Killing babies is preferable to killing off the mega-rich? When you suggested that having a socialist economy would require us to kill off the very young and the very old I didn't invoke Huxley or Orwell or accuse you of being "Big Brother."
It would take more than that comment to make me a Stalinist.
I do actually believe that true communism is at least a good theory of government, just like true democracy is a good theory. I don't think it's possible to have either one in a capitalist economy.
TMTR, I wasn't seriously accusing you of anything. I thought it was just a witty comeback.
I don't think I've proposed murdering anyone. I have noted that if our society is going to share its resources in some type of collective, decisions are going to have to be made about when an individual illness is too costly to the collective resource pool to treat. Thus, premature babies would have to be left untreated, and people with certain diseases (no matter they're age) will also have to be left untreated.
Whether that's murder or not, I will not say. I suppose if you're the person with the disease or the premee, it sure would look like it.
I've also noted that population control is critical to raising any society's standard of living.
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
I agree that population control is simply a good practice- we've known that for thirty years, due more to the population demands on the environment than any political system.
It's never called murder- Call it "cleansing," "being released," etc. It is murder.
But that's not to say there is no such thing as justifiable homicide.
In all other species, the rule is that the strong survive. The weak and ill are at times left to fend for themselves and at times actually killed off by stronger members or their own mothers.
I didn't respond to your assertion sooner because I agree with it. Implementing "some type of collective," is important enough to the health and happiness of the majority that some concessions need to be made and one of those is to eliminate our misplaced sentimentality where the chronically or terminally sick and weak are concerned, including premature babies.
And if a more socialized economy were established in the US, at this point most Americans would be grateful, IMO. Only the mega rich would have a serious problem with it and I was only being halfway flippant when I said we could get rid of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heliodorus04
TMTR, I wasn't seriously accusing you of anything. I thought it was just a witty comeback.
I don't think I've proposed murdering anyone. I have noted that if our society is going to share its resources in some type of collective, decisions are going to have to be made about when an individual illness is too costly to the collective resource pool to treat. Thus, premature babies would have to be left untreated, and people with certain diseases (no matter they're age) will also have to be left untreated.
Whether that's murder or not, I will not say. I suppose if you're the person with the disease or the premee, it sure would look like it.
I've also noted that population control is critical to raising any society's standard of living.
You need to check your facts on how socialism works in other countries. The Swedes are not communists. Basically they pay higher taxes overall to make sure all people have access to things like health care, retirement benefits, and education (sounds awful, huh). Their economic system is still basically capitalist.
The only difference between Communists and Socialists is at least the communists are honest. Your business doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the state. Socialists just hide that fact under oppressive taxation.
And it depends on how they tax. If the tax is on production end (income tax, corporate tax) then it is a disincentive to capitalism. It should be on the consumer end (sales tax, fair tax).
And actually that does sound aweful to me. Our education system, for all the government spending on it, is a piece of shit.
And actually that does sound aweful to me. Our education system, for all the government spending on it, is a piece of shit.
Right. A piece of shit that you still have to pay out the ass for. (average year at college is something like 30k)
Also, our government doesn't spend that much on primary and secondary. Look at some comparative statistics vs. other countries (or defense). Or look at what teachers get paid (especially in this state).
Finally, huge differences in socialism and communism theory on economics.
Communism = central government control of all production, wages, business, etc.
Socialism = taxation to ensure basic needs are met for all while allowing supply and demand determine what is produced.
You would be hard pressed to find a country that adheres strictly to either of these doctrines. Most countries are a mix of democracy/communism/socialism on the government side and capitalism/centrally planned economy on the economic side.
Right. A piece of shit that you still have to pay out the ass for. (average year at college is something like 30k)
Sounds like you agree with me. Or is your arguement that since we have to pay out the ass for it, therfore is must not be a piece of shit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwood
Also, our government doesn't spend that much on primary and secondary. Look at some comparative statistics vs. other countries (or defense). Or look at what teachers get paid (especially in this state).
What does it matter what the federal governement spends on education vs. other countries. Look at the results after 40 years of federal government involvement. Our children are not highly educated. But I guess you're saying if we had the federal government spend even more then they would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwood
Finally, huge differences in socialism and communism theory on economics.
Communism = central government control of all production, wages, business, etc.
Socialism = taxation to ensure basic needs are met for all while allowing supply and demand determine what is produced.
Yeah that's what I said, although in a glib manner. I should have been more to the point. My point is at some point if the taxation on production becomes so great, the state might as well own the business. The incentive that drives capitalism is gone in both instances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwood
Oh yeah. Explain how oppressive taxation has lead to socialist countries having higher standards of living.
My opinion on that was in my original response to you. That may work for small equally minded nordic countries. But it isn't working here and never will. You work from January to April for the Government. You think you're getting your money's worth right now? And you trust them to do an even better job if you give them another month or two of your salaries?
Another huge factor being overlooked is that Communism is a governmental or political system while socialism is strictly an economic system. The reason this is so often confused is because it would be virtually impossible to have a capitalist economy in a true communist country. When the government controls all wages and production, the capitalist incentive is removed (I'm not condoning or condemning, just observing). The only way a country could be a combination of democracy/communism/socialism is if someone is lying- a true democracy is run by the people, a true communist country- by the government- that's not a dichotomy that can be reconciled.
As far as the education system being a piece of shit-I have to take offense. First, "all the government spending" if there ever was much went away with No Child Left Behind. Which gave Bush more money to spend on his war, but that's a different subject.
The outcome of NCLB is that schools are left without the resources needed for textbooks, supplies, teacher salaries, etc. The consequences of this are lower standards, fewer qualified teachers, and an growing inability to meet NCLB requirements.
Schools are trying to compensate by eliminating electives, instituting more rigid curricula, and working on documenting what is being done more than actually doing what needs to be done. All of which creates an even greater lack of motivation on the part of the students, who not only cannot be "standardized," but who are products of our capitalist society, believing in egocentrism and instant gratification by the time they get to middle school. And motivation is the key to advancing learning.
Our schools are simply a microcosm of our society as a whole in that as those in positions of power try to manipulate the electorate, as it were, that electorate will do one of two things: they will either go along because they don't see how they can change things and they've been offered something to placate them temporarily or they will resist regardless of whether it is in their best interest to do so or they even understand what it is they are resisting. And often, as in our society, the blame is misplaced.
In 7 years of teaching under NCLB, only one thing has become painfully clear, the teachers are teaching, the kids are learning, the ones who fail the standardized test do so because they DON"T CARE. Sometimes it's a socioeconomic issue, sometimes a cultural one, but it's always a lack of motivation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elwood
Right. A piece of shit that you still have to pay out the ass for. (average year at college is something like 30k)
Also, our government doesn't spend that much on primary and secondary. Look at some comparative statistics vs. other countries (or defense). Or look at what teachers get paid (especially in this state).
Finally, huge differences in socialism and communism theory on economics.
Communism = central government control of all production, wages, business, etc.
Socialism = taxation to ensure basic needs are met for all while allowing supply and demand determine what is produced.
You would be hard pressed to find a country that adheres strictly to either of these doctrines. Most countries are a mix of democracy/communism/socialism on the government side and capitalism/centrally planned economy on the economic side.
Blutski, human beings like their euphemism, like not calling socialism communism so long as the taxation number lies below that threshold
Like "euthenasia" instead of "mercy killing"
and like "veal" instead of "tortured baby cow that lives its life in a 3-foot crate"
(DON'T EAT VEAL!)
TMTR, serious inquiry to something I want to know about NCLB:
Didn't Ted Kennedy co-sponsor that legislation? I don't understand it, but I thought it would do good. I take you at your word (and other teachers i know) who say it's counterproductive. Not sure I understand fully how the money gets lost to schools for supplies and such.
My query to you as a teacher:
Let's say we figure out based on all Federal spending for education, nationally, per-student funding is X dollars (someone probably has that number) before any buraucracy or anything. You know you have X billion dollars, Y million students, and that's the math ratio of money per student.
Would you listen to any serious ideas that came from our government that said "We're going to hand the parents a check that can be used in a federally accredited private school. (Accredidation would work similarly to the way my Veterans Administration college money worked).
Do away with public education and have all education handled privately. Why would that not work (assuming you can force parents to put their kids into SOME school, and they can't get cash in their hands if they don't spend the full amount on their kids' schooling costs)
__________________
Remember the dollar value to human life. Mine is priceless. Yours is negotiable. - unknown
Linear Mode
