
Hint... It wasn't one with a profit motive.

2. What were the profits for electricity and gas last year... What if they went to health and our a&es?

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

Cuba

Forgot to list them too... you are right 100% failure rate!

Another dictatorship where skilled workers are essentially prisoners in their own state & where the army controls the bulk of the nations businesses.

paradise eh!

suicide_circus

Niall Keane wrote: »

Cuba

LOL

CramCycle

The Borg, the only shining example of Socialism I can find. Admittedly you have to give up what it means to be free or human but it works.

K-9

I liked the way John LeCarre put it; We've defeated Communism, now we must start on Capitalism!"

Capitalism didn't win the Cold War, it was just way better than the alternative. What we need to do now is chip away at the many rough edges of Capitalism, and we've seen plenty of them over the last 25 years or so.

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

do you really believe what you just wrote? about "free markets" and all? and you did hear the news about deforestation etc. and the reasons behind it? or about the fish in the seas? or about the carbon emissions? have you tuned in for the past 50 years? Capitalism is the problem, what is the figure, something like 30-60% of carbon emissions caused by less than 100 corporations. Wake up!!!

>2016
>implying socialist countries dont have deforestation, pollution, dead animals
> implying socialist citizens dont need electricity, as their superior night vision removes the need for indoor lighting, delivered by primitive capitalist generation methods
> implying Venezeula ---> paradise where people dont eat pigeons from the local park for lack of food.

TIL that I am on the wrong side of history.

Seth Brundle

Niall Keane wrote: »

Please , please , please ... Just research who paid for all our modern inventions.. Clue.. It wasn't the corporations!
Hint. Who funded our universities?

Humour me; who paid for all our modern inventions?
Are you seriously saying that Lloyd patents are owned by the governments?

Niall Keane wrote: »

What model did they follow?
Hint... It wasn't one with a profit motive.

Colleges do sell their research and knowledge for money though. How would that fit into a socialist economy?

Niall Keane wrote: »

2. What were the profits for electricity and gas last year... What if they went to health and our a&es?

That is not going to fund much. Where else is your money coming from?

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

Please , please , please ... Just research who paid for all our modern inventions.. Clue.. It wasn't the corporations!
Hint. Who funded our universities?

From what government department did the mobile phone, the PC, the solar panel, the motorcar, the aeroplane etc come from?

Either corporations, or individuals (we'd call them start ups today) working out of their interest, and, yes, the lure of profit. Society was the beneficiary of their inspired work.

Innovation and economic advance stagnates in socialist countries, look at the Trabant car for proof.

I await your next handwaving away of free market success with trepidation.

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

From what government department did the mobile phone, the PC, the solar panel, the motorcar, the aeroplane etc come from?

Either corporations, or individuals (we'd call them start ups today) working out of their interest, and, yes, the lure of profit. Society was the beneficiary of their inspired work.

Innovation and economic advance stagnates in socialist countries, look at the Trabant car for proof.

I await your next handwaving away of free market success with trepidation.

PC.... MIT research funded through Pentagon.
Wifi... Australian government
Aeroplane ... Are you serious, beyond the wrigt brothers obviously the military .. IE government ie taxes.

Are you being willfully obstinate?

No doubt you refer to patents of specific instruments constructed on the back of public funded research.

But the replies so far prove my initial assertion, this is an echo chamber of confirmation bias. Discussion and informed debate is impossible...
No qualified opinion has been offered, instead assumed and falacious statements abound...

Your opinions are thus irrelevant.

I won't linger to waste more time.... I won't learn anything here, all of the counter points can be quickly destroyed with fact based argument... But I'm not so inclined to piss into the wind ..

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

PC.... MIT research funded through Pentagon.
Wifi... Australian government
Aeroplane ... Are you serious, beyond the wrigt brothers obviously the military .. IE government ie taxes.

Are you being willfully obstinate?

No doubt you refer to patents of specific instruments constructed on the back of public funded research.

But the replies so far prove my initial assertion, this is an echo chamber of confirmation bias. Discussion and informed debate is impossible...
No qualified opinion has been offered, instead assumed and falacious statements abound...

Your opinions are thus irrelevant.

I won't linger to waste more time.... I won't learn anything here, all of the counter points can be quickly destroyed with fact based argument... But I'm not so inclined to piss into the wind ..

PC brought to the masses via Steve jobs and Bill Gates. Most advances came via competiton in the market place.
WiFi came about via a researcher in CSIRO in oz, but from his own interests and knowledge in a side project.
Boeing, airbus etc have developed the airline technology.
Innovation comes from the minds of individuals, and from human action, often in the pursuit of profit. Not government decree. Government can incentivize innovation, but more often stifle it.

But this is all as an aside - countries where the government controls the means of production rarely invent much, often have great deficits of important goods and without exception degenerate into Authoritarianism. Historical and current examples abound for this.

According to your theory, Cuba and Venezuela should be more high tech hubs of innovation than Singapore or Silicon Valley - how do you account for this?

Seth Brundle

Niall Keane wrote: »

Your opinions are thus irrelevant.

I won't linger to waste more time.... I won't learn anything here, all of the counter points can be quickly destroyed with fact based argument... But I'm not so inclined to piss into the wind ..

Aaw, so you're not going to answer my questions?

alias no.9

Niall Keane wrote: »

Your opinions are thus irrelevant.

And so starts the authoritarianism, right on cue.

In your world of equality, surely all opinions carry equal weight yet your immediate response is to dismiss the opinion of another as somehow irrelevant.

Reflect a little on the fact that in your utopia, you may be subject to recall yourself.

Suryavarman

Niall Keane wrote: »

The anti-socialist rhetoric is old and ill-informed, and based on dictatorships not true socialism. One might as well point to China as being communist. They may say they are, and likewise many adolescent males boast that they have 12 inch members... but we should know better!

There have been dozens of attempts at socialism and all have failed completely. The fact that 'true socialism' has never been achieved might suggest that it is impossible to achieve.

The blind-acceptance of the inevitability of capitalism is flawed. Lads, growth for growths sake, or more specifically its necessity to cover repayments of ever increasing debt is not sustainable. A finite planet cannot cope with infinite debt-growth. That's simply fact, not opinion, fact!

Growth is needed to end poverty.

Luckily the finite planet we live on is located in an infinite universe. Long term growth is created through technological advances, not increased use of finite resources. Your critique is therefore pretty flawed.

The only way forward is community based, grass-roots anarchism, i.e. direct democracy with instant recall, and a low-growth economy. And let bad policy ensue, instant recall solves the problem of its perpetuation. Mao's famines can't happen when he's a recallable representative and not a leader. So, instantly recognisable failure of policy is the worst that can happen. Failure is called learning, evolution. All sure "solutions" are a fallacy, as we are none of us infallible.

This would suggest that policies that are negative in the short run but positive in the long run won't be enacted i.e. the installation of water meters to detect leaks in the network and subsequent replacement of leaky pipes.

Capitalism has failed miserably! What do they say about doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results?

If capitalism is currently failing then I can't wait to see it succeed. Capitalism built the device that you typed your post on. Capitalism cut the global extreme poverty rate in half between 1990 and 2010

The agenda of privatization of tax-funded services, so our taxes serve instead the corporations and banks. And we must now pay from net income for all we once got through collective and progressive taxation. and what do we get? broken health and education systems.

The same health and education systems are run by the Government not by private businesses. Seems a bit silly to blame capitalism for the failings of Government run organisations.

Niall Keane

kbannon wrote: »

Aaw, so you're not going to answer my questions?

noone answered mine. not with any reference or evidence....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

The above are serious issues!!! Extinction type issues... and as can be evidenced, Capitalism is to blame!

The game is up lads....corporatism / neoliberalism is parasitic. Even the IMF have admitted it:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/27/austerity-policies-do-more-harm-than-good-imf-study-concludes

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth

As for your questions re. inventions... lets have a quick googlefu look:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2013/03/07/10-government-funded-inventions?page=0


Care to refute any of the above issues with capitalism? Do you think global warming isn't real?

so again... its just shameful to bash a group of people trying to improve people's conditions, especially when that bashing comes from the standpoint of a totally discredited ideology that has done far far more harm to our planet than even the faux-socialist distopia of North Korea where the "communist" leader declares himself divine. Think about that... contrast the loss of life and habitat under an due to capitalism with even the hell of North Korea. Now, factor in all the wars over oil and such. Don't be playing silly beggars!

And as for Cuba spending so much on its military, robbing the people to withstand a siege. What about the 25c / dollar of U.S. citizens taxes that go on the military? Yet Cuba do manage to have decent healthcare and even participate in overseas aid. Sure the doctors ain't driving a brand new Merc every year, but that means they ain't killing the planet either.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/military-spending-united-states/


As for Venezuela, constantly fighting against CIA backed coup attempts, well they do want that oil! I wouldn't believe anything from the mainstream propagandists.
But tell me do you think the populations of the Brazilian Favela fare any better under their neoliberalist government than the "horror stories" of Venezuela?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/03/guns-drugs-teen-gangsters-rio-favela-police

Bolivia seems to be doing ok...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/evo-morales-reelected-socialism-doesnt-damage-economies-bolivia


The list is endless.... eventually, if you can get over the cognitive dissonance, which probably isn't your fault, you might seek evidence-based opinion rather than swallow the koolaid catch-phrases of the Irish center-right?

Capitalism "going forward" is irrelevant, save in how much damage it will cause before its taken off life support. Take plenty of video of the animals in Dublin Zoo, your great grandchildren will never see them!!!

Niall Keane

alias no.9 wrote: »

And so starts the authoritarianism, right on cue.

In your world of equality, surely all opinions carry equal weight yet your immediate response is to dismiss the opinion of another as somehow irrelevant.

Reflect a little on the fact that in your utopia, you may be subject to recall yourself.

tut.tut... partial quote.... oh. now? really? that kind of propaganda?

But the replies so far prove my initial assertion, this is an echo chamber of confirmation bias. Discussion and informed debate is impossible...
No qualified opinion has been offered, instead assumed and falacious statements abound...

Your opinions are thus irrelevant.

Waestrel

As for Venezuela, constantly fighting against CIA backed coup attempts, well they do want that oil! I wouldn't believe anything from the mainstream propagandists.
?

Its no secret the US has been unfriendly to Venezuela, however, as capable as the CIA is, it cannot make a nation run out of toilet paper, or beer. Only socialism can wreck a country so completely.

Revolution is easy, but governing, now that's the hard part.

Niall Keane

Suryavarman wrote: »

There have been dozens of attempts at socialism and all have failed completely. The fact that 'true socialism' has never been achieved might suggest that it is impossible to achieve.

Proof please?

Growth is needed to end poverty.

proof please?

Luckily the finite planet we live on is located in an infinite universe. Long term growth is created through technological advances, not increased use of finite resources. Your critique is therefore pretty flawed.

proof please?



This would suggest that policies that are negative in the short run but positive in the long run won't be enacted i.e. the installation of water meters to detect leaks in the network and subsequent replacement of leaky pipes.

proof please? (consider literacy before and after the Barcelona Anarchist Revolution in the '30's... oh... you didn't hear about that? really? wasn't on the right-wing rags or an RTE documentary?)

If capitalism is currently failing then I can't wait to see it succeed. Capitalism built the device that you typed your post on. Capitalism cut the global extreme poverty rate in half between 1990 and 2010

Proof? I've posted proof of the opposite.. all based on government funded research, and who teaches the people to read and write and so make "these devices" financially viable? haha.... check mate pal!

The same health and education systems are run by the Government not by private businesses. Seems a bit silly to blame capitalism for the failings of Government run organisations.

defund and privatise... the game is up! The problem with the information revolution for capitalists, is that... well... it informed the oi polloi.

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

Its no secret the US has been unfriendly to Venezuela, however, as capable as the CIA is, it cannot make a nation run out of toilet paper, or beer. Only socialism can wreck a country so completely.

Revolution is easy, but governing, now that's the hard part.

no gods no masters! .... all government is force! ... I feel I'm really pulling ye guys into uncharted waters?

Waestrel

Yet Cuba do manage to have decent healthcare and even participate in overseas aid

Should also benoted that Cuba can only maintain its healthcare system by keeping its Doctors, along with the rest of its citizens as near prisoners on the island. Indeed, when the Cubans had a oil for doctors exchange with Venezuela, the Cubans wasted little time jumping the border to Colombia and catching the first flight to the US. Again, it comes back to the issue of socialism degrading to a police state in short order, where dissent is punished. People will literally build boats of out floating garbage to escape socialism.

Also, whats the obsession with capitalists easting all the animals?

Niall Keane

CramCycle wrote: »

The Borg, the only shining example of Socialism I can find. Admittedly you have to give up what it means to be free or human but it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4-3TKy2A28

Suryavarman

Niall Keane wrote: »

defund and privatise... the game is up! The problem with the information revolution for capitalists, is that... well... it informed the oi polloi.

The problem with the information revolution for socialists is that they keep ignoring the evidence that their policies just don't work.

Niall Keane

Suryavarman wrote: »

The problem with the information revolution for socialists is that they keep ignoring the evidence that their policies just don't work.

that's a great statement... so obviously true ... no need to back that up.

and.... ignores the whole point of evolution of policy, my points about direct democracy and instant recall being a fundamental ingredient for socialism to be well.. socialism, people focused you see? and certainly the influence of external pressure, and totally disregards the utter failure of capitalist societies... it kinda assumes the third world poor in capitalist economies don't exist doesn't it? Its strange how the right will parade famines in failed socialist states but never draw parallels to equal disasters in capitalist states many with IMF caretakers?

never even mind that nuclear explosion i just detonated in your argument...

lets look at the 2000 families homeless right here... capitalism sure working out for those kids eh?
and that pesky socialist - social welfare for free-loaders really... no need for it at all...

alias no.9

Niall Keane wrote: »

tut.tut... partial quote.... oh. now? really? that kind of propaganda?

Democracy does not require qualification of opinion, it matters not how an opinion is formed, one man/woman, one vote.

BoJack Horseman

Niall Keane wrote: »

that's a great statement... so obviously true ... no need to back that up.

There isn't though.

Were someone to google: "List of successful socialist democracies"
That answer is, as we all know.... nada, nothing, zero...

The hammer & sickle lost.
In almost all circumstances, any nation that could turn away from it did so.
That's why there are only a half dozen or so socialist states left on the planet.

There isn't an argument for socialism because like it or not, the last 60 years happened & it did not go well for those living under socialism.
You'll note, no one goes back to socialism when they change from it.

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

Should also benoted that Cuba can only maintain its healthcare system by keeping its Doctors, along with the rest of its citizens as near prisoners on the island. Indeed, when the Cubans had a oil for doctors exchange with Venezuela, the Cubans wasted little time jumping the border to Colombia and catching the first flight to the US. Again, it comes back to the issue of socialism degrading to a police state in short order, where dissent is punished. People will literally build boats of out floating garbage to escape socialism.

Also, whats the obsession with capitalists easting all the animals?

that's propaganda, there were some doctors who left and many many more who continuously travel the world to help give care and train others. I know a fair few Cubans through non-political martial arts interests, my advice, they know the story about inequality in the USA, don't believe the US hype. a lot of people drowning in the Mediterranean today... all to escape profitable wars over exploitable resources.

Obsession about mass extinction of animal species due to capitalism's fetish over growth? I presented facts, if they hurt, well?

Waestrel

Obsession about mass extinction of animal species due to capitalism's fetish over growth? I presented facts, if they hurt, well?

Can you explain this link between free markets and extinction, and how socialism will change this connection? Truly curious.

alias no.9

Niall Keane wrote: »

that's propaganda, there were some doctors who left and many many more who continuously travel the world to help give care and train others. I know a fair few Cubans through non-political martial arts interests, my advice, they know the story about inequality in the USA, don't believe the US hype. a lot of people drowning in the Mediterranean today... all to escape profitable wars over exploitable resources.

Obsession about mass extinction of animal species due to capitalism's fetish over growth? I presented facts, if they hurt, well?

The United States is massively flawed but would you care to estimate the numbers of Cubans who've drowned trying to make their way there and perhaps their motives for escaping from paradise in Cuba?

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

Can you explain this link between free markets and extinction, and how socialism will change this connection? Truly curious.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-d-barnosky/preventing-the-sixth-mass_b_6161284.html


as for socialism changing things ( and I dont refer to Stalinist approaches) ... well.... remove the profit motive, remove the debt-economy, stop chasing growth for growth's sake, abandon consumer culture. people need to relearn a lot... you don't need a new car every year or two, you don't need 200 pairs of designer shoes, you dont need to shop to be happy.... le bla bla habitual... truly revolutionary thinking from the neoloiberal status quo, and the reality is, this ain't up for debate, we change or die...


https://youtu.be/WPQI1Lui42c

Waestrel

only 1 of those graphs (the second one) makes a connection between economics and climate change, and even in that a large portion of the pie chart is taken up by communist systems. Indeed a full 2 thirds of that chart (the blue and green segments) are nationalised or socialised producers- and not the free market companies you seem to hate on.

So your chart would indicate that government run (socialised or nationalised) industry produces more pollution, which is exactly what you would expect from a inefficient government operation.

The others seem to make no connection between economics and pollution. A lamentable loss of diversity sure, but you haven't proven a connection to any free market system

Suryavarman

Niall Keane wrote: »

that's a great statement... so obviously true ... no need to back that up.

All the evidence suggest that socialism doesn't work. There are still socialists. Therefore socialists ignore the evidence that socialism doesn't work.

and.... ignores the whole point of evolution of policy, my points about direct democracy and instant recall being a fundamental ingredient for socialism to be well.. socialism, people focused you see? and certainly the influence of external pressure, and totally disregards the utter failure of capitalist societies... it kinda assumes the third world poor in capitalist economies don't exist doesn't it? Its strange how the right will parade famines in failed socialist states but never draw parallels to equal disasters in capitalist states many with IMF caretakers?

never even mind that nuclear explosion i just detonated in your argument...

lets look at the 2000 families homeless right here... capitalism sure working out for those kids eh?
and that pesky socialist - social welfare for free-loaders really... no need for it at all...

There's no reason to believe that direct democracy would turn the trainwreck of socialism into a workable economic system never mind one as successful as capitalism.

Those third world countries have massive Government intervention in their economies and regularly score poorly in economic freedom. They're not really a good example of failures of capitalism as a result. Regardless capitalism only works in conjunction with rule of law and limited to non-existent corruption. Take away any of those requirements and the system doesn't work. All of those features are mostly absent in the third world and have been historically.

The housing sector is probably the most heavily regulated sector of the economy. The World Bank Doing Business Report shows that it can take 90 days to get planning permission and the costs associated with getting planning permission amount to over €100,000.

All social welfare systems are funded by the capitalist system. Social welfare systems are necessary and can complement the capitalist system. That doesn't really justify Government or worker ownership of the means of production.

Seth Brundle

Niall Keane wrote: »

noone answered mine. not with any reference or evidence....

Capitalism "going forward" is irrelevant, save in how much damage it will cause before its taken off life support.

I'll ignore the fact that you still have not answered my questions then.
However, humour me this: I don't want to be part of your socialist society. Can I continue as a capitalist?
If I'm forced to join the socialist team, what if I object?

Labarbapostiza

kbannon wrote: »

However, humour me this: I don't want to be part of your socialist society. Can I continue as a capitalist?
If I'm forced to join the socialist team, what if I object?

Of course you can object....you can object all you like...then you can be shot...and you can object to that all you like too.

To be honest though...a question I'd like answered by the soi dissant "capitalists"....Have you done anything in your life, that you believe you deserve to shot for.......Like if you're a gouging landlord, and you believe your tenants would have a good argument for putting you up against a wall, and having you shot.

Labarbapostiza

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Of course you can object....you can object all you like...then you can be shot...and you can object to that all you like too.

To be honest though...a question I'd like answered by the soi dissant "capitalists"....Have you done anything in your life, that you believe you deserve to shot for.......Like if you're a gouging landlord, and you believe your tenants would have a good argument for putting you up against a wall, and having you shot.

No.

CramCycle

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

I don't think I should be shot for, but some people might, others might not. Are we going to have some sort of hunger games / gladiator style contest in this utopian socialist society so that we don't get to bored with nothing to strive for.

Seth Brundle

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Of course you can object....you can object all you like...then you can be shot...and you can object to that all you like too.

Hmmm, this fair society isn't really that fair?

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

To be honest though...a question I'd like answered by the soi dissant "capitalists"....Have you done anything in your life, that you believe you deserve to shot for.......Like if you're a gouging landlord, and you believe your tenants would have a good argument for putting you up against a wall, and having you shot.

WTF?
Are you being serious?

Niall Keane

Waestrel wrote: »

only 1 of those graphs (the second one) makes a connection between economics and climate change, and even in that a large portion of the pie chart is taken up by communist systems. Indeed a full 2 thirds of that chart (the blue and green segments) are nationalised or socialised producers- and not the free market companies you seem to hate on.

So your chart would indicate that government run (socialised or nationalised) industry produces more pollution, which is exactly what you would expect from a inefficient government operation.

The others seem to make no connection between economics and pollution. A lamentable loss of diversity sure, but you haven't proven a connection to any free market system

I guess you must be a US Republican or have a lot of shares in carbon? Make sure you tell your grandchildren about your mistaken beliefs in a few decades! And let them know that you were informed, but chose your own pampering over their futures.

Niall Keane

alias no.9 wrote: »

Democracy does not require qualification of opinion, it matters not how an opinion is formed, one man/woman, one vote.

At it again...
The statement refered to their opinions within a discussion ... Don't waste my time...

Niall Keane

kbannon wrote: »

I'll ignore the fact that you still have not answered my questions then.
However, humour me this: I don't want to be part of your socialist society. Can I continue as a capitalist?
If I'm forced to join the socialist team, what if I object?

What happens to people trapped in capitalist societies who don't play ball?

Assets seized, imprisoned... Some places death....

But you are correct most socialists have a social conscience and don't design to harm others.... At total contrast to neoliberal economics.

As for people inclines to be like the contras were ... CIA backed capitalist terrorists.. Hang them high off telegraph poles... Don't waste bullets.

Niall Keane

kbannon wrote: »

I'll ignore the fact that you still have not answered my questions then.
However, humour me this: I don't want to be part of your socialist society. Can I continue as a capitalist?
If I'm forced to join the socialist team, what if I object?

What happens to people trapped in capitalist societies who don't play ball?

Assets seized, imprisoned... Some places death....

But you are correct most socialists have a social conscience and don't design to harm others.... At total contrast to neoliberal economics.

As for people inclines to be like the contras were ... CIA backed capitalist terrorists.. Hang them high off telegraph poles... Don't waste bullets.

Seth Brundle

Niall Keane wrote: »

What happens to people trapped in capitalist societies who don't play ball?

Assets seized, imprisoned... Some places death....

But you are correct most socialists have a social conscience and don't design to harm others.... At total contrast to neoliberal economics.

As for people inclines to be like the contras were ... CIA backed capitalist terrorists.. Hang them high off telegraph poles... Don't waste bullets.

No. I asked you a question about what would happen if we became socialist. Don't answer a question with another one!

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

I guess you must be a US Republican or have a lot of shares in carbon? Make sure you tell your grandchildren about your mistaken beliefs in a few decades! And let them know that you were informed, but chose your own pampering over their futures.

I actually work in renewable enrgy

El Tarangu

Niall Keane wrote: »

What happens to people trapped in capitalist societies who don't play ball?

- the state supports them to a reasonably high standard of living indefinitely.

All paid for thanks to capitalism.

Waestrel

Niall Keane wrote: »

I guess you must be a US Republican or have a lot of shares in carbon? Make sure you tell your grandchildren about your mistaken beliefs in a few decades! And let them know that you were informed, but chose your own pampering over their futures.

again, do socialist countries not use fossil fuels and engage in environmental destructive behavior?

Labarbapostiza

kbannon wrote: »

Hmmm, this fair society isn't really that fair?


WTF?
Are you being serious?

I asked...do you believe, you have done anything, that you believe you deserve to be shot for.

I'm not prescribing that you should be shot for something.

And even if I do think you should be shot, the system as it is prohibits me from having you shot.

alias no.9

Niall Keane wrote: »

At it again...
The statement refered to their opinions within a discussion ... Don't waste my time...

It doesn't matter. You dismissed 'unqualified' opinions, would you similarly dismiss 'unqualified' votes?