# Why Socialism can never die



## a_majoor (5 May 2006)

Link to a long article which attempts to explain why after the disasters of the 20th century there are STILL true believers in socialism, and why it is seemingly so easy to whip up the crowd to follow them. (This might also go some way to explaining the belief systems of people like the protesters in Winnipeg and elsewhere). Long read but worthwhile:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I

excerpt


> Sorel's response to Renan's comment is not to say, "Renan is wrong; there is a socialist solution, and one day we will find it." Instead, he focuses on the fact that socialists gain their strength precisely from their refusal to recognize that no socialist solution exists. "No failure proves anything against Socialism since the latter has become a work of preparation (for revolution); if they are checked, it merely proves that their apprenticeship has been insufficient; they must set to work again with more courage, persistence, and confidence than before...." But what is the point for Sorel of this refusal to accept the repeated historical failure of socialism? Here again, Sorel refuses to embrace the orthodox position of socialist optimism; he does not say, "Try, try, try again, for one day socialism will succeed." Instead, he argues that it is only by refusing to accept the failure of socialism that one can become a "true revolutionary." Indeed, for Sorel, *the whole point of the myth of the socialist revolution is not that the human societies will be transformed in the distant future, but that the individuals who dedicate their lives to this myth will be transformed into comrades and revolutionaries in the present. In short, revolution is not a means to achieve socialism; rather, the myth of socialism is a useful illusion that turns ordinary men into comrades and revolutionaries united in a common struggle -- a band of brothers, so to speak.*.
> *                         *                           *
> It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," i*n those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true.* Who doesn't want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?


----------



## paracowboy (5 May 2006)

Socialism as espoused by our modern "revolutionaries", Communism as outlined by Herrs Marx und Engels, Moore's Utopianism, are trylu wondrous concepts, and I fervently wish to see them come true. But they can't. They are a fallacy. The problem is their inherent flaw: they ignore Human Nature.

Perhaps one day, the species will evolve enough, as a society, to be able to accept them, and it would be a glorious day. True Equality, Liberty, and a total absence of poverty, with it's attendant problems of crime, hunger, disease, and war.

But, I'll not hold my breath. I need it to continue to fight in the present to make the world a better place.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 May 2006)

A frictionless universe always made my physics problems easier, but it was not difficult to distinguish between fantasy and reality.  It would be amusing to watch these people keep trying to run up a slope of infinitely increasing grade and height if they didn't cause so much misery for others.


----------



## CougarKing (6 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Socialism as espoused by our modern "revolutionaries", Communism as outlined by Herrs Marx und Engels, Moore's Utopianism, are trylu wondrous concepts, and I fervently wish to see them come true. But they can't. They are a fallacy. The problem is their inherent flaw: they ignore Human Nature.
> 
> Perhaps one day, the species will evolve enough, as a society, to be able to accept them, and it would be a glorious day. True Equality, Liberty, and a total absence of poverty, with it's attendant problems of crime, hunger, disease, and war.
> 
> But, I'll not hold my breath. I need it to continue to fight in the present to make the world a better place.



Though, your last line sounds a little corny, the rest of it sounds well said, paracowboy. Seriously.


----------



## Zarathustra (6 May 2006)

Very good article. 

I love to go argue about economics in left wing forums. Over the years I had a countless number of tactical victories, and yet I never managed to obtain any kind of strategic result. They just keep coming ! It's like every new socialist brings back to life all your defeated opponents. At some point you have to just laugh over it. 



> It may well be that socialism isn't dead because socialism cannot die. As Sorel argued, the revolutionary myth may, like religion, continue to thrive in "the profounder regions of our mental life," in those realms unreachable by mere reason and argument, where even a hundred proofs of failure are insufficient to wean us from those primordial illusions that we so badly wish to be true. Who doesn't want to see the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what he needs?



Very true I think. From my experience, you can defeat every rational arguments of a socialist, his faith is not wavering. He's still a believer. 


I'll post this article in my favorite socialist forum and observe the reaction.


----------



## GunfighterSB (6 May 2006)

Zarathustra,

Can you post the URL where you are placing this post? I too want to see the frenzy.

A_majoor,

That was a very informative link. The article was followed by more spirited discussion. (I especially liked the Capitalist Myth of a Self Made Man - arguing that it is not a myth but a practical accomplishment with a lot of credible examples). 

Perhaps the next link from the Mr. Harris will explain not only the socialists but the religious zeal of the protesters that accompany them. (It may explain the thread of "Protestor's Response to Exercise Charging Bison".

http://www.policyreview.org/aug02/harris.html

Again, thank you for the treasured find.


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

CougarKing said:
			
		

> Though, your last line sounds a little corny,


sorry. I'll try to word my convictions in such a manner that they won't be construed in that way again. 



> the rest of it sounds well said, paracowboy. Seriously.


thanks ever so much. I feel better now.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2006)

:rofl:


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 May 2006)

>Over the years I had a countless number of tactical victories

Ah, the joy of whack-a-mole.


----------



## Zarathustra (8 May 2006)

GunfighterSB said:
			
		

> Zarathustra,
> 
> Can you post the URL where you are placing this post? I too want to see the frenzy.



Actually no frenzy so far, only one person replied. (It's not a very high volume forum.) 

http://www.pourunquebecsolidaire.org/index.php?forum

The forum is in french. My name there is Francois Boudreau. I don't know if you follow Quebec's politics, but last fall a group of public figures published a "Lucid manifesto", asking for reforms. A "Solidarity manifesto" was published in response to it. This forum in the solidarity forum. 

After coming here and reading the article above, I realized I needed to change my tactics. I'm just going to ask questions, in a Socratic way. It's probably better if they discovers the errors by themselves, like I did when I was younger. I'll just try to guide them toward that. 

You really have to bring the moles to your side, otherwise it's useless. And from my experience moles don't switch side after you proved in public that they are idiots. Quite the opposite. So from now on, it will be less firepower and more heart and mind. We'll see how it goes.


----------



## exsemjingo (11 May 2006)

Death to Marxism.


----------



## bdb (20 May 2006)

Ignorance is strength.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.

Sound familiar?


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

I'm just wondering if people that are against socialism are against our health care system?  Our system has it's problems but I believe in the fundamental right of all citizens to have access to health care.


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

yes. Yes, we are. In fact, if we have our way we will hav seven year-olds working in coal mines again.  :


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes. Yes, we are. In fact, if we have our way we will hav seven year-olds working in coal mines again.  :



What the heck is that supposed to mean?  Was there a REASON for you to  :? No, I don't think so.


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

yes, there was, or I wouldn't have included it. It's used to express certain emotions such as exasperation with a silly question. It's often used in conjunction with a sarcastic comment. These types of answers are usually given in response to a silly question or comment, or one that flies in the face of common sense.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, there was, or I wouldn't have included it. It's used to express certain emotions such as exasperation with a silly question. It's often used in conjunction with a sarcastic comment. These types of answers are usually given in response to a silly question or comment, or one that flies in the face of common sense.



All of which I didn't think my question was.    

Now, what was silly about the question?  What flew in the face of common sense?  There are people who are against socialism and that's fine, but then why be all for our health system?  That's a tad inconsistent, don't you think?  Next time you want to accuse me of asking a silly question or having no common sense please support it with facts.  Thank you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering if people that are against socialism are against our health care system?  Our system has it's problems but I believe in the fundamental right of all citizens to have access to health care.



If the lieberals in Ontario would give me back the health premium they stole from me and the Feds would give me my share back of the taxes that go to health care, I would opt out of the 'Universal Health System'. I'd take the money and buy into an HMO. Better, more professional and faster service. If you can't afford an HMO, go ahead and stick with the archaic and broken system that leaves you on the waiting list hoping you'll die before they have to spend dollar one to treat you, and doesn't allow you the choice of treatment. There's a reason the communist and socialist are dying off, and part of it is self prescribed in their utopian, err...universal health system.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If the lieberals in Ontario would give me back the health premium they stole from me and the Feds would give me my share back of the taxes that go to health care, I would opt out of the 'Universal Health System'. I'd take the money and buy into an HMO. Better, more professional and faster service. If you can't afford an HMO, go ahead and stick with the archaic and broken system that leaves you on the waiting list hoping you'll die before they have to spend dollar one to treat you, and doesn't allow you the choice of treatment. There's a reason the communist and socialist are dying off, and part of it is self prescribed in their utopian, err...universal health system.



Ok, I'm going to assume it's fine to be disrespectful and sarcastic...contrary to the rules that I "thought" I read when I joined.  I never said that our system does not have problems; it has many problems.  But it is my belief that citizens have the right to health care and it should be provided when the tax dollars are going towards it. Health care is a RIGHT, not a for profit business.

It's not about "your" tax dollars.  It is a sacrifice for which ALL Canadians should be giving their tax dollars myself and yourself included.  Others do it just as much as you do.  I can't believe on an army forum there seem to be people who are only concerned about themselves.  Sorry, but that's not me.  

As for "utopian", I never mentioned that whatsoever.  There will be no "utopia" on this side of the Lord's return.  Newslfash for you...EVERYONE is dying off!  Not just communists and socialists!  But then again, should I even take you seriously when you say *lie*berals instead of "liberals"?  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm going to assume it's fine to be disrespectful and sarcastic...contrary to the rules that I "thought" I read when I joined.  I never said that our system does not have problems; it has many problems.  But it is my belief that citizens have the right to health care and it should be provided when the tax dollars are going towards it. Health care is a RIGHT, not a for profit business.
> 
> It's not about "your" tax dollars.  It is a sacrifice for which ALL Canadians should be giving their tax dollars myself and yourself included.  Others do it just as much as you do.  I can't believe on an army forum there seem to be people who are only concerned about themselves.  Sorry, but that's not me.
> 
> As for "utopian", I never mentioned that whatsoever.  There will be no "utopia" on this side of the Lord's return.  Newslfash for you...EVERYONE is dying off!  Not just communists and socialists!  But then again, should I even take you seriously when you say *lie*berals instead of "liberals"?  :



Disrespectful and sarcastic to whom? That's my honest feelings and opinions. And it is about my tax dollars when they go to good for nothing louts who won't go and do an honest days work to provide for themselves. Leaving me and the other honest working folk in this country to provide for them. You don't have to mention utopia, I did. It was my response and my perogative. It's my opinion. I'm entitled to it.

PS: If they don't want to be labelled as lieberals, they should stop acting like it.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion but it came across very sarcastic and disrespectful to me.  That's just the way it seemed.  If you weren't, then that's fine.  

It doesn't matter if someone is lazy or not.  They are Canadian citizens and thus, have as much right to health care as you have to state your opinion.

Maybe liberals lie (they do) but so do conservatives.  I like to use proper terms when I am discussing something.  I have no use for "lie"berals or "con"servatives.  Just like we have to avoid msn speak, spelling mistakes, etc. on here I think we should avoid the above. I don't believe you will agree with me but that's fine.  Such is the beauty of  being


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

health care is not a "Right". It is a privilige. One we can extend, and should whenever possible, but it is not an inherent Right, akin to Liberty or Equality.

That is one of the major problems with our pampered society today: an inability to differentiate between Rights and priviliges, as well as a complete disregard for Duty and Responsibility.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2006)

So let me get this straight, because I was lucky enough to be born here, it is my obligation to mount up on my white steed, lower my visor and go off spending part of the 60% of my gross wages in taxes to the lazy citizens that can't be bothered to fend for themselves? No one has the 'right' to live off the avails of others.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 May 2006)

The argument between socialism and capitalism is one of the foundations of our democracy. The synthesis of these two creates an egalitarian progressive society. The pendulum swings too far either way occasionally, but the system tends to self regulate. Too much of either clearly stops a country from being successful.


----------



## TMM (20 May 2006)

My "utopia" would be to paraphrase Dubček - "Capitalism with a human heart."


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering if people that are against socialism are against our health care system?  Our system has it's problems but I believe in the fundamental *right* of all citizens to have access to health care.





> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with *certain unalienable Rights,* that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



There is the real problem in a nutshell. The great thinkers of the Enlightenment knew that Rights were precious and few, and were to be defieded against all challenges, even to the point of rising up and using physical force to defend you rights and yourselves. Our Leftist "thinkers" will accord every privilage with the ambit of a "Right", thus watering down the entire concept and rendering it almost meaningless.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> health care is not a "Right". It is a privilige. One we can extend, and should whenever possible, but it is not an inherent Right, akin to Liberty or Equality.
> 
> That is one of the major problems with our pampered society today: an inability to differentiate between Rights and priviliges, as well as a complete disregard for Duty and Responsibility.



I don't see it as pampered though.  I see it as an obligation.  I am a Christian and if someone cannot afford health care (as many can't in countries where health care is a for profit business), it is my obligation to help them.  Maybe there are people who disregard Duty and Responsibility but I am not one of them.  It is my Duty and Responsibility as a Christian and as a Canadian to help others.  I also see health care as being part of the right to Life.  Glad we could be a little more respectful.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> There is the real problem in a nutshell. The great thinkers of the Enlightenment knew that Rights were precious and few, and were to be defieded against all challenges, even to the point of rising up and using physical force to defend you rights and yourselves. Our Leftist "thinkers" will accord every privilage with the ambit of a "Right", thus watering down the entire concept and rendering it almost meaningless.



Wouldn't health care fall under the category of the certain inalienable right to Life?  I would think it does.


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> Glad we could be a little more respectful.


 my 'respectfulness' is no different in that post than the previous. You'll get used to it.



> I don't see it as pampered though.  I see it as an obligation.  I am a Christian and if someone cannot afford health care (as many can't in countries where health care is a for profit business), it is my obligation to help them.  Maybe there are people who disregard Duty and Responsibility but I am not one of them.  It is my Duty and Responsibility as a Christian and as a Canadian to help others.  I also see health care as being part of the right to Life.


 health care is not part of the Right to life. You have no Right to demand I take care of you. You have a Responsibility to take care of yourself. I have the Duty to ensure you have the opportunity. And your Christianity has no bearing on that, any more than someone's being a Buddhist. Religion deals in faith, it has nothing to do with politics or economics.
DEFINITELY not politics, as that is probably the least holy of all Canadian past times.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> my 'respectfulness' is no different in that post than the previous. You'll get used to it.
> health care is not part of the Right to life. You have no Right to demand I take care of you. You have a Responsibility to take care of yourself. I have the Duty to ensure you have the opportunity. And your Christianity has no bearing on that, any more than someone's being a Buddhist. Religion deals in faith, it has nothing to do with politics or economics.
> DEFINITELY not politics, as that is probably the least holy of all Canadian past times.



I imagine I'll get used to it.  I was being sarcastic...you'll get used to it. 

Health care is not part of the Right to Life?  Says you.  I say differently.  I have every right to demand you help me out and every obligation to help out anyone who needs my help.  It goes with being a Canadian citizen.

My Christianity bears on everything, including politics.  Religion deals in faith, which works itself out through politics and economics.  I can understand your viewpoint a little better now.  You see politics as a "past time".  I see it as something much more important that can have an impact on life and death. 

modified for spelling (why didn't spell check catch "of" spelled incorrectly?)


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> I have every right to demand you help me out and every obligation to help out anyone who needs my help.  It goes with being a Canadian citizen.


You can demand anything, but I am not obligated to meet it. You do not have the Right to me doing anything. I meet my Responsibility to your Rights by not actively squashing them. That's it. I can't take away your Right to free speech. I can't arbitrarily kill you. But, I do NOT have to provide you with any sort of medical assistance. I can stand there and watch you bleed to death. 



> My Christianity bears on everything, including politics.


  to you. Not to anyone else. That is why we have a secular government.



> Religion deals in faith, which works itself out through politics and economics.


  No. It doesn't. They are entirely seperate entities. Diff'rent critters altogether.



> I can understand your viewpoint a little better now.  You see politics as a "past time".  I see it as something much more important that can have an impact on life and death.


 you don't see much at all, since what was obviously a joke slipped right on past you like you were the goalie for the Sharks.



> modified for spelling (why didn't spell check catch "of" spelled incorrectly?)


 I dunno. What was the mis-spelling?


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

Well, I disagree with you on everything you said.  That's fine, I'm not going to get into a pissing match. I just disagree, that's all.

As for the spell check, I had the word "of" spelled "fo" and it didn't catch it. 

I was under the impression that we were supposed to treat each other with respect but if put up with my sarcasm then I will put up with yours.   You have a great night.


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2006)

The "Right to Life" as articulated by the Founding Fathers and other Enlightenment thinkers means you have the right to live without some King/Lord/Dictator/Imperator/Executive committee etc. being able to arbitrarily kill you.

The thinkers in the 1700's had emerged from an age where Europeans enthusiastically killed each other for speaking different languages, worshipping Christ in different ways, being for or against particular policies, decrees, fees, taxes etc. 

Since in 21rst century Canada it is very possible for a health care Bureaucrat to arbitraily kill you by putting you on a waiting list, your "Right to life" is jeopardized in the sense noted above (i.e. the threat of arbitrary death).

What you see as your religious duty to extend charity towards others is not a right, nor is it an obligation on people like Paracowboy or myself (although you can rest assured I will pull over to the side of the road to attend to accidents and perform other acts which I feel are important [note the obligation rests on my values and choices, not yours, Paracowboy's, Stephen Harper's or anyone else]). Certainly religious values can shape a political unit, *and indeed the post which opened this topic explicitly compares the values and belief systems of Socialists to religious faith, since they can continue to operate without reference to external events* (Christians have been swept by Millenialist fever several times awaiting the return of Jesus Christ; Socialists don't seem to think Vladimir Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, the Killing fields, the Harvest of Sorrow, the annexation of Eastern Europe etc. etc. reflects on their ideas)


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

I see what you're saying.  I agree with some and the rest is something to think about.  

About the bureaucrats arbitrarily killing us by putting us on a waiting list, I would agree with you on that.  That is what I was referring to when I conceded that our system has problems.  I believe everyone has the right to basic health care and nobody should be put on a waiting list.  There is no excuse why anyone in Canada should be put on waiting lists when Americans don't; at the same time the U.S. is ten times the size of Canada population wise.


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2006)

Sigh



> There is no excuse why anyone in Canada should be put on waiting lists when Americans don't; at the same time the U.S. is ten times the size of Canada population wise.



The American health care system is a bewildering mixture of public, private, publi-private partnerships and so on. You have potentially a lot of different health care choices in the United States, except for wealthy users of private clinics (*like Paul Martin Jr and Jack Layton*) the vast majorety of Canadian have *no* health care choices.


----------



## hoosierdaddy (20 May 2006)

*yawn*

I stopped reading at "Sigh".


----------



## paracowboy (20 May 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> Well, I disagree with you on everything you said.


of course you do. You are a devout Christian, and are getting your Rights and Responsibilites as a citizen of a constitutional monarchy confused with your perceived obligations as a member of your Christian denomination. While not mutually incompatible, they are not indivisible. In fact, the former must take precedence over the latter. Otherwise, we run into problems with the Right to Worship.

While most modern nations with a democratic form of government were founded by Christians, they are almost all secular, with a distinct seperation of Church and State. For good reason.  



> As for the spell check, I had the word "of" spelled "fo" and it didn't catch it.


 I don't know why that happened. Why don't you pm the site owner, Mike Bobbitt? I'm sure he'd want to know about any glitches in the system.



> I was under the impression that we were supposed to treat each other with respect


 there is respectful of others, and then there is just being dull. I try to never be boring, and therefore am seldom bored. This is a site for soldiers, populated by soldiers, and run by soldiers. Think of it like the Jr Ranks, but with a few more rules, as it is visible to the public, and therefore we under scrutiny from civilians. There's no need to be overly politically correct, and it's best not to be overly sensitive, or you'll not have much fun. Like I said, you'll get used to it. I'm actually behaving myself quite a bit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 May 2006)

>But it is my belief that citizens have the right to health care and it should be provided when the tax dollars are going towards it. Health care is a RIGHT, not a for profit business.

Learn a bit about "negative" and "positive" rights.  Wiki can probably help.  If health care is a right, then I'm just about ready to quit my job and enjoy my leisure.  Welfare is a right, too.  That looks after pretty much everything I need.  Now, where do I collect my rights?

This "obligation" you believe you have...how strong is it?  I mean, obviously you aren't giving away every penny to those less fortunate than you - there are very, very many of them and I think it unlikely you could assuage their needs before exhausting your resources - and living an exceedingly simple frugal life, right?  Perhaps you should revisit the use of the word "obligation".


----------



## hoosierdaddy (21 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> of course you do. You are a devout Christian, and are getting your Rights and Responsibilites as a citizen of a constitutional monarchy confused with your perceived obligations as a member of your Christian denomination. While not mutually incompatible, they are not indivisible. In fact, the former must take precedence over the latter. Otherwise, we run into problems with the Right to Worship.
> 
> *I don't believe I'm getting them confused so much as I'm putting them all together because I believe in the importance of both.*
> 
> ...


----------



## hoosierdaddy (21 May 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >But it is my belief that citizens have the right to health care and it should be provided when the tax dollars are going towards it. Health care is a RIGHT, not a for profit business.
> 
> Learn a bit about "negative" and "positive" rights.  Wiki can probably help.  If health care is a right, then I'm just about ready to quit my job and enjoy my leisure.  Welfare is a right, too.  That looks after pretty much everything I need.  Now, where do I collect my rights?
> 
> ...


----------



## hoosierdaddy (21 May 2006)

Sorry guys, the quote function sure doesn't work here the way I'm used to it. I'll go back and bold what I said in those posts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 May 2006)

> Of course I'm not giving away every penny to those less fortunate than me.  But I pay my taxes, which everyone else should do as well.  *And I believe if someone wants to live in this country they should pay their taxes without complaining about where they go to (as in the health care system)*.  There is no need for me to revisit the word "obligation" but maybe you could meditate on the words "love your neighbour as yourself"?



Now, that IS a RIGHT. The RIGHT to vote for the representative I choose, along with the RIGHT to voice my opinion to him/ her and petition them where to spend my taxes and on what.

As I also have the RIGHT to choose my own moral/ religious path, within legal bounds, without having to deal with anyone haranguing me to 'love my neighbor' or 'be a good Samaritan' or 'render unto Caesar that which is his'. Part of the separation of Church and State, is to ensure religious zealots don't rise to a position of political power and enforce their particular belief on the rest of society, a la Taliban.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 May 2006)

Since you're a Christian, you must understand the concept of free will and understand that it is every person's decision to accept Christ as saviour, not to mention every person's decision when choosing between all the lesser alternatives in life.  By your own system of beliefs, you must respect those who would be miserly and niggardly among us: it would be their choice, albeit not one with which you agree.

Furthermore, it would be wrong to compel a person to act against his freely chosen will, because it is not given to you to visit consequences on others - not you, and not any tyrannical majority of like-minded thinkers you can gather, no matter how large.  I'm pretty sure that the Lord reserves that to Himself.  Broadly, I suppose that taxation without consent, or tolerated begrudgingly, must be immoral in every belief or moral philosophical system which endeavours to support and promote the good, with the exception of a rule of faith (which is by definition inarguable).

The most you can in good moral conscience do is restrain a person from visiting harm against on others in violation of their essential rights, or entitlements under religious or secular law.

Secular socialism is not compatible with Christianity, because the former erodes responsibility for self and consideration of others.  I base this hypothesis purely on my own observations: as people expect "Government" to do more, they do less for themselves and others and assume the problem is being dealt with elsewhere.  Often it is not.

Obviously in a social and political organization of any mixture of faiths and cultures in which the rules aren't laid down by religious decree, there is going to be a system of taxation.  However, it should not be assumed that privileges provided at the expense of others are qualitatively the same as essential rights of the person.


----------



## TCBF (21 May 2006)

"yes. Yes, we are. In fact, if we have our way we will hav seven year-olds working in coal mines again."

- There we go: Six years of productivity - lost.

Tom


----------



## couchcommander (21 May 2006)

Well I'm not going to get into "why socialism will never die", just like I won't get into "Capitalism is for fools"... on this thread 

Re: the health care.

Para and others, that's a really slippery slop. People can't be allowed to selectively opt out of the tax system, the result would be anarchy.

Take for example someone who:

Doesn't support the army - they think their gun will do just fine thank you
Doesn't support the police - see above
Doesn't support the judicial system - see above
Doesn't support roads or infrastructure development - they live in the country and have all that they think they'll need
etc. etc. etc.

Some of you are probably thinking, well yea, they should be able to. Two reasons why this is not good: a) the poor suckers that do need to use all of these systems, ie victims of crime, working people, etc. b) in all likelihood the guy who decided to "opt out" will, in fact, at some point need to use the system or will benefit from it's continued existence. 

It's like you with your HMO. Really I am tempted to say go ahead - but don't come whining to me when the doctor that you are FORCED to go to decides that you don't in fact have crippling arthritis because he's over his quota for the month, or when you are injured, sent to a hospital, and then die when they decide the CAT scan will cost too much. 

Think I'm making this up?

http://www.kaiserpapers.org/horror.html

That's about ONE HMO. 

Yes yes, there are problems with our system. But please, take a few hours and read those. 

As well, by allowing "opt out's" of the health care system, the inevitable result will be those that can afford to purchase what they think will be better care will opt out, ie the more wealthy; unfortunately they also happen to pay most of the taxes in the country. 

For those who think that doesn't matter, I'd point out that these people rarely make this money by going out and doing all the work themselves but rather they earn it off of the backs of people less fortunate than them. They do, in fact, OWE IT to the rest of the nation, just like we owe our peace, stability, and prosperity to the society around us. 

Disagree with that? Go live in Mogadishu for a few years, then come back and tell me you aren't grateful for our institutions (and I know some of you may have been to somalia, I mean go try and make a living as an average joe there). 

And the challenge I issued last year still stands - find me one piece of hard, valid, peer reviewed reputable evidence that a for profit hospital will in fact be more efficient overall and we can get into that conversation again (and no, once again Frasier institute wishful thinking does not count, I'm talking a methodologically sound, cross sectional, analytical comparison of real world situations published in a reputable scientific or medical journal).


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2006)

>Para and others, that's a really slippery slop. People can't be allowed to selectively opt out of the tax system, the result would be anarchy.

Let's consider the other direction.  What happens when people selectively keep adding to the pile of things that have to be paid out of the revenues of the tax system?  At what point might a taxpayer just throw up his hands and say, "You people simply don't know when to quit.  I might as well be speaking to a wall."  What should a person do to free himself from the burden of spenders who lack self control?


----------



## couchcommander (22 May 2006)

Vote for a different party and hope the rest of the country agrees? It's the same thing we all have to do whenever we disagree with something that's happening in our puesdo democratic society.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 May 2006)

You're suggesting that the terms of civil debate should be restricted only to the question of "how much".  I would rather revisit the constitution to set firm boundaries on the responsibilities of federal and provincial governments and then hold them to those limits.


----------



## couchcommander (22 May 2006)

Well the boundardies between federal and provicial governments already exist - they've just become muddled.

As for exactly what areas these governments will choose to fund and not fund, i really do see that as area for the government of the day to decide. The constitution is rather inflexible and not prone to reacting to situations. If taxes get too high, the economy will suffer, and the populace _*should*_ put in another government.

Overall though, the Liberals have been lowering taxes since 2000 - it's only since these conservatives have come in that we see the net take home pay actually going down for a lot of people but I still don't think we're in any danger of taxes running up again like they did under the previous conservative government ()

But seriously, I mean if you want to start a party or join one that says "no taxes", or even advocates "really small government" by all means go ahead, I just wouldn't expect it to win the next election.


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2006)

This is a difficult question to answer, since the historical record is quite poor in this regard. 

The Athenian Democracy could be swayed by clever demegogues, which eventually led to the assembly voting for the disasterous Sicilian expedition and Athens loosing the flower of her Fleet and Army, and eventually the Peloponnesian War. The Res Publica Roma was rocked by dissent and eventually civil war over the divisions of powers between the landed aristocracy and the growing class of free citizens (farmers, merchants, tradesmen), while under the Empire, citizens discovered they could treat themselves to bread and circus' at the taxpayer's expense. The radicals of the French Revolution drenched the streets with blood during the Terror, and eventually they got tired of bloodshed and elected Napoleon as First Council (only to discover they had created an even bigger bloodbath, involving all Europe).

Even the carefully limited Republic the Founding Fathers sought to create in the United States has been largely undone, through a combination of politics and the activities of the Supreme Court, which have extended the powers of the Congress far beyond anything imagined by the Founding Fathers. In this regard, revisiting the Consitution would have little effect, since much of what has been done was through fairly creative interpretation of what is already there. The Civil Rights act was passed and enforced mostly through provisions of the Congress having power to regulate interstate commerce, and this was the wedge which was used to enact many other "Great Society" bills and expand the governmet since the 1960s.

In our own case, we have a bizzare combination of a Westminister parliament, provinces which have a great deal of potential political power, an ill informed and apathetic citizen base, and an entrenched bureacracy in multiple layers of government. Sad to say, but incrimental change will not save the day, but who would want to suggest violent revolution to clear the decks and enact changes?


----------



## couchcommander (26 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Sad to say, but incrimental change will not save the day, but who would want to suggest violent revolution to clear the decks and enact changes?



Agreed, peaceful democratic revolution in the spirit of "couchism" it is!


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Agreed, peaceful democratic revolution in the spirit of "couchism" it is!



So, how do you suggest this gets done? Don't forget, "Socialism" as an ideology has a religious hold on people, and we have some first hand knowledge what societies run by religious zealots are like (and what it takes to remove them).


----------



## vangemeren (31 May 2006)

Read this recently on BBC news:

*Calcutta takes cue from China * 
By Humphrey Hawksley 
BBC News, Calcutta  


After seven consecutive election victories, the Indian state government in West Bengal is taking tips from China on how to improve people's lives. 
The walls of the ruling party's headquarters in one of Calcutta's poorer districts are decorated with iconic portraits of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao. 

From the building where policies were once drawn up to try to turn India into a one-party state, communist leaders are devising a new plan, neither looking west towards Moscow or Wall Street, but east towards Beijing. 

"Chinese government has initiated new programmes," says the West Bengal Chief Minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. 

"They say the socialist economy should also allow different types of ownership - state ownership and private ownership and foreign investment." 

Capitalism v communism 

While Lenin's statue presides in a central Calcutta park, skyscrapers, flyovers and consumer billboards mark the real city landscape and its aspirations. 


 They are bargaining from a position of strength. We cannot compete with China 
Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, West Bengal Chief Minister  

It is at least a generation behind China, but the idea is to woo the growing middle-class which will, in turn, give confidence to foreign investors. 

"Previously what happened was that the communists had a very strong rural base so they used to keep winning in the villages," explains 25-year-old IT consultant Ruhin Chatterjee, one among millions of young middle-class voters who support the communists. "But in the cities they never won. This latest election has seen a change in that." 

One of the marks of increased wealth is the creation of shopping malls with advertising hoardings for high-rise dream homes, designer labels and massage therapy. 

But the truth is that they are a rarity. 

About 80% of Indians still live on less than $2 a day, whereas in China that figure has dropped to less than 50%. 

While mobile phones seem to abound in Calcutta, 13 Chinese have one to every one Indian. 

The statistics in other areas bear out the same story - China has outpaced India in just about every level of development. 

And in the crucial area of direct foreign investment, China receives almost $60bn a year compared to just $5bn for the whole of India. 

"Chinese economy has an inner strength," admits Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, whose plan for development depends on attracting billions of dollars in foreign investment. 

"They are bargaining from a position of strength. We cannot compete with China." 

Fierce competition 


Central to the debate is the Chinese argument that democracy stops development. 

But a straw poll in the middle-class Calcutta mall brings out a definitive response. 

"China does not practice human rights," said a middle-aged woman, to which a young man next to her added, "We are not ready to sacrifice our human rights to get people out of poverty. No." 

Thirty miles outside of Calcutta, in a village where 90% of the people voted for the communists, the response is the same. 

"Vote," says one farmer. "Vote is best." 

West Bengal has been in a 30-year experiment in running a communist administration within a democracy. 

It is way behind China and has not delivered much more than any other Indian state. 

Its literacy rate of just under 70% is about mid-way among all the Indian states. 

If the state's ruling communists do begin to follow China as they once followed the Soviet Union, their supporters - rich or poor - would draw a line on the Chinese formula of curtailing rights in order to create wealth. 

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/5012946.stm

Published: 2006/05/24 14:52:30 GMT


----------



## exsemjingo (20 Jun 2006)

bdb said:
			
		

> Ignorance is strength.
> War is peace.
> Freedom is slavery.
> 
> Sound familiar?


That's the tricky thing.  Orwell already wrote a book about the Soviet Union with Animal Farm.  1984 on the other hand was more general, and the reader is meant to find strains of that society in his own.

I could say more on Socialism, but many economists have already written better material.  The best arguments against Socialism are it's own results.


----------



## Cliff (20 Jun 2006)

> After seven consecutive election victories, the Indian state government in West Bengal is taking tips from China on how to improve people's lives.


I needed a good laugh


----------



## exsemjingo (22 Jun 2006)

I just got a good lesson in the importacne of reading threads closely.  I did not realize most of this thread agreed with my political sensibilities and that there was no need for over-the-top, inflammatory rhetoric.

That said, the BBC article on Calcutta neglected to mention one important fact: India was closed to outside investment and foreign trade until 1990.
Calcutta really did take a page from relative Chinese prosperity.  The state had been Communist in earnest.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Sep 2006)

The link is to the full article, which political junkies can read at their leisure, but the excerpts should whet your appetite:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19302



> Kolakowski's thesis, driven through 1,200 pages of exposition, is straightforward and unambiguous. Marxism, in his view, should be taken seriously: not for its propositions about class struggle (which were sometimes true but never news); nor for its promise of the inevitable collapse of capitalism and a proletarian-led transition to socialism (which failed entirely as prediction); but because Marxism delivered a unique —and truly original—blend of promethean Romantic illusion and uncompromising historical determinism.
> 
> The attraction of Marxism thus understood is obvious. It offered an explanation of how the world works—the economic analysis of capitalism and of social class relations. It proposed a way in which the world ought to work—an ethics of human relations as suggested in Marx's youthful, idealistic speculations (and in György Lukács's interpretation of him, with which Kolakowski, for all his disdain for Lukács's own compromised career, largely concurs[6] ). And it announced incontrovertible grounds for believing that things will work that way in the future, thanks to a set of assertions about historical necessity derived by Marx's Russian disciples from his (and Engels's) own writings. This combination of economic description, moral prescription, and political prediction proved intensely seductive—and serviceable. As Kolakowski has observed, Marx is still worth reading—if only to help us understand the sheer versatility of his theories when invoked by others to justify the political systems to which they gave rise.[7]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



Read the rest


----------



## -Marauder- (15 Sep 2006)

I hope socialism (or Marxisant theories of the global political economy) never dies.  While I disagree with so many of their assumtions, ideals and conclusions I do find it useful, from time to time, to try and look at a situation through their lenses or 'eyes'.  When I do, I find that some of what they have to say on subjects such as captialism, imperialism, globalization, East/West/North/South relations and/or hegemony to be insightful and sometimes instructive.   

Most modern Marxisant theories do not advocate the type of traditional revolution that classical Marxists do, rather they offer unique alternatives, some of which are very much in effect through out the world (West and East, North and South).  Some of the most benign of which, are represented in social, liberal democracies like Canada, where the emphasis is not only on democracy and liberal tenets but also social responsibility(ies) to the citizenry.  Depending on your bent, this may swing too far to the left but it is interesting in that it is something that a democracy selected and was not imposed, as it often appears to be in recent 'socialist' states.

Anyway, I like to think of it as a tool in my toobox (or lense) that I can take out and use to question some of my own assumptions and perspectives.

Cheers,

Mike 

Edit - spelling :-[


----------



## exsemjingo (17 Sep 2006)

Yeah, I like to hold onto old tools too: dull chisels, ratchets that don't turn anymore, phillips screwdrivers with the corners rounded off...
Marxism did not work for a while and then loose relevance; it never worked in the first place.  Even the economic examples listed in the Communist Manifesto do not last past the first few generations.

I've taken a job at a Union shop, and from time to time I talk with my co-workers about paying the bills, making ends meet, etc.  I find myself having to argue (nicely) over elementry concepts, like the existence of inflation.
How could any ideology to the left of union ideas ever be useful?


----------



## TCBF (17 Sep 2006)

"The Civil Rights act was passed and enforced mostly through provisions of the Congress having power to regulate interstate commerce, and this was the wedge which was used to enact many other "Great Society" bills and expand the governmet since the 1960s."

- A good point.  The Gun Control Act of 1934 was "Taxation" legislation: placing a $200 USD transfer fee on silencers, full-autos and 'short' firearms.

- In Canada, the REAL money out of the taxpayers arcs is commited to government funded 'foundations' which are beyond the vision and control of Parliament - and thus: the Auditor General.

You can bet a list of contracts to suppliers and consultants is a veritable 'who's-who' of the 'progressive elite ' of Canada.


----------



## RangerRay (17 Sep 2006)

hoosierdaddy said:
			
		

> *yawn*
> 
> I stopped reading at "Sigh".



That's too bad.  You might have learned something.

You don't find it odd that beside Cuba and North Korea, Canada is the only country that has universal health care?  The conditions in our hospitals are strikingly similar.

Before someone drags out the "Evil AmericansTM", many European countries (France, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, etc.) operate a mixture of private and public healthcare.  No one pays out of pocket, health care costs to the state are much lower than Canada's, and health outcomes are much higher than in Canada.  We should be exploring European models of health care, that the _Canada Health Act_ do not allow, which to me, indicates that this archaic piece of legislation should be put down.

As an aside, I have no problem with someone paying to access faster health care.  If I could afford it, and I could get a portion of my taxes returned, I would do it too!


----------



## TCBF (17 Sep 2006)

" I find that some of what they have to say on subjects such as captialism, imperialism, globalization, East/West/North/South relations and/or hegemony to be insightful and sometimes instructive."

- What a load of commie B.S.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Sep 2006)

> Why Socialism can never die


we're not shooting enough Socialists.


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Sep 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> we're not shooting enough Socialists.


 :rofl:
That is a good one.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2006)

>Why Socialism can never die

Because one is born every minute.


----------



## TCBF (18 Sep 2006)

... and two to take him.


----------



## couchcommander (18 Sep 2006)

Alcibiades said:
			
		

> Anyway, I like to think of it as a tool in my toobox (or lense) that I can take out and use to question some of my own assumptions and perspectives.



Indeed, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Marxist historical perspectives are just as narrow and innaccurate as most other narrow historical perspectives. At the same time, they can be very useful for understanding a certain, and often times very prominent, aspect driving certain events. 

In the end, historical change is not the result of one force, its a result of the whole spectrum of human experience. And just like the human experience is not encompassed within one perspective, historical change cannot be encompassed within one perspective; it's a process involving the comingling of countless factors, some more prominent than other however (no, not implying Marxist perspectives here).

In the end though, it can actually be very interesting. Try analysing early post-confederation Canadian history from a Marxist perspective, very intriguing.


----------



## Gunnerlove (19 Sep 2006)

> You don't find it odd that beside Cuba and North Korea, Canada is the only country that has universal health care?  The conditions in our hospitals are strikingly similar.



Easy there. Only three countries in the world have universal health care? You would be right if you were not wrong. What about Australia since 1976?

Socialism can be taken to all kinds of extremes, kind of like Capitalism. I like to think of economic systems as religions, people will defend all facets of their religion and make excuses for all the bad parts while trumpeting the good  parts. Kind of like full on Capitalists and Communists.

Ask yourself what is the total value of the oil being extracted from Canadian deposits. Where does the money go? I mean most of it, not the stupid $400 keep the peasants happy cheques in Alberta. Look at Hibernia. We backed the project as a Nation and what is our current pay back? 8% wow. Past governments have given the rights to our natural resources away. Instead of running the extraction as an exploitation of a public resource demanding maximum return on investment our property was given away in the hope of future tax income. 
"If after walking into your house I throw a roll of nickles at you while leaving with your TV have you just been robbed or did we just engage in a business transaction?" Question asked by an economics Prof regarding resource extraction

In my opinion Norway would have made a far better model than the US for our national energy policy. Or I could be out to lunch and we should continue to toss our resources away (China is buying up our oil rights and fast) in exchange for small short term gains. They may be pink but carry no debt and still have universal health care, and mandatory military service.


----------



## DBA (22 Sep 2006)

The Hibernia royalty scheme was negotiated in the era of under $20/barrel oil. It also went over budget and took a long time to start production. So an overgenerous royalty scheme that allows a high return on sunk costs before increasing beyond low levels means not much money for the provincial government. A decent article about it in The Independent Inc. 

The problem isn't really royalty rates as how to attract the investment needed without giving away the farm. From what I can tell landing some of these projects becomes a political issue and the economics of the project or royalty schemes takes a second seat. It's frustrating the way government tends to accept so much of the risk through loan guarantees and tax breaks yet leaves so much potential windfall on the table. They way overpaid for the investment dollars just like for the Upper Churchill fiasco.


----------

