Capitalism vs Socialism ~ MOD ALERT ~

You have made many claims. You have proved nothing.

Definition of socialism

so·cial·ism
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. ​

Of course I don't expect you to understand.

When and if you ever find me wrong let me know. So far you have proved nothing but your vulgarity.

Yet it is only you who do these things as quoted from your comment, "Claiming that identification of the relevant facts that prove you wrong is idiotic is cretinous, dishonest, and evil."

Do you intend to disrupt this thread as you have all the others you have been in? Let me know, either by saying so or continuing with your disruptive posts.

- - - Updated - - -

Calling me a liar again eh roy?

 

He wasn't CEO, there were no checks issues as such and that information was false and acknowledged during the campaign.

 

So you do not agree that a government has the right to tax its citizens? BTW, I have no problems with private citizens legally collecting money to give to another. It is the violence and force which is the issue.

Laws passed by elected officials.

If that is what you got from my comment I apologize. It was not intended that way.

I believe that way because in my 78 years I have observed that private charity does not alleviate nearly so much poverty and suffering as government sponsored social programs.

Actually I see no violence used to assist the needy except against persons who engage in violence to thwart the law.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't have to prove anything to you, nor do I plan to try as it is self evident to anyone familiar with US history.

 

Obviously you have never observed a poor disabled person get groceries to feed his family with food stamps while living in public housing with utilities part paid by the state to keep his family warm.

 

I think it is pretty obvious that no one is paid that small amount routinely.

Those low paid jobs tend to be enough to survive on in 3rd world countries, but more important, as the labor revolutions occur like is happening in India today, huge middle classes are created which become markets for our goods and services. Over 300 million strong middle class in India has emerged, and it is growing.

- - - Updated - - -

You obviously have no understanding of history.

 

Whether I agree or disagree with your comment is irrelevant Daniel as I do not choose to resort to fallacy.

I also don't know of any Doctors who resort to fallacy. Some are not as good as others but resorting to fallacy is a strong and uncalled for accusation.

 

You mean I disturb your brainwashing? Like most Europeans I know a good deal of history. It is what we do. Has anyone ever let you hear the term 'state capitalism' (I'm sure you are not allowed to know what it means)?

 

So much for the belief that there is no private real estate ownership in Hong Kong.

http://www.deacons.com.hk/eng/knowledge/knowledge_60.htm

Ownership

There are no restrictions in Hong Kong upon ownership of land by any individual or corporation whether domestic or overseas unless there is a legal disability. There are no particular additional formalities required for ownership of land by an overseas individual or corporation although in the latter case if the corporation commences a business in Hong Kong there will be a requirement for the overseas corporation to register itself as such at the Companies Registry.

In buildings which are multi-owned, each owner will have a share in the land together with the exclusive right to use the particular unit purchased to the exclusion of the other owners. The relationship between the owners is usually governed by a Deed of Mutual Covenant which provides for rights of way, rights to services, meetings of owners, management of the building and restrictions. All owners are subject to the terms of the deed.

So much for the claim that Hong Kong uses an LVT.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-competes/hong-kongs-simple-low-taxes-dont-we-all-want-it/article13393877/

“Hong Kong keeps it very simple. There’s no capital gains tax, there’s no dividend tax, there’s no tax on interest, and you are only taxed on income earned in Hong Kong – not overseas. The system here makes people more entrepreneurial. Maximum personal tax is 15 per cent, but there are lots of allowances to get it lower, and corporate tax is set at 16.5 per cent – so people are not spending half their time trying to avoid or evade. You have money in your pocket and you do things with it. You invest. You buy shares or you start second businesses,” he says.

 

You obviously don't know as much as you think you know of history if you believe socialism is good. We have several examples of socialism. The USSR was socialist, its government a dictatorship and its economy totally failed. China is another example of dictatorial socialism.

Great Britain has had as close to a socialist system as I know of in the western world, and that socialism kept GB's economy from prospering.

 

Socialism was destroyed in the USSR after a few months, child, by the intervention of eighteen capitalist armies. The working class disintegrated and went back to the villages. Are you totally ignorant?. Chinese 'Communism' was a peasant movement, like those that had changed dynasties before. Britain had a mildly democratic government 1945-51, but has been taken over by the thieves again, as you know.

 

In my opinion, socialism will always result in destruction, because it requires autocratic government to keep the people in line so that the leaders can enjoy their wealth.

 

I am not a citizen of the government, therefore, I am not one of "it's citizens." I do not believe that the government has the right to take anything from anyone without their voluntary consent, unless that person has committed force or fraud and what is being exacted is restitution for the crime.

From where do you believe that the government can compel someone, through it's police powers, to give up their property, especially in order to give it to someone else?

Considering that you have accused me of hating the poor because I do not believe in the right of government to use police powers to benefit some at the expense of others, I don't have any reason to believe that what is "self-evident" to you is anything more than fantasy. You don't have to prove anything to me, just don't ask me to believe you.

The fact is that since the war on poverty began, the poverty rate stopped going down and has since increased. Trillions of dollars have been spent on anti-poverty programs, yet that poverty rate, which had dropped from 56% in 1900 to 12.5% in 1967, is now close to 15% today.

In fact, that rate was dropping rapidly in the early 60's and then levelled out as soon as the government began it's massive anti-poverty campaigns. So tell me, what is "self-evident" in history?



It looks to me that what is self-evident is that government anti-poverty programs keep a lot of people dependent on government programs.

 

If you are not a citizen of the US then you are not bound by its laws.

Our constitution as amended.

OK

True poverty has gone down. What you are referring to is what the government says is the poverty line.

I don't doubt that as the government has gone from supporting the truly needy to attempting to elevate people above the official stated poverty level. That is not at all what I support. Now if you could find a chart to show how many of our citizens do not have sufficient to survive, then you may have something. No matter, the "General Welfare" clause is constitutional cause to care for the least of our citizens.

 

Ok. I don't mind improving my recognition of fallacies, in modern times, even if it is a form of "continuing education".

 

Instead of educating yourself in fallacies, why not try educating yourself in logic?

 

It is an education in logic, through "tactics of mistake" by those of the opposing view.

 

Boloney. He WAS ceo during the time in question. He took the checks, and was legally, the CEO.

 

Logic has either a valid conclusion or a fallacy, which is a false conclusion.

A=B; B=C; Therefore A=C; is a logical conclusion.

Or all girls wear panties; George wears panties; Therefore George is a girl is a fallacy.
All girls wear panties; Joan is a girl; Therefore Joan wears panties, is a valid logical conclusion.

In my opinion studying fallacies does not advance one's understanding of valid conclusions.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. I believe your memory is wrong.

 

The corporate greedsters have no moral ethics, is the point. They may as well be hiring 3 year olds right here. It's the same thing, really.

Reverse what you said about Walmart. Why would ONE person deserve the equivalent 10 dollars from every single employee of Walmart. How many employees time 10? We KNOW who the greedy ones are, and many of them exist in upper management of large corporations, like Walmart.

 

Even the Boston Globe, and Mother Jones (both left wing rags) concede that Romney had severed his ties to Bain when he ran for President in 2012. You need to check your facts before posting. He had actually left the decision making to others as early as 1999 but continued to earn from investments through Bain and for his nominal leadership in the company.

I agree Romney would not have been a good president, but there is no serious indications that his business practices were unethical.

 

I think that I said that I'm not a citizen of the government, therefore, I am not one "it's citizens." Perhaps you believe that you belong to the government and that your citizenship is dependent upon it. However, "We the people" and the citizens existed before the Constitution which set up the government. The government of the United States is the citizens' government, not the other way around.

I was looking for that self-evidence that you claimed. You are trying to get me to prove, or disprove, your assertions. Don't be so lazy.

So your claim is that a piece of paper created by a bunch of long dead men is the source of rights for government? What right did they have to impose their will on everone else? What I'm getting at is whether you have a clearly defined source of rights, or just make it up as you go along.

 

The proof is in the pudding. If you were born in the US and have not specifically and legally renounced your citizenship and whether you like it or not you are a US citizen and you are bound by its laws. I do agree that the government is ours, and we are not the governments property.

I could care less what you prove or disprove. If you don't want to believe my assertions be my guest.

Your argument is well beyond any subject I choose to discuss. Trying to justify our government is not essential. If you choose not to accept our government be careful about traveling out of our country, you may have difficulty re-entering.

 

When working in a Socialist system, how does one know that their work-time is being adequately compensated? Why should anyone spend decades learning to be (for instance) a doctor?

 

Walmart employees are not indentured servants and their individual positions are not static. So, that argument makes no sense.

 

When working in a socialist system most workers will never be adequately compensated.