|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045128 - 08/13/10 06:28 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
not only are these NOT inventions, but you have a nice list here of the failures of socialism. (minus the BBC, not even sure why you included that, wtf?)
I didn't call them 'inventions' I called them 'interventions'. Perhaps you should read things properly next time.
Please explain how the NHS, welfare state and minimum wage are 'failures'.
Btw the BBC is a state owned media organisation, funded by a specific, compulsory tax known as the TV licence, that's why I included it.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045155 - 08/13/10 06:49 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Btw the BBC is a state owned media organisation, funded by a specific, compulsory tax known as the TV licence, that's why I included it.
The "compulsory tax" (TV licensing fee) is only paid by people that "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast"... thus those that watch TV fund the BBC, not the community at large.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Seuss]
#13045172 - 08/13/10 06:57 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The "compulsory tax" (TV licensing fee) is only paid by people that "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast"... thus those that watch TV fund the BBC, not the community at large.
Fair enough, but 'people that "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast" covers pretty much every household in the UK.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045180 - 08/13/10 07:02 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
not only are these NOT inventions, but you have a nice list here of the failures of socialism. (minus the BBC, not even sure why you included that, wtf?)
I didn't call them 'inventions' I called them 'interventions'. Perhaps you should read things properly next time.
no, i think you need to re-read the quote and realize your mistake.
here, let me help:
Quote:
Yrat said: in fact, can anyone come up with a major life or world-changing invention that came about as a result of socialism?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045194 - 08/13/10 07:11 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said: For example the railways - we have a company called National Express a private company which won the franchise to take over a high-speed rail line in the East of England. It has made a complete balls-up of a crucial public service, ran up huge losses and now the service has had to be re-nationalised at a cost of £700,000,000 to the tax-payer.
So less of this "spending other peoples money" crap when discussing socialism.
do you realize this is a glaring contradiction?
you blame the failure of the private company for its subsequent nationalization? wow dude.
let the thing fail. the nationalization IS the socialism, which cost the tax payer £700,000,000, which IS the spending of other people's money, as in plenty of people who don't even use the damn railway system. why should they be expected to pay for its failure?
you seem a bit confused.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045199 - 08/13/10 07:16 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I realise that's what you said. I gave you instead a list of instutions which have improved the quality of life in the UK, because you were suggesting that socialism is incapable of doing this.
Care to actually address any of the points I raised, or do shall we continue with this pedantry?
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045214 - 08/13/10 07:27 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Shandy said: For example the railways - we have a company called National Express a private company which won the franchise to take over a high-speed rail line in the East of England. It has made a complete balls-up of a crucial public service, ran up huge losses and now the service has had to be re-nationalised at a cost of £700,000,000 to the tax-payer.
So less of this "spending other peoples money" crap when discussing socialism.
do you realize this is a glaring contradiction?
you blame the failure of the private company for its subsequent nationalization? wow dude.
let the thing fail. the nationalization IS the socialism, which cost the tax payer £700,000,000, which IS the spending of other people's money, as in plenty of people who don't even use the damn railway system. why should they be expected to pay for its failure?
you seem a bit confused.
No you don't understand:
National Express originally bid £1.4 billion to buy the franchise. Subsequently the company DID FAIL and now the UK government is out of pocket by £700m, because that is the money that National Express still owe, that obviously will never be paid.
So they have cost the taxpayer £700m and we have hade to nationalise that rail franchise again, just so that some fucking trains can actually take people to work.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045218 - 08/13/10 07:30 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
so you're saying that the rail system was originally state-owned, and was being operated at a loss at tax-payer expense, so much so that once in private hands it was too far gone to operate at profit and thus couldn't sustain private ownership? so now, once again, it is back in state hands operating at a loss at taxpayer's expense?
sounds about right.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045233 - 08/13/10 07:37 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
so you're saying that the rail system was originally state-owned, and was being operated at a loss at tax-payer expense, so much so that once in private hands it was too far gone to operate at profit and thus couldn't sustain private ownership? so now, once again, it is back in state hands operating at a loss at taxpayer's expense?
No I'm not saying that, that is what's known as a Strawman.
This is by no means the only example of private companies cocking up the railways in Britain, in fact I doubt you can find one success story.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045241 - 08/13/10 07:41 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
so you're saying that the rail system was originally state-owned, and was being operated at a loss at tax-payer expense, so much so that once in private hands it was too far gone to operate at profit and thus couldn't sustain private ownership? so now, once again, it is back in state hands operating at a loss at taxpayer's expense?
No I'm not saying that, that is what's known as a Strawman.
so then how did it transpire?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045243 - 08/13/10 07:42 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you have a nice list here of the failures of socialism.
Why would you describe the nhs as failure? Where would you rather have the experience of being poverty stricken and seriously ill, in the US or the UK?
Admittedly it has been run into the ground lately and could do with some serious improvements but as we have had 18 years of Conservative government followed by 13 years of "new" Labour to label this as a failure of socialism really does take a little bit of a stretch on your part.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045261 - 08/13/10 07:51 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
so you're saying that the rail system was originally state-owned, and was being operated at a loss at tax-payer expense, so much so that once in private hands it was too far gone to operate at profit and thus couldn't sustain private ownership? so now, once again, it is back in state hands operating at a loss at taxpayer's expense?
No I'm not saying that, that is what's known as a Strawman.
so then how did it transpire?
NE valued the franchise at £1.4bn, lots of other companies were bidding in that ball-park as well - it obviously wasn't 'operating at a loss" previously.
National Express saw it as an under exploited revenue stream and their business model forecast that they would increase passenger revenue by 10% a year. They got their sums badly wrong.
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13045265 - 08/13/10 07:55 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
any system that confiscates the property of certain individuals to redistribute it to others is a fundamental violation of individual rights, and as such, in my eyes, is a failure for humanity. can you not develop a system that doesn't steal property from one to hand it to another?
whenever you subsidize something, you will always get more of it. this applies to poverty as much as it does to growing corn. the result is always the same. if you pay welfare families more with each kid they have, you will get more welfare kids. it is unavoidable cause and effect. if you subsidize health care (not an individual right, mind you) you will get more and more people using the health care system for unnecessary reasons. waiting times increase, bureaucracy increases, costs skyrocket, and taxpayers are forced to shell out more for a failing system.
answer this: why in the world should one person be forced to pay for anyone else's care?
Quote:
Admittedly it has been run into the ground lately and could do with some serious improvements
interesting. so you actually agree, but place the blame elsewhere?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045272 - 08/13/10 07:58 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Shandy said:
Quote:
so you're saying that the rail system was originally state-owned, and was being operated at a loss at tax-payer expense, so much so that once in private hands it was too far gone to operate at profit and thus couldn't sustain private ownership? so now, once again, it is back in state hands operating at a loss at taxpayer's expense?
No I'm not saying that, that is what's known as a Strawman.
so then how did it transpire?
NE valued the franchise at £1.4bn, lots of other companies were bidding in that ball-park as well - it obviously wasn't 'operating at a loss" previously.
National Express saw it as an under exploited revenue stream and their business model forecast that they would increase passenger revenue by 10% a year. They got their sums badly wrong.
did they value the assets at £1.4bn? assets do not equal profit. how do you know it wasn't operating at a loss? wasn't it state owned? if it was operating at a profit why would the government want to hand it off? to move towards a more capitalistic system?
so you make this one event an example of the failures of capitalism as a whole? and call my argument a strawman?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
Edited by Yrat (08/13/10 08:04 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045296 - 08/13/10 08:11 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
any system that confiscates the property of certain individuals to redistribute it to others is a fundamental violation of individual rights,
Really? Can you point me to the list of immutable individual rights? Do we find them encoded into the genome? 
Quote:
and as such, in my eyes, is a failure for humanity.
Maybe you should just try a more positive outlook? So as the systems you espouse do not exist anywhere on the planet does that mean our entire species has failed?!!
Quote:
can you not develop a system that doesn't steal property from one to hand it to another?
Probably hinges on the exact definition of steal.
Quote:
interesting. so you actually agree, but place the blame elsewhere?
Agree with what exactly? Please dont try and twist my words, I thought my post was easy enough to understand!
Btw, I hope you realise that you cling to your libertarian dogma in much the same way that a bible basher clings to their scripture...It provides a shortuct for thinking
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
Shandy
Reverse


Registered: 11/16/09
Posts: 45
Loc: UK
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13045299 - 08/13/10 08:12 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
did they value the assets at £1.4bn? assets do not equal profit. how do you know it wasn't operating at a loss? wasn't it state owned? if it was operating at a profit why would the government want to hand it off? to move towards a more capitalistic system?
so you make this one event an example of the failures of capitalism as a whole? and call my argument a strawman? 
Why would several companies bid over a billion for a loss-making franchise? They get to look at the books you know. Don't know why you're bringing up assets, I haven't mentioned that once.
I know it is just one example, but it's not the only one. It also illustrates that private ownership is not inherently better than state ownership, especially where important public services are involved.
I am not anti-capitalist, or even a full blown socialist btw.
I've got to go back to doing some work now, despite the laziness instilled in me by left-wing politics
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: In an actual socialism (communism or anarchism) governments or groups do not often if ever appropriate money from people, they take property.
and you dont see that as being the same thing, you take my property and you've taken my money
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13045308 - 08/13/10 08:20 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
wow. how to respond to such amazing bullshit..
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
any system that confiscates the property of certain individuals to redistribute it to others is a fundamental violation of individual rights,
Really? Can you point me to the list of immutable individual rights? Do we find them encoded into the genome? 
you advocate for slavery? in other words, any system that deprives a man of the product of his labor? good on you
Quote:
Quote:
and as such, in my eyes, is a failure for humanity.
Maybe you should just try a more positive outlook? So as the systems you espouse do not exist anywhere on the planet does that mean our entire species has failed?!!
a more positive outlook on slavery? yikes. how much productivity of one's labor should he/she be allowed to keep? who gets to be the judge?
Quote:
Quote:
can you not develop a system that doesn't steal property from one to hand it to another?
Probably hinges on the exact definition of steal.
you can't be serious.
Quote:
Quote:
interesting. so you actually agree, but place the blame elsewhere?
Agree with what exactly? Please dont try and twist my words, I thought my post was easy enough to understand!
you agree that the system is inefficient, and has been "driven into the ground." what words did i put in your mouth, exactly?
Quote:
Btw, I hope you realise that you cling to your libertarian dogma in much the same way that a bible basher clings to their scripture...It provides a shortuct for thinking 
by the way, i hope you realize your attempt at a personal attack applies just as much to you and your philosophy that you so dearly clutch to. the difference between us, however, being that i believe in individual rights, while you do not. you support low-level slavery, the confiscation of productivity at the point of a gun. now it is up to you to realize this is what you advocate.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
Edited by Yrat (08/13/10 08:25 AM)
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045313 - 08/13/10 08:21 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said: National Express originally bid £1.4 billion to buy the franchise. Subsequently the company DID FAIL and now the UK government is out of pocket by £700m, because that is the money that National Express still owe, that obviously will never be paid.
did it cost the taxpayer? if National Express had paid half and defaulted did the property not revert back to the state or did they take it with them seems that if the rail was going under and going to close then National Express slowed the process and gave the state $700mil to do it, also seems that since the taxpayer had already paid for the rail line there was no additional cost to the tax payer
|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Shandy]
#13045314 - 08/13/10 08:22 AM (13 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shandy said:
I know it is just one example, but it's not the only one. It also illustrates that private ownership is not inherently better than state ownership, especially where important public services are involved.
and it also illustrates that public ownership pushes the costs of operating at a loss onto everyone, even those who don't even use the service. is that fair?
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
|