Political leftism

[musik_man]

Musikman: perhaps you should brush up on *your* history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#The_Americas

I find it unfair to equate the extermination of Indians by disease to the deaths of those under communism.  You can hardly blame the Europeans for having stronger immune systems than Indians.

Saying that mass murder is caused by the communist ideology is like saying that pre-emptive wars are caused by democracy.

Can you name one communist state that isn't a bastion of death and repression?

Although Communism looks great on paper there are big problems with the philosophy, not every human is willing to put other people's needs ahead of their own and will use the situation to their own advantage. Whereas the theory would perhaps work if humans were a perfect species, but we're not.

It only looks good on paper if you make unrealistic assumptions about humanity.  That's akin to saying that a physics problem is well set up when neglected to account for gravity.

Throughout history most States have mass-murdered innocents, whether in war or peace, in order to get oponents out of the way and establish their power.  The US has killed 100,000 Iraqis in less than a quarter of the time it took Saddam Hussein to kill 300,000.  Does this mean that Democracy is now to blame for mass murder? (Although I find we are quickly moving away from a democracy but that is another subject).

First of all, we didn't kill 100,000 Iraqis.  The study actually found that we killed somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 civilians, which is such a large range, that this statistic is completely meaningless.  Also, to equate accidental deaths of civilians in war with execution is incorrect.  Are the Allies of WWII also guilty of genocide for all the Germans, Italians, and Japanese they killed.

The rich don't really have a need for government protection, they have enough money to protect themselves both physically and legally.  The only people that need the government's protection are those who can't afford it.  For the rich the government is just a cheaper way of maintaining their security.

Without a government, what would stop a mob from burning down a rich person's house and killing him?  Besides how can a rich person(or any person for that matter) protect himself legally when no government exists?

And considering that, proportionately speaking, the rich are the least likely to pay their taxes it actually becomes quite a deal for them.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/indincdi.pdf

Look at figure c on page 5.  The top 1% pays 3 times as much proportionally as the bottom 50% do.  This would be even larger in Europe.

I don't have time to respond to your second parragraph at the moment although honestly, if my money were to actually make a difference in a third world country, I would be happy to give it  BUT handing money to governments of the developing word is not the solution as it tends to get squandered in corruption. That's why donating through an established charity is the way to go.

I agree that most aid money to third world countries is wasted, and so is most welfare.  When you pay someone unemployment, you remove the incentive to get a job.  When you offer to pay someone's retirement, you stop them from saving for it.

Mind you, I am not really a socialist, in fact, when I was living full-time in the US I thought socialism was just one step away from communism, as you do.  

I don't think that Europe is one step from turning to communism.  ^^

My whole gripe is that I still  firmly believe that the two undeniable rights every goverment should provide to its citizens in return for their taxes are healthcare and education.  I'm not talking about handouts for everything.

The only problem with this is that government is terrible at providing these services.  Our public school system is a mess and not for a lack of money.  In Texas the government pays $10,000 per student per year for education.  It's my personal view that the best way of dealing with public education is the use of vouchers, which open up the public school system to needed competition.

BTW not to be a pedant, but education and healthcare cannot be rights.  Rights are something that you start with that the government should be unable to abridge, such as free speech or freedom of religion.  

What does the "US government outperform the European" in? You probably mean economics.

That's what I meant.  oops >.>
 

This is because in the US, the accumulation of wealth is the purpose of life (in addition to constantly having to prove that Americans are "better" than the rest of the world). Europeans are quite happy with their values and are willing to give up some material wealth for them. In the US, people live to work; in Europe, people work to live.

In the US you are allowed to value what you'd like to value.  If you want to dedicate your life to the pursuit of money, that's fine.  If you want to dedicate your life to friends, family, music, the good of society or religion, that's also fine.  Europe, however, tells you what you should value through its intrusive government.  

You say, high taxation (in the US) "discourages economic growth by messing up people's incentives to work", but in Europe it stimulates people's incentive to live a happy life by providing a comfortable environment. It's amazing that Europe has gotten that far, although they have such a messed up system (in your opinion). Let's see, they have better cars, better planes, better food, better museums, better health care systems, better retirement systems, better TV programs, nicer furniture, fashion, hmmm...

European taxes cause people to live what you consider a "happy life."  I find it arrogant to force other people to live as you want them to because you think you know what they need more than they do.  And your little sentence on European superiority is laughable.  I'd put a US F-22 against any European plane.  The food you eat depends on the restaurant that you eat it at, not the nation.  There are plenty of great places to eat in the US and Europe.  And Retirement?!?  Don't you remember 14,000 senior citizens dying in Europe during a heat wave?  unless you have a very odd definition of better...  And in terms of culture, I'll say only this.  France actually has quotas on how many American films are let in the country each year, and subsidies to the French film industry.  If they have a superior culture, why can't they let their movies compete with America's?

The only thing you were right on was cars.(And only German cars can take American cars)  We call that a fluke.  

[calidris]

In the US you are allowed to value what you'd like to value.  If you want to dedicate your life to the pursuit of money, that's fine.  If you want to dedicate your life to friends, family, music, the good of society or religion, that's also fine.  Europe, however, tells you what you should value through its intrusive government.  

Huh?  You think these things are impossible in Europe? 
I live in Europe and I value exactly what I want. 

[ehpianist]

Musik Man, going to bed now, we can continue our little debate tomorrow.

Just out of curiousity, how acquainted are you with Europe?

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[xvimbi]

European taxes cause people to live what you consider a "happy life."  I find it arrogant to force other people to live as you want them to because you think you know what they need more than they do.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you lived in Europe? Europeans are much more involved in politics than Americans. When they elect a government, they do this with conscient reasons. In other words, they know who they elect, and they know what they get - in advance. And the governments are accountable for their actions to their citizens. Europeans are not forced to live that way. It IS their way of living.

A European sports fan does not mind (too much, anyway) if some of his money goes towards building a museum or supporting a symphony orchestra, and a musician who commutes by car every day does not mind if some of his tax money goes towards building a stadium and public transportation. In the end, it evens out, and everybody has what they want, without having to wait for some rich guy to have a pretentious philantropic moment to give money for a museum, or having to wait for some big corporation to build an arena while nobody is paying for the gaping potholes in the roads or for salaries for decent teachers.

Darn, Elena, every time I'm done with one of my posts and want to submit it, I find you just posted something along the exact same lines 

[xvimbi]

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/indincdi.pdf

Look at figure c on page 5.  The top 1% pays 3 times as much proportionally as the bottom 50% do.  This would be even larger in Europe.

Hmm, I was just looking at this figure. Can you explain to me how you arrive at your claims? Also, don't pay any attention to the fact that that statistics ends with the year 1996... In any case, as far as I can tell, the top 1% payed a lot less than the bottom 50%, and only around 1996 reached the same level. Am I looking at the same figure you were referring to?

[xvimbi]

Oh, one more thing:

And your little sentence on European superiority is laughable.  I'd put a US F-22 against any European plane.

It speaks for your type of person that you pride yourself for making the most devastating weapons systems. You are right, that is definitely not an area that Europeans would be very proud of.

[musik_man]

Hmm, I was just looking at this figure. Can you explain to me how you arrive at your claims? Also, don't pay any attention to the fact that that statistics ends with the year 1996... In any case, as far as I can tell, the top 1% payed a lot less than the bottom 50%, and only around 1996 reached the same level. Am I looking at the same figure you were referring to?

oops.. I meant Fig E.  Figure c shows how much of GDP is earned by the various groups, E is taxation.  The 1996 thing is unimportant.  The only change that has happened since then is the Bush tax cut.  And that actually increased the progressivity of the tax codes, even though it went primarily to the wealthy.(The rich got a higher amount of money but a smaller percent break than the poor.)  The exact rates are unimportant, as my point was simply that Elena's claim that the rich pay less taxes than the poor is false.

Huh? You think these things are impossible in Europe?
I live in Europe and I value exactly what I want.

Europe allows you to pursue the things in the second sentence, but it does not allow you to pursue the accumulation of wealth to the degree that America lets you. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you lived in Europe? Europeans are much more involved in politics than Americans. When they elect a government, they do this with conscient reasons. In other words, they know who they elect, and they know what they get - in advance. And the governments are accountable for their actions to their citizens. Europeans are not forced to live that way. It IS their way of living.

I think this shows the difference between modern liberalism and conservatism.  When I said "Europeans," I meant individuals that live in Europe.  You took it to mean Europe as a society.  While the vast majorities of Europeans may prefer a socialist state, Europeans who don't want one have to live there too.  It's their rights I'm concerned about.  It ISN'T their way of living, but they have to live it anyway.

[xvimbi]

I think this shows the difference between modern liberalism and conservatism.  When I said "Europeans," I meant individuals that live in Europe.  You took it to mean Europe as a society.  While the vast majorities of Europeans may prefer a socialist state, Europeans who don't want one have to live there too.  It's their rights I'm concerned about.  It ISN'T their way of living, but they have to live it anyway.

1. How do you define Europe, and which country in Europe do you think is socialist?
2. There are always some people who will disagree with the way of living in any country. What about the 50% of Americans who don't want their government, yet, they have to live with it anyway?

[calidris]

Europe allows you to pursue the things in the second sentence, but it does not allow you to pursue the accumulation of wealth to the degree that America lets you. 

And?

You can become rich in Europe.  So rich you can go to the fanciest restaurants, buy a nice villa with swimming pool in southern France, have a driver for your Audi A8, stay at the most expensive hotels,...  and still have an incredible amount of money left on your bank account!  What more do you need???

[calidris]

I think this shows the difference between modern liberalism and conservatism.  When I said "Europeans," I meant individuals that live in Europe.  You took it to mean Europe as a society.  While the vast majorities of Europeans may prefer a socialist state, Europeans who don't want one have to live there too.  It's their rights I'm concerned about.  It ISN'T their way of living, but they have to live it anyway.

Which "rights" exactly?

[musik_man]

Which "rights" exactly?

The right to property.  Someone's property is their own to dispose of as they see fit.  When the government taxes %50 of it and spends it for you, it's little better than robbery.

And while you can become rich in Europe, the government does all it can to stop you.  It restricts the amount you can work.  It makes firing people nearly impossible, and it taxes you to death. 

1. How do you define Europe, and which country in Europe do you think is socialist?
2. There are always some people who will disagree with the way of living in any country. What about the 50% of Americans who don't want their government, yet, they have to live with it anyway?

1)Most of the European countries are socialist to a degree with the exception of some of the more free-market oriented Eastern Europeans states.  To clear something up, I mean socialist in the context of a large welfare state.  The US is partly socialist, even if not to the extent of Europe.  And I'd like to state that I'm not primarily attacking Europe, but modern liberalism which just happens to thrive in Europe.

2)The difference is that a large government redistributes your property as it sees fit, violating your rights.  A small government leaves you alone, so even if you dislike it, you're unmolested by it.

[Hmoll]

 Europe allows you to pursue the things in the second sentence, but it does not allow you to pursue the accumulation of wealth to the degree that America lets you. 



 

I guess you've never heard of Karl Albrecht, Ingvar Kamprad, Silvio Berlusconi, Amancio Ortega, JK Rowling, or other Europeans who pursued what they love doing, and became self-made Billionaires?

[musik_man]

I guess you've never heard of Karl Albrecht, Ingvar Kamprad, Silvio Berlusconi, Amancio Ortega, JK Rowling, or other Europeans who pursued what they love doing, and became self-made Billionaires?

Nice strawman.  I never said that it was impossible to become rich in Europe.  It's just more difficult. I read an interesting article today about how Europeans are less likely to start their own businesses because European government discourages it.  https://techcentralstation.com/012105AA.html

I think the disagreements, I've been having with all you lefties, stems from one point.  I believe that the government should not take someone's property and redistribute it.

[ehpianist]

MM,

As I said before, Europe certainly has issues it has to work through regarding the liberalisation of commerce and economic rules. 

I understand your point, but if governments did not redistribute at least some income there would be no public school system in the US, nor the even pathetic healthcare that some people manage to get.  There are different degrees of socialization and as you pointed out the US has its own (it just doesn't do them very well).

I can see the appeal of allowing people to work as they want, but then I look at all my friends in NY, working 12 hour days every day, in order to meet the work demands that their bosses fling on them without having any real recourse at easing the number of hours they must work each day (unions are dead in corporate America).  Inevitably people who have their positions burn out after a couple of years and have to leave in order to preserve their mental health. I find it unfair to require anyone to have to sacrifice their lives in order to fulfill their job duties.

Labor laws try to regulate this kind of behavior.  At the moment I'm not sure which is better for the overall psychological and cultural health of a country, being richer or having more time to spend with your loved ones?

By the way, you never answered my question regarding how much time you have actually spent in Europe.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[ehpianist]

 Figure c shows how much of GDP is earned by the various groups, E is taxation.  The 1996 thing is unimportant.  The only change that has happened since then is the Bush tax cut.  And that actually increased the progressivity of the tax codes, even though it went primarily to the wealthy.(The rich got a higher amount of money but a smaller percent break than the poor.) The exact rates are unimportant, as my point was simply that Elena's claim that the rich pay less taxes than the poor is false.

MM, May I recommend that you read a wonderful, well-researched books about taxation in America, "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston(https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840198/qid=1106642953/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-9974555-3372160 ) which contains interviews with IRS agents, tax attorneys, government officials and many others involved in the tax system.  The fact that the highest percentage of taxes goes to the rich means nothing when it comes to the real percentage the rich end up paying after squirreling their money away through the many loopholes of the US tax system (which is 17,000 pages long, what country in their right mind has a tax code 17,000 pages long?).  In fact, after all the offshore accounts, "charity" donations and other loopholes,  the rich in the USA end up paying about 15% of their real income, the same as the lowest income bracket.  You should read up on the subject before you start defending the US tax code.

 

While the vast majorities of Europeans may prefer a socialist state, Europeans who don't want one have to live there too.  It's their rights I'm concerned about. It ISN'T their way of living, but they have to live it anyway.

What about the VAST majority of Americans who can't afford healthcare and have none?  Don't they have the same "rights" that money hungry individuals have in Europe?  I must say, I find your comment pretty amusing.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com

[xvimbi]

I think the disagreements, I've been having with all you lefties, stems from one point.  I believe that the government should not take someone's property and redistribute it.

Your perception of Europe is quite amusing; where did you get it?

You use the term "socialist", but you are not aware of the fact that it effectively means "communist". You redefine it to suit your arguments. What you mean is "social".

You call other people "lefties", because they are fine with higher taxes. You obviosuly don't know that there are successful parties and governments in Europe that are as right as the US republicans, or even more right. Being "right" in Europe has a lot less to do with taxes than you think.

You talk about "the rights of people in Europe not being protected". What you mean is the right to get insanely rich. Think about the following: There is pretty much a fixed amount of money on this planet (not taking inflation into account). Therefore, whenever someone gets rich, someone else has to pay for it. The US economic landscape ecourages people to get rich and neglects those who have to pay. In other words, the government protects those who can sucessfully rip off their fellow citizens or the rest of the world. They effectively say "If you can suck 'em dry, kudos to you. If they are not able to do the same to their fellow citizens, then they don't deserve better".
 
The opposite is true in Europe. Europe protects those who have to pay by making sure they are not exploited. Indeed, you can't fire someone for not working 16 hours a day, and if you are cought with illegal immigrants or pay below minimal wages, you are in serious trouble.

As a consequence, it is more difficult to get rich in Europe, there is no denying, but it keeps social peace, and this is obviously more important to Europeans (who have struggled with social peace for a long time) than it is to Americans, and unfortunately, the US are spreading this attitude across the entire globe.

[calidris]

Excellent post, xvimbi!

[athykay]

I think the disagreements, I've been having with all you lefties, stems from one point.  I believe that the government should not take someone's property and redistribute it.

I couldn't agree with you more.  As one who pays a huge amount of my  earnings in federal taxes, it infuriates me to no end that my hard earned dollars are being used to finance an illegal war costing upwards of $200 billion.

[ehpianist]

 

[musik_man]

You use the term "socialist", but you are not aware of the fact that it effectively means "communist". You redefine it to suit your arguments. What you mean is "social".

It does not effectively mean communist.  But if you wanna get into a fight about semantics, you can do it by yourself.  What term would you prefer that I use to talk about the governments of Europe?

You call other people "lefties", because they are fine with higher taxes. You obviosuly don't know that there are successful parties and governments in Europe that are as right as the US republicans, or even more right. Being "right" in Europe has a lot less to do with taxes than you think.

Favoring more government control of the economy is a "left" position.  Since we're only debating economic policy and not foreign policy, how is it inaccurate to call people who favor the left position on economics lefties?  If a right-wing party favors economic regulation, it is supporting a leftist position. 

You talk about "the rights of people in Europe not being protected". What you mean is the right to get insanely rich. Think about the following: There is pretty much a fixed amount of money on this planet (not taking inflation into account). Therefore, whenever someone gets rich, someone else has to pay for it. The US economic landscape ecourages people to get rich and neglects those who have to pay. In other words, the government protects those who can sucessfully rip off their fellow citizens or the rest of the world. They effectively say "If you can suck 'em dry, kudos to you. If they are not able to do the same to their fellow citizens, then they don't deserve better".
 
The opposite is true in Europe. Europe protects those who have to pay by making sure they are not exploited. Indeed, you can't fire someone for not working 16 hours a day, and if you are cought with illegal immigrants or pay below minimal wages, you are in serious trouble.

As a consequence, it is more difficult to get rich in Europe, there is no denying, but it keeps social peace, and this is obviously more important to Europeans (who have struggled with social peace for a long time) than it is to Americans, and unfortunately, the US are spreading this attitude across the entire globe.

You obviously have absolutely no understanding of economics if you actually believe the part of the quote I bolded.  The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed at all.  In fact the amount of wealth that the US produces has risen about 3% every year for the last century.  The GDP of a country is a representation of all of the goods and services created by that country that year, and GDP is not a fixed quantity.  People in America are 500 times more productive than a peasant in Europe was in Feudal times, meaning it takes an American 1 hour to produce the goods that it would take someone back then 500 hours to produce.  If you think wealth is fixed, I advise you buy and read an economics 101 textbook.

The reason people are rich is because society values what they produce highly.  The reason a lawyer makes more than a Burger King employee, is that the Supply and Demand curves for Lawyer's intersect at a higher point than they do for fast food employees.  If a lawyer was paid the same as a burger-flipper, why would he spend all those years in college and law school and pay tens-of-thousands in tuition.  If a person earns more than someone else it's for a good reason.

BTW what is "insanely rich"?  At what point does a person not have a right to keep his money?  $40,000? $80,000? $100,000? $500,000? more?  How did you decide that no one needs more money than this?

I couldn't agree with you more. As one who pays a huge amount of my earnings in federal taxes, it infuriates me to no end that my hard earned dollars are being used to finance an illegal war costing upwards of $200 billion.

That's completely irrelavent to the discussion at hand.  If you'd like to debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war, start a new thread.

MM, May I recommend that you read a wonderful, well-researched books about taxation in America, "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else" by David Cay Johnston(https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840198/qid=1106642953/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-9974555-3372160 ) which contains interviews with IRS agents, tax attorneys, government officials and many others involved in the tax system.  The fact that the highest percentage of taxes goes to the rich means nothing when it comes to the real percentage the rich end up paying after squirreling their money away through the many loopholes of the US tax system (which is 17,000 pages long, what country in their right mind has a tax code 17,000 pages long?).  In fact, after all the offshore accounts, "charity" donations and other loopholes,  the rich in the USA end up paying about 15% of their real income, the same as the lowest income bracket.  You should read up on the subject before you start defending the US tax code.

 
I'll see if my library has a copy of that book, as I've been looking for something new to read for a while.  If you think that I think that the US tax code is perfect, you're wrong.  It's a jumbled mess of special interests and loopholes, but even so it's still progressive.  I would prefer that we move to a more consumption based taxation system.  One like this https://www.techcentralstation.com/092903A.html.

What about the VAST majority of Americans who can't afford healthcare and have none?  Don't they have the same "rights" that money hungry individuals have in Europe?  I must say, I find your comment pretty amusing.

Once again I have to say that Healthcare is not a right.  No one has a "right" to make a doctor treat their illnesses.  However, people should have the right not to be forced to obtain their healthcare from the government, especially as this ends up costing much more than obtaining it from the private sector.  That being said, I believe that everyone should be forced to purchase catastrophic health insurance, so that in case of any emergency they can be cared for.  

BTW if anyone wants to read a great explanation of economic theory, you can do so here. https://arnoldkling.com/econ/book/contents.html  It's a compilation of about 50 articles by Arnold Kling and does a great job of logically explaining how economies work.

[xvimbi]

It does not effectively mean communist.  But if you wanna get into a fight about semantics, you can do it by yourself.  What term would you prefer that I use to talk about the governments of Europe?

To give you a short synopsis:
Socialism: An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production

Europe is far away from this. Communist states call themselves "socialist", whereas what you mean is described as "social democracy", and there is a huge difference. This is by no means semantics, as there are fundamental differences.

Favoring more government control of the economy is a "left" position.  Since we're only debating economic policy and not foreign policy, how is it inaccurate to call people who favor the left position on economics lefties?  If a right-wing party favors economic regulation, it is supporting a leftist position.

Then it can't be that "right". Now, that's semnatics, so I suggest to get rid of the stupid generalization "left" and "right". They obviously mean different things in Europe compared to the US, which many Americans don't realize and then make false claims.

You obviously have absolutely no understanding of economics if you actually believe the part of the quote I bolded.  The amount of wealth in the world is not fixed at all. 

And you are not reading what other people write. I said MONEY, not wealth. I am not considering land, gold, or anything else that someone would consider wealth, whereas someone else might not. Money, however, is absolute in this respect, and that's what I was talking about. So, if someone accumulates a lot of money, someone else has to pay for it. It's really very simple, and doesn't require taking a course in economics.

Once again I have to say that Healthcare is not a right.  No one has a "right" to make a doctor treat their illnesses.  However, people should have the right not to be forced to obtain their healthcare from the government, especially as this ends up costing much more than obtaining it from the private sector.  That being said, I believe that everyone should be forced to purchase catastrophic health insurance, so that in case of any emergency they can be cared for.  

In Europe it is exactly the other way around. Healthcare costs a lot more in the private sector than when obtained from the government. The standard of this healthcare is very high. And now you are saying people should be "forced" to get certain insurance. How do you force them? Of course, by making them pay taxes.

[pianodoc]

from music_man:

I think the disagreements, I've been having with all you lefties, stems from one point.  I believe that the government should not take someone's property and redistribute it.

from athykay:
I couldn't agree with you more. As one who pays a huge amount of my earnings in federal taxes, it infuriates me to no end that my hard earned dollars are being used to finance an illegal war costing upwards of $200 billion.

Music_man's answer:
That's completely irrelavent to the discussion at hand.  If you'd like to debate the legitimacy of the Iraq war, start a new thread.




Whoa there, buddy!  Now whether or not you support this war, the money to pay for it is coming out of our pockets. (and future generations)  This alone makes it relevant to the discussion.  In fact, if you do some digging, you can discover that the majority of what's collected by the government goes to corporations, through contracts.  Follow the money trail....  talk about redistributing wealth!

[musik_man]

To give you a short synopsis:
Socialism: An economic and political system in which private property is abolished and the means of production (i.e., capital and land) are collectively owned and operated by the community as a whole in order to advance the interests of all. In Marxist ideology, socialism is considered an intermediate stage in the inevitable transformation of capitalism into communism. A socialist society is envisioned as being characterized by the dictatorship of the proletariat; the existence of a high degree of cooperation and equality; and the absence of discrimination, poverty, exploitation, and war. With the non-existence of private ownership, the private profit motive is eliminated from economic life. Consequently, market forces do not play a role in organizing the process of production. Instead, large-scale government planning is employed to ensure the harmonious operation of the process of production

Europe is far away from this. Communist states call themselves "socialist", whereas what you mean is described as "social democracy", and there is a huge difference. This is by no means semantics, as there are fundamental differences.

Once again, this is a matter of semantics.  Our definitions of Socialism differ.  Europe isn't socialist by your definition of socialism.  It is by mine.  I don't feel the need to debate you on whose definition is more accurate as it's unimportant to the discussion at hand.  

Then it can't be that "right". Now, that's semnatics, so I suggest to get rid of the stupid generalization "left" and "right". They obviously mean different things in Europe compared to the US, which many Americans don't realize and then make false claims.

Wanting more government control of the economy is a "Left" position in both Europe and America.  My claim is in no way false.

And you are not reading what other people write. I said MONEY, not wealth. I am not considering land, gold, or anything else that someone would consider wealth, whereas someone else might not. Money, however, is absolute in this respect, and that's what I was talking about. So, if someone accumulates a lot of money, someone else has to pay for it. It's really very simple, and doesn't require taking a course in economics.

You're still outright wrong.  New money is created all the time, usually at a rate that exceeds the growth of wealth(Which is why inflation exists in the first place.)  The Federal reserve prints plenty of new money, and even if no new money was printed your point, that since money is fixed, the only way to get rich is at the expense of others, would be false.  If the monetary supply stayed the same while the amount of goods produced increased, money would appreciate.  While a person wouldn't have more money, he could purchase more goods with it.

And your statement about land, gold and other sources of "wealth" not being equivalent to money is false.  The market assigns a monetary value to all these things.  They can readily be converted to cash.  All that money is is a medium for exchanging different forms of wealth.

I'd like to state again that your view that people earn money through the exploitation of others is false.  They are paid for the goods and services that they produce.  If I get paid $50,000 a year as an Engineer, it is in exchange for $50,000 worth of services that I produced for the corporation that employed me.

In Europe it is exactly the other way around. Healthcare costs a lot more in the private sector than when obtained from the government. The standard of this healthcare is very high. And now you are saying people should be "forced" to get certain insurance. How do you force them? Of course, by making them pay taxes.

Healthcare costs more in the the European private sector due to the government.  Healthcare would be cheaper in a free-market Europe than it is today.  There are many reasons for this.  First, governments don't have to deal with competition, so they have no incentives to operate efficiently.  The private market, however, is cutthroat.  If a company doesn't provide goods in an efficent manner, it'll lose business.  A perfect example of this is American auto companies.  They became bloated and sold poorly made cars, so foreign car companies took a large share of the market.  Now American car companies are scrambling to become comptetitive again.

A public health system also removes people's incentive to take care of themselves and to use health care only when nessecary.  If the government is going to pay for any medical expenses you incur, you have less reason to live your life in a healthy manner.

Whoa there, buddy!  Now whether or not you support this war, the money to pay for it is coming out of our pockets. (and future generations)  This alone makes it relevant to the discussion.  In fact, if you do some digging, you can discover that the majority of what's collected by the government goes to corporations, through contracts.  Follow the money trail....  talk about redistributing wealth!

Using tax dollars to defend the State is different than government control of the economy.  We can argue about the Iraq war in particular, but I doubt that anyone would argue that defense of the nation in general is not a legitimate purpose of government.

[calidris]

A public health system also removes people's incentive to take care of themselves and to use health care only when nessecary.  If the government is going to pay for any medical expenses you incur, you have less reason to live your life in a healthy manner.

Is that a theory or a proven fact? 

I'd also like to add that obesity problems are much bigger in the US than in Europe...

[SandyS]

I couldn't agree with you more.  As one who pays a huge amount of my  earnings in federal taxes, it infuriates me to no end that my hard earned dollars are being used to finance an illegal war costing upwards of $200 billion.

I don't get to post here as often as I'd like to, nor do I have the time to devote to this thread what I'd like to. I plan to try later, but I will simply say for now that in reading some of the descriptions of left vs. right by the left here,  and some of the other comments made by those who describe themselves as being on the left, I can only shake my head in amazement. So many completely uninformed opinions. Then I read the post above, and I realize than apparently many people end up considering themselves as leftists because they simply lack the capacity to reason.

[Egon von Sprocket]

I don't get to post here as often as I'd like to, nor do I have the time to devote to this thread what I'd like to. I plan to try later, but I will simply say for now that in reading some of the descriptions of left vs. right by the left here,  and some of the other comments made by those who describe themselves as being on the left, I can only shake my head in amazement. So many completely uninformed opinions. Then I read the post above, and I realize than apparently many people end up considering themselves as leftists because they simply lack the capacity to reason.

Excellent observation, Sandy.   

[ehpianist]

Oh Egon, quit your sockpuppeting, and stop landing personal insults, you so enjoy degenerating healthy disagreements. 

A public health system also removes people's incentive to take care of themselves and to use health care only when nessecary.  If the government is going to pay for any medical expenses you incur, you have less reason to live your life in a healthy manner.

Your theory of human psychology is also very amusing, I doubt it would pass a basic psychology 101 class.  So in your opinion US citizens take care of themselves not because they want to live longer and healthier but because they don't want to spend extra money?? 

Other than being smoking fiends (a trend which is, thank goodness, being reversed in Europe) the *average* (meaning middle or lower class) European eats better, walks substantially more and has a healthier lifestyle than the *average* American.  Look around you today, what is the proportion of fit people to those who are beyond their normal weight?

The smoking thing is the Scarlett Letter on Europe.  But the governments are working very hard at removing it, they have finally realized the financial costs of such stupid behavior.

By the way, I pay about 600 Euros a year for my private health insurance in Spain.  Last I looked in the US it was substantially more ($1500 or so).  So much for that theory as well.

Elena
https://www.pianofourhands.com



PS- I will take your lack of reply to my question regarding your real acquaintance with Europe to mean that either you have never been here at all and your assumptions are based on second hand information or that you have come in a tour group full of Americans.  

[xvimbi]

You're still outright wrong.  New money is created all the time, usually at a rate that exceeds the growth of wealth(Which is why inflation exists in the first place.)  The Federal reserve prints plenty of new money, and even if no new money was printed your point, that since money is fixed, the only way to get rich is at the expense of others, would be false.  If the monetary supply stayed the same while the amount of goods produced increased, money would appreciate.  While a person wouldn't have more money, he could purchase more goods with it.

Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.

And your statement about land, gold and other sources of "wealth" not being equivalent to money is false.  The market assigns a monetary value to all these things.  They can readily be converted to cash.  All that money is is a medium for exchanging different forms of wealth.

Wealth means a lot of different things in different cultures. It makes no sense to compare different markets using "wealth". OK, then let's convert everything into money. It is still true that when someone gets rich, money has to change hands, and somone else has to pay for it.

I'd like to state again that your view that people earn money through the exploitation of others is false.  They are paid for the goods and services that they produce.  If I get paid $50,000 a year as an Engineer, it is in exchange for $50,000 worth of services that I produced for the corporation that employed me.

The "European way" is making sure that people are payed fairly and that they don't have to do unreasonable things to satisfy their employers. Unfortunately, much of American "wealth" is based on just that.

Healthcare costs more in the the European private sector due to the government.  Healthcare would be cheaper in a free-market Europe than it is today.  There are many reasons for this.  First, governments don't have to deal with competition, so they have no incentives to operate efficiently.  The private market, however, is cutthroat.  If a company doesn't provide goods in an efficent manner, it'll lose business.  A perfect example of this is American auto companies.  They became bloated and sold poorly made cars, so foreign car companies took a large share of the market.  Now American car companies are scrambling to become comptetitive again.

Deregulation and moving vital activities from the government sector to the private sector in the US have led to a very low quality of those things. "Cutthroat" means that everyone is trying to get by with the minimum. And this is obviously not enough. The roads are quite bad, there is very little public transportation, the school system is lousy, science and engineering is dominated by foreigners who have been educated in their countries, the healthcare and retirement systems are in a "crisis", power and water supplies are often limited and unreliable and of low quality. There is a record deficit, the average personal debt is as high as in no other country, and 25% of the world pollution come from the US (and of course, nobody is doing anything about this, as it would hurt the economy, so let the other countries deal with it). The only thing that stands out is the military (I wonder why). Heck, there is not even a consistent phone system. You'd say that is just fine, because if someone wants all that to be of high quality, they should pay for it themselves (and import it from Europe or Asia).

[SandyS]

Oh Egon, quit your sockpuppeting, and stop landing personal insults, you so enjoy degenerating healthy disagreements. 

If you're of the opinion that I am some alter ego of Egon, you are quite mistaken.  Don't marginalize me because you don't agree with me. Contrary to what you may think, Egon is not the only person in this world who hasn't been sucked under by leftist ideology.

[calidris]

If you're of the opinion that I am some alter ego of Egon, you are quite mistaken.  Don't marginalize me because you don't agree with me. Contrary to what you may think, Egon is not the only person in this world who hasn't been sucked under by leftist ideology.

I don't mean to offend you but your contributions to this thread have been little more than direct attacks based on nothing. 

These are three quotes of yours, written in three of the five posts you've written on this forum so far :

"Leftists won't understand it, and rightists already know."

"I realize than apparently many people end up considering themselves as leftists because they simply lack the capacity to reason."

"Egon is not the only person in this world who hasn't been sucked under by leftist ideology."

So far, I cannot find anything of value in your contributions to this thread.  And if that doesn't change, many people are just going to ignore you (with the obvious exception of Egon  ).  Suit yourself.

[Egon von Sprocket]

For what it's worth,  I'm not Sandy, and my pervious response to her should be taken as being somewhat arch.



(PS Elena, YOU are the one that's name calling.  )

[Hmoll]

[quote from musik_man]

"You're still outright wrong.  New money is created all the time, usually at a rate that exceeds the growth of wealth(Which is why inflation exists in the first place.)  The Federal reserve prints plenty of new money, and even if no new money was printed your point, that since money is fixed, the only way to get rich is at the expense of others, would be false.  If the monetary supply stayed the same while the amount of goods produced increased, money would appreciate.  While a person wouldn't have more money, he could purchase more goods with it. "


Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.

Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.


 

Neither one of you is really right.

Musik_Man, you  talk about others' lack of knowledge of economics, yet you aquate creating money with printing new currency?

There is no fixed amount of money in the world. Money is created, among other way, by both credit and deposit banking. The money supply is controlled and monitored by the central banks. There are three basic ways central banks control the money supply (printing new money is not one of them).
In addition to banks/monetary authorities, the amount of money in the world is raised as wealth is created in developing countries (as their economies produce more, their people work more, and earn more money, wealth and money is created). Just because someone makes money doesn't mean they take it away from someone else.

[willcowskitz]

Ok, thanks to everyone who refered the original question!  (more replies on that are welcome)


Then, random thoughts or points...


By starting this thread I wasn't looking to categorize people, just to see things from a better perspective (no perspective at all).


Again, I'd like to hear anyone who uses the word "liberalism" when speaking of democratic socialism, socialism or communism, to explain WHY exactly, because I haven't still understood this blending of terms. Until that, I will just assume that the phenomenon of liberalism and socialism thrown into a mixer is practice of "dual thinking" found in Orwell's 1984. Since U.S. has a two-party system, and its all the same who the people vote or who wins the election (whole different things I've heard), when it is made clear who's The Enemy. Currently, terrorists are the enemy, which should be interesting because terrorists can only be truly removed from the world by making it less free - also known as more secure. There's a contradiction between "freedom" and "security", no matter how much G. Bush tries to make them sound like the same thing. The most important thing is, that there's "us" and "them".


Categorizations relieve the stress of thinking, just like defined and outlined concepts help us communicate with less words - less actual descriptions of our subjective perceptions (you could think of them as your browser's cache memory, or a piece of code of some basic functions that need no reprogramming hence why you refer to them rather than write from scratch). Concepts, on the other hand, are easy to mix with each other, and the broadlines also tend to fade with time, which is why we should stop using simple words for complex matters and stop categorizing people as left and right, European and American. It simply doesn't matter - Its the ideas and abstracts that fight the battle to settle what's right and what's wrong, not the people behind them. I'm also sincerely amazed at how some people have attached their nationality as such a big part of their identity that they get personally offended if somebody criticizes the government of their country. I can sense nationalism. The primary reason for why propaganda works is not that its oh-so-effective and well-thought, but because people subconsciously force themselves (actually it happens more like just a plain *click*) to believe in the readily laid-out "truth", because it frees them from the burden of gathering facts from as many and as objective as possible sources and building the picture themselves - They start to have "faith" which endangers their rational thinking.

One thing that I wanted to unofficially "prove" was that European and American conceptions on the political leftism punctuate different things. The thing in U.S. is that they have a two-party system that lets you choose from the Good or the Bad, which I would see as a potential reason to why many Americans seem to instinctively attack leftism - because this "random generator" election system doesn't admit the shades of gray that are trivial in typical European parliaments. We have no right and left, but all the way from right to centre to left, with different parties that represent different ideologies or values, in between. EU is just a natural step in the power polarisation process of our now globalized globe, and seems to already succesfully attract people to look up to it like a form of state union. I've even witnessed some wacko, when asked where he's from, to pronounce "From EU".


Communism is always said to be a totalitarian form of government that suppresses individual's rights, freedom, spirit and worst of all the desire for them. Of course there are obvious reasons to why communism exists in the first place, so I'm presenting my personal favourites here:

1. Marx said that the danger of capitalism is that people who grow into the system will start valuating everything in relation to currency. When the system requires growing efficiency, people will simply drown so deep into the rules of economics and "modern survival" that everything else becomes as superficial as the numbers in stock exchange.

2. People are irresponsible by nature. It is tempting to grant responsibility of material belongings to a government, not needing to plan, stress and worry about the future and survival. On the cost of freedom, including dangers of it. Communism would free people from the stress of managing and planning their lives in detail, and allow them to use more time for personal interests and self-expression.

3. Communism was actually a world domination plan by the free masonry organization later known as Illuminati.


The most fundamental problem with communism is that it tries to force a socially free, interaction-encouraging group mentality on an uncontrollably large stack of people that don't have anything in common, nor any motives to promote the community. Certain utopistic thoughts behind communism are sincere, but there exist trendy mass movements that have little to do with the beautiful pictures of a united mankind where nobody has a reason to discriminate against their fellow man, but all to do with pumping oneself into a mass-hypnotic "high" from the feeling of unity. These mindless sheep are of course found in about any political faction with different divertion techniques and motives, and I'd dare to claim that they represent the majority of people involved in politics. Therefore I'd say its narrowminded to think there's a form of government or a nation that is a failure in itself, its the abusers and abused that play their power games.

[musik_man]

Musik_Man, you talk about others' lack of knowledge of economics, yet you aquate creating money with printing new currency?

When one prints new money, one creates more money.  Creating money through adjusting the reserve rate is only a way to control the economy over the short term.  In the long run it can't consistently increase the money supply, as you'd have to keep lowering the rate to 0.

Just because someone makes money doesn't mean they take it away from someone else.

Agreed, xvimbi was the one who stated that people can only become wealthy by exploiting others.

Money is created because bills get ripped and unusable. Any money in addition is inflation, and it reduces the value of the money, so in essence, money is fixed.

Money is not fixed.  Would you be willing to say that we have the same amount of money in circulation today as we did 100 years ago?

Wealth means a lot of different things in different cultures. It makes no sense to compare different markets using "wealth". OK, then let's convert everything into money. It is still true that when someone gets rich, money has to change hands, and somone else has to pay for it.

You seem to think that having a piece of paper with a big number on it means you're well off.  Money is only valuable because it can readily be exchanged for goods and services.  When someone has more money, it means they have provided more goods and services.  They deserve their money.

The "European way" is making sure that people are payed fairly and that they don't have to do unreasonable things to satisfy their employers. Unfortunately, much of American "wealth" is based on just that.

The "European way" makes it nearly impossible for employers to fire imcompetent workers.  The "European way" is why Europe's unemployment rate is twice that of America's.  And what constitutes unreasonable?  In America you can find another job if your employer asks unreasonable things of you.  

Deregulation and moving vital activities from the government sector to the private sector in the US have led to a very low quality of those things. "Cutthroat" means that everyone is trying to get by with the minimum. And this is obviously not enough. The roads are quite bad, there is very little public transportation, the school system is lousy, science and engineering is dominated by foreigners who have been educated in their countries, the healthcare and retirement systems are in a "crisis", power and water supplies are often limited and unreliable and of low quality. There is a record deficit, the average personal debt is as high as in no other country, and 25% of the world pollution come from the US (and of course, nobody is doing anything about this, as it would hurt the economy, so let the other countries deal with it). The only thing that stands out is the military (I wonder why). Heck, there is not even a consistent phone system. You'd say that is just fine, because if someone wants all that to be of high quality, they should pay for it themselves (and import it from Europe or Asia).

Wow, half the stuff that you list as being "crisis" are government activities.  Way to prove yourself wrong.  And fyi there is nothing limited or unreliable about water and power in America.  I can't remember a time when my water stopped working, or when the lights went off for more than half an hour.  Our phone system isn't broken either.  All my phones work quite well.  I could care less about the state of public transportation, I have a car.

It's funny that you talk about the US deficit.  Italy has a national debt of over 100% of its GDP.  American national debt is quite below that of other nations, when presented as a percentage of GDP.

America also has the world's greatest military.  I'm in no way ashamed of that and the fact that you attempt to use that as an insult shows an unrealistic view about how the world works.

Your theory of human psychology is also very amusing, I doubt it would pass a basic psychology 101 class.  So in your opinion US citizens take care of themselves not because they want to live longer and healthier but because they don't want to spend extra money??  

Strawman!  I never said that at all.  I said that economic incentives are a factor.  I never said that nothing else influences people's health.  There are many other cultural, social, and economic factors involved.

The smoking thing is the Scarlett Letter on Europe.  But the governments are working very hard at removing it, they have finally realized the financial costs of such stupid behavior.

This of course is the second downside to public healthcare.  The government has no right to tell me whether or not I can smoke.

By the way, I pay about 600 Euros a year for my private health insurance in Spain.  Last I looked in the US it was substantially more ($1500 or so).  So much for that theory as well.

You can't jump to any conclusion from this evidence.  We'd have to know how extensive the coverage of both plans are, the quality of service provided, and any government involvement in either of the two.

Let me ask you something.  Why would anything government run cost less?  

PS- I will take your lack of reply to my question regarding your real acquaintance with Europe to mean that either you have never been here at all and your assumptions are based on second hand information or that you have come in a tour group full of Americans.  

Althoug I don't see how this matters, no, I haven't been.  I'm only a college student, and don't have the money to vacation there.  But you don't disagree with any of my assumptions(that European governments are larger than the US governments) only with my conclusion(That this is a bad thing.)

[xvimbi]

Musik_Man, I hope you'll make enough money so that you will never need the help of anybody around you. And in order to protect the wealth you'll accumulate, make sure to buy some guns, unless you already have them, because the lefties are out there just waiting to take it all away from you. Good luck!

[Bluethroat]

I don't get to post here as often as I'd like to, nor do I have the time to devote to this thread what I'd like to. I plan to try later, but I will simply say for now that in reading some of the descriptions of left vs. right by the left here,  and some of the other comments made by those who describe themselves as being on the left, I can only shake my head in amazement. So many completely uninformed opinions. Then I read the post above, and I realize than apparently many people end up considering themselves as leftists because they simply lack the capacity to reason.

Whoa, hold on there missy! You're casting doubts on others ability to reason while at the same time including zero "reasons" for your own affiliations. If you're going to resort to straightforward character assassination at least begin with something a little more substantial first and those of us hovering around the middle ground may give your opinions a little more respect.

[Nightscape]

So I assume that this is a thread that seeks to compare liberalism with conversatism to find which is the better of the two.  Arguing from the present standpoint will not achieve anything - most people are too set in their opinions to seriously consider changing their beliefs.  But if you view all of human history from an objective standpoint, you will easily see that liberalism always..... and I mean always prevails over conservative ideologies.  From this you could not reason which is better, but you could certainly reason which of the two is more practical and more natural in regards to the progress of human development.

Think about every famous hero or martyr from histroy:  Jesus, Joan of Arc, writers of the US constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, etc.

Each one was considered a radical - extreme leftist - in his or her time.  In every case, it is the conservatives who are the bad guys, the evil, cruel despots.  It is easy to understand why history views conservatives in such a bad light:  Liberals advocate change (we need to improve), and Conservatives advocate complacency (we are fine just the way we are).  But since humans are flawed creatures, we will never be fine "just the way we are".  We are continuously correcting are errors, changing our ways.  In reality, the process of applying reason to life that began in the Age of Enlightenment is still going on - that is why the liberals advocate change.

You may or may not have conservative beliefs.  But remember one thing will always be certain:  if you have conservative beliefs, they will most certainly die out with you.

[xvimbi]

So I assume that this is a thread that seeks to compare liberalism with conversatism to find which is the better of the two.  Arguing from the present standpoint will not achieve anything - most people are too set in their opinions to seriously consider changing their beliefs.  But if you view all of human history from an objective standpoint, you will easily see that liberalism always..... and I mean always prevails over conservative ideologies.  From this you could not reason which is better, but you could certainly reason which of the two is more practical and more natural in regards to the progress of human development.

You are absolutely right. Liberalism is based on tolerance, whereas conservatism is not. This is reflected in the attitude of most conservatives. I would consider myself middle left. The reason I reacted so harshly was because people start judging other cultures from their couches without ever having made an effort to gain personal experience or even trying to understand the other views.

Anybody who thinks other philosophies are flawed must accept that his/her own philosophy might be flawed too. I haven't gotten that impression from most conservatives. They think their values are the Absolute and try to impose them on the rest of the world.

[Egon von Sprocket]

Think about every famous hero or martyr from histroy:  Jesus, Joan of Arc, writers of the US constitution, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, etc.

Each one was considered a radical - extreme leftist - in his or her time. 

Jesus was apolitical, (give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.)
Joan of Arc was a hyper nationalist  more akin to conservatives in the US, don't you think?
The writers of the Constitution, were Lockean Empiricists that would seem to be ultra Libertarians in today's society.
Abraham Lincoln was a good Republican: his interest was NOT freeing the slaves, but holding the union together.
MLK, well Bobby Kennedy agreed with you that he was a radical.
Ghandi, Nationalist, first class.

Want to "etc." some more?

[Nightscape]

Jesus was apolitical, (give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.)
Joan of Arc was a hyper nationalist  more akin to conservatives in the US, don't you think?
The writers of the Constitution, were Lockean Empiricists that would seem to be ultra Libertarians in today's society.
Abraham Lincoln was a good Republican: his interest was NOT freeing the slaves, but holding the union together.
MLK, well Bobby Kennedy agreed with you that he was a radical.
Ghandi, Nationalist, first class.

Want to "etc." some more?

Liberalism and Conservatism are not political parties!  They are adjectives used to describe tendencies whether it be a person, political party, or an organization.  Therefore, you do not need to say you are a Democrat, Republican, etc to be classified as having liberal tendencies.

Let us not forget that the Republican Party was once the liberal party in America - so Abe Lincoln can most certainly be described as having leftist tendencies regardless of his party affiliation or intent on freeing slaves.  You are also confusing theory with practice, whether or not Abe Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, the fact is is that he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, which would have been a highly liberal document in his time.  People can go against thier type anyway.... remember Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act?  That was certainly not a liberal move by Clinton, but rather a conservative step (or step back, if you will).  It is well known that not all Democrats are as "liberal" as one would think.

Also, nationalism is not a conservative value.  The myth that democrats and liberals hate their own country is absurd.

[Nightscape]

Abraham Lincoln was a good Republican: his interest was NOT freeing the slaves

By the way.... this really doesn't make the Republicans sound too good.

[Egon von Sprocket]

Liberalism and Conservatism are not political parties!  They are adjectives used to describe tendencies whether it be a person, political party, or an organization.  Therefore, you do not need to say you are a Democrat, Republican, etc to be classified as having liberal tendencies.

Let us not forget that the Republican Party was once the liberal party in America - so Abe Lincoln can most certainly be described as having leftist tendencies regardless of his party affiliation or intent on freeing slaves.  You are also confusing theory with practice, whether or not Abe Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, the fact is is that he did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, which would have been a highly liberal document in his time.  People can go against thier type anyway.... remember Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act?  That was certainly not a liberal move by Clinton, but rather a conservative step (or step back, if you will).  It is well known that not all Democrats are as "liberal" as one would think.

Also, nationalism is not a conservative value.  The myth that democrats and liberals hate their own country is absurd.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

--The sound of Egon hosing down Nightscape128.   

[musik_man]

Nightscape, you confuse the older definition of liberal with the modern one.  Liberal in the classic sense would mean support for limited government, laissez-faire capitalism, and respect for the rights of individuals.  The closest we have to this today are libertarians.  Modern liberalism stands for governmental control and regulation of society.  Modern liberalism is in no way bound to succeed.

Xvimbi, if you can't make anything better than a snide, sarcastic, patronizing post, I'll consider my arguement with you over.

[chopiabin]

I agree that liberalism is bound to come out eventually. Even the Republican Party has undergone a major shift left since the 50's. Conservatives in the 1950's stood for segregation and racism - look at them now. Abortion is now legal, no matter how many people still oppose it; gay people are all over tv and are working towards and have gained greater rights in the last 10 years; women are no longer supposed to stay at home and cook dinner for the kids; Condi Rice, a black woman, is one of the most powerful people in Bush's cabinet - that never would have happened 50 years ago; the teaching of evolution is no longer contested in public schools; there is no prayer in public schools; courts are being ordered to remove the ten commandments from courthouses. Look back 50 years ago and one can see that the liberals have won and will keep on winning - change is inevitable, and the most one can do is slow it down a bit.

[dinosaurtales]

I've seen several replies on this post that refer to healthcare.  I have considerable experience in the healthcare industry, so maybe a few reflections will help out.

There are many many reasons why healthcare costs are skyrocketing - and no,it's not the rich doctors raking it in.  Nor is it the rich hospitals soaking everybody.

It's:

1.  the government - through various regulations imposed by HCFA (the Healthcare finance administration) data and reporting requirements, audit requirements, care monitoring and reporting requirements to both state and federal levels - increase staffing costs for both hospitals and insurers.  Some of these things acutally involve improvements of some kind, but I would be willing to argue that the improvements are negligible compared to the costs.

2.  HIPAA - the data and privacy law recently  in effect.  I won't go into gory details (I have implemented all portions of this law somewhere by now) - but it all starts with a simple innocent question:  "you don't want other people seeing your medical records, do you?".  The costs to implement and manage this law have been astronomical - and I would be willing to argue, once again, that the benefit is not justified by the cost - not even close on this one!

3.  Expectations.   A rich guy has a lot of money, so he might want to buy a Mercedes when he goes to buy a car.  A medium income family might not have as much, so they buy a Honda Accord.  The kid just out of school on a  starting salary buys a used Toyota pickup for $3000 and tries to keep it running.  This is not the case in healthcare.  If we invent a whizzy new gadget to streamline a surgical procedure, or provide exceptional diagnostic images, everyone will insist on getting that, rather than the old, cheaper way.  Even a poor guy expects the highest quality of care.  This is simply unreaslistic given the basic economics.

4.  Expectations - part 2.  Health insurance coverage was originally covered by employers as a way of providing higher salaries to employees during the 60's when wage controls were in place.  They couldn't give raises, but they could provide a benefit.  People now EXPECT their employers toi cover healthcare, and employees hate it if they have to actually contribute some of their own money into the premium pot!  Folks with 100% coverage pay a $20 copay.  Their impression is tat a doctor visit costs $20! I think if people were more aware of some of these "hidden" costs like the governemt ones and lawsuits (next one on my list), they'd be a lot madder at the government!

5.  Lawsuits.  My two favorite doctors had to give up their practices.  They teach somewhere now.  It's a shame, because all it takes is one patient that doesn't follow directions, or just plain old has bad luck, and the doctor is oiut of business.  The guy still has a house payment and a car and bills - his fees will goi up to cover them I guarantee it!

6.  The government.  I live in Oregon, where liberals are king.  We have the second worst economy in the nation, and the second worst unemploymnet.  The state wants to initiate new taxes because they want more money.  One of their pet programs is the Oregon health Plan, which was an attempt to create the first "healthcare for all" plan on a state level.  They priced the plan based on "experience" data - it's claims data (we had to send them from the company I worked for at the time) from private insurers.  We suggested that they consider factoring in extra money somehow for what is called "utilization".  Think about the audience - in  a private insurer, the insureds tend to be working folks.  with families.  Busy.  average 2 claims per year per insured.  The state was aiming for poor, and over-65 folks - Poor, meaning, not working - which translates into - less healthy lifestyle and lots of time in the day to go to the doctor - which they did in spades!  After all, the sdervice was free - why not go as much as you want?  So the plan is basically going broke, but the libs out here can't bring themselves to admit it, so they keep tossing tax dollars at it in a frenzy of denial. 

Basically, I would have to say that a government managed health plan would be the most expensive, most restrictive, and would provide almost no actual care, given the government's current abilities to provide anything resembling a service.

[dinosaurtales]

Another thought about this post that we might think about:

It has to do with connotation of terms,

"Liberal" has traditiioinally implied free thinking, progressive, willing to seek change, open mindedness, etc.

"Conservative" has traditionally implied stodgy, resistant to change, closed mindedness.

The two US political parties currently seem to operate the opposite of these terms.  Why is it that the Liberals are resistant to changing social programs, such as social security, welfare, affirmative action, medicare, and the tax code?  It's the conservatives in office that are trying to instigate change.  Which seems weird.

[xvimbi]

Basically, I would have to say that a government managed health plan would be the most expensive, most restrictive, and would provide almost no actual care, given the government's current abilities to provide anything resembling a service.

This is true because the government does a bad job.

Healthcare works fairly well in Europe, because the programs are apparently run much more efficiently. The standard of the healthcare is also very high, and many more people can afford expensive treatment than in the US.
 
Yes, costs are rising all the time, for various reasons. You haven't factored in a few aspects: healthcare industry and pharmaceutical industry. Arguably, the most profitable and influential (in terms of influence on the government) industry is pharma. Granted, research into new drugs is expensive, but what is going on there in the US is practically price gauging. Furthermore, pharma influences medicine: the guidelines for high-blood pressure/cholesterol have just been lowered a second time in a row, which now classifies millions of more people as "sick" requiring expensive statins to treat their issues. This is plain profit for pharma, but has little to do with real needs.

So, to come back to the initial statement: the government does a bad job. In other words, they are incompetent, and they expect the free market to be more competent and to do a better job. Yet, things that get deregulated tend to degrade severely in quality over time. The reason is simple: the free market is "cut-throat" as Musik_Man remarked quite correctly. As a consequence, any business owner who wants to survive will have to lower costs, which inevitably lowers the quality of the services rendered. It's a downward spiral, and in shows. Yet, the owners (and Wallstreet) are still making a lot of money until they have to go out of business or to jail. Extreme competition does not bring out the best, it brings out the worst, because the best is too expensive for people to afford.

So, if the government does a good job and people trust it, there is nothing wrong with giving it money (in form of taxes) to take care of their citizens. If it is incompetent, one would have to pay money in form of premiums to some company to provide the services and hope that one doesn't get ripped off. Frivolous lawsuits are obviously evidence for a flawed legal system. The solution is not to do away with the governement, but to get one that is competent.

[xvimbi]

Xvimbi, if you can't make anything better than a snide, sarcastic, patronizing post, I'll consider my arguement with you over.

It's funny you feel offended by a remark that so exactly describes what a lot of extreme conservatives think.

[ChristmasCarol]

And people wonder why there's always wars going on, on this planet.  I find it compelling that as a human race we haven't figured out a way to make room for differing opinions.  I honest to gosh don't feel automatic hostility to every person who has differing opinions from my own.  When you hunker down with a human being, it becomes clear that most of us want the same things, we just think it will come to fruition by different means.  I have this corny old-fashioined yearning for peace on earth. 

[Egon von Sprocket]

I have this corny old-fashioined yearning for peace on earth. 

And that is the true meaning of Christmas!  (joke  )

But seriously, it isn't all that bad--as a matter of fact it's down right healthy for people to have different opinions and argue about them, and in all sush exchanges sometimes people get a little hot under the collar, but that's just human nature and we should just move on.  Of course, some people like to rough things up more than necessary, and some like everything so darn sweet and smooth that your teeth begin to rot when you read their posts--but as always the best way is the via media.

Nothing wrong with the exchanges going on here--the problem comes in when "power" is added to the equasion; when the people discussing these questions are heads of state or important people in governments that can either gain or loose power depending on the outcome, then we have wars and conflict and death and distruction.

Thankfully pianist rarely have such power.