Quote:Ok let us discuss this avenue. Your local firemen and policemen are in a union. Do you really want to compare what they get after their term of service is up compared to the military? No disrespect intended to those civilian institutions but do you really want to compare the two? Now let us add regular civilians working at the local DMV. Do they deserve the same consideration? Also inferred is those that do nothing but get government benefits are on the same plane. They are not! These are 3 different discussions. Folks on the dole of the government teat should not be compared with those that work for the government. Folks that work for the government should not be compared with those that enlist in the US Military.
It is not the same discussion in any of the three cases. Not all socialism (as you state it) is the same.
I've been saying it's not all the same the entire discussion. I'm not arguing for or against the benefits I'm simply trying to point out how it's integrated into most factions of our government today. We're more socialist then capitalist at this point.
The fact that different government workers are paid and receive different benefits is inline with socialism according to their contribution philosophy.
Quote:That's crap socialism has never been tried. The entire article is written by socialist explaining why everywhere it's been used even in moderation it's a total mess and complete failure.
The difference between communism and socialism when it all boils down is the distribution from central power. In communism it's based upon need in socialism it's based upon contribution.
not TRUE socialism...Most of the tried socialism has been something of a hybrid and never TRUE socialism...
Quote:Actually if a private company fails to fix pot holes as in your example they would lose the contracts of the people in that area to maintain the roads. As for education almost anything would be better then what we have today.
not all together true...there is no guarentee they would lose the contracts especially if they were the low bidder...As for education, you can't satisfy everyne so there would always be whiners and cheerleaders...there would be non stop lawsuits over everything...The "people" owning big business woulld never work as "the people" would all have a different view of how things should be done, so "the people" would be fighting for control because they would all think their way of doing things is better tahn anyone else's...EVERYONE can't own EVERYTHING, no one would agree on anything...You need to look deeper into socialism and see what it REALLY is...When you figure out what it REALLY is, you will see why it can't work...Imagine everyone in the USA owning every single power company, every single oil company, every railroad, every company in every industry, every farm, every mill, every meat processing plant, every newspaper, tv station, every cable company every cell phone company...
Wrong_box you think I'm trying to argue for socialism? I know it doesn't work not even on small scale levels.
Quote:not TRUE socialism...Most of the tried socialism has been something of a hybrid and never TRUE socialism...
By that definition neither has capitalism. No economic theory has ever been purely implemented doesn't mean we can't examine the merits.
Quote:Steel doesn't melt, just sayin.
Yes it does. I work in structural engineering. Steel is routinely coated in fire retardant material.That line is a joke among PE's
Quote:Yes it does. I work in structural engineering. Steel is routinely coated in fire retardant material.That line is a joke among PE's
I should be more clear but i don't want to hijack this thread. The temperature fuel burns at shouldn't melt steel.
Quote:I should be more clear but i don't want to hijack this thread. The temperature fuel burns at shouldn't melt steel.
It doesn't but steel doesn't need to melt to lose the majority of its strength.
Quote:It doesn't but steel doesn't need to melt to lose the majority of its strength.
They found melted steel at ground zero, we're getting off track so I'm gonna stop.
Quote:They found melted steel at ground zero, we're getting off track so I'm gonna stop.
Eric,
You seriously cannot be hinting that you're a "Truther" are you?
Quote:Eric,
You seriously cannot be hinting that you're a "Truther" are you?
Not in the typical sense Bush did it, I think there's more to the story then we're told. 28 classified pages suggest there's more to it.
Quote:It is not governments role to provide healthcare, it is not governments role to provide penchants and retirement, it is not governments role to feed us, you see where I'm going. By establishing socialism for military members they lay out the argument that these benefits should be extended to everyone.
Quote:But why is it different for politicians? They're performing an agreed service?
I get it we all love the military, it's a noble cause and politicians are the scum of the earth. But if you step back what is the actual difference? Both work for the government.
I'm sure that other have already pointed it out, but this has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen from you.
You are so blinded by these hardcore Libertarian views. The government requires men and women to accomplish their goals, and servicemen and women offer their goods / services (themselves) for minimal compensation. Compensating them is not socialism. Hell, the market has already established that their services require much more compensation. Instead of offering up such ludicrous claims, how would you handle compensating people for your ideal military? Or, would you assume "the market" would handle it? These low salaries also buy something that mercenaries and the like don't offer--loyalty and patriotism. You shouldn't ignore that, either.
Quote:I'm sure that other have already pointed it out, but this has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen from you.
You are so blinded by these hardcore Libertarian views. The government requires men and women to accomplish their goals, and servicemen and women offer their goods / services (themselves) for minimal compensation. Compensating them is not socialism. Hell, the market has already established that their services require much more compensation. Instead of offering up such ludicrous claims, how would you handle compensating people for your ideal military? Or, would you assume "the market" would handle it? These low salaries also buy something that mercenaries and the like don't offer--loyalty and patriotism. You shouldn't ignore that, either.
We've been debating post employment benefits, there's a difference. Fringe benefits can only be distributed through socialist programs, that doesn't make them good or bad, it's just simply the only way to distribute revenue for no longer employed individuals. Now some people take offense when pointing out that a good portion of society is dependent on socialist programs one way or another but that doesn't change reality.
You could build an argument that all payments from government are a form of social redistribution, I'm not making that argument however. My point was to CSO that the programs he was complaining about being cut hurt his ability to argue we've spent to much on government programs.
It all boils down to this really, everyone is ok with cutting back government UNTIL it's coming out of their pocket. If you're really for reducing government that means across the board, reducing the military, privatizing public services such as the post office, eduction, healthcare, lending branches for government employees, insurance programs for government employees, municipal services and so on.
Problem is conservatives support social programs for the military, police and national defense. Liberals support social programs for welfare, education and the enviroment. Then all government does is grow.
Have at it, I've said my peace, enjoy the Socialist States of America! Just don't cry about Obama's socialist policy if your not willing to first recognize your own socialist preferences.
Quote:Actually if a private company fails to fix pot holes as in your example they would lose the contracts of the people in that area to maintain the roads. As for education almost anything would be better then what we have today.
Who will decide that? The town commissioners, mayor, governor, president? The local Boys and Girls club?
This is the problem with hardcore Libertarians, you don't account for a solution, you just assume the market will fix it. I hold some Libertarian views myself, but you simply go far beyond what is reasonable.
Quote:Who will decide that? The town commissioners, mayor, governor, president? The local Boys and Girls club?
This is the problem with hardcore Libertarians, you don't account for a solution, you just assume the market will fix it. I hold some Libertarian views myself, but you simply go far beyond what is reasonable.
It's already done all across the United States. Unincorporated counties contract different companies to maintain roads all over the place. And Gasp some communities maintain the roads themselves. I know it's a shocking concept for many to grasp, it's the first argument Libertarians here, without government who would build the roads!? But it's not only completely feasible it's already being done.
Why is it so hard to understand that local communities would hire private companies and if they didn't do a good job they'd either be released or their contracts not renewed. It's no different then how many communities already manage trash pickup, water management, and phone lines. But I'm just a radical Libertarian.
Quote:We've been debating post employment benefits, there's a difference. Fringe benefits can only be distributed through socialist programs, that doesn't make them good or bad, it's just simply the only way to distribute revenue for no longer employed individuals. Now some people take offense when pointing out that a good portion of society is dependent on socialist programs one way or another but that doesn't change reality.
You could build an argument that all payments from government are a form of social redistribution, I'm not making that argument however. My point was to CSO that the programs he was complaining about being cut hurt his ability to argue we've spent to much on government programs.
It all boils down to this really, everyone is ok with cutting back government UNTIL it's coming out of their pocket. If you're really for reducing government that means across the board, reducing the military, privatizing public services such as the post office, eduction, healthcare, lending branches for government employees, insurance programs for government employees, municipal services and so on.
Problem is conservatives support social programs for the military, police and national defense. Liberals support social programs for welfare, education and the enviroment. Then all government does is grow.
Have at it, I've said my peace, enjoy the Socialist States of America! Just don't cry about Obama's socialist policy if your not willing to first recognize your own socialist preferences.
You haven't offered a solution to these problems. You have only said that everything should be minimized.
If you reduce the military, who will replace their services? If a country attacks us? Draft? I know you're against that. Mercenaries that hold no allegiance? Roman did that and desertion was partly the reason they were unable to defend themselves later on. Do you expect dozens of randomly contracted companies to defend the US, at the last possible moment, and in coordination to adequately defend the county?
I have arguments for police, fire fighters, and even animal control, but I'm not sure you'll even entertain the idea.
Government work has always been for the benefits. The benefits aren't even that good. The salaries have never been good, with the exception of a very small percentage of people. If these same people do what you want them to do, they'd make an incredible amount of money and you'd still complain about how much you pay when you need them. Not everyone does it for the money, Eric, but there's nothing wrong for working for security (retirement, benefits, etc.) when you've contributed far more than your return.
Quote:It's already done all across the United States. Unincorporated counties contract different companies to maintain roads all over the place. And Gasp some communities maintain the roads themselves. I know it's a shocking concept for many to grasp, it's the first argument Libertarians here, without government who would build the roads!? But it's not only completely feasible it's already being done.
Why is it so hard to understand that local communities would hire private companies and if they didn't do a good job they'd either be released or their contracts not renewed. It's no different then how many communities already manage trash pickup, water management, and phone lines. But I'm just a radical Libertarian.
There are limitations. It's easy to replace trash companies, water companies, and phone companies.
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about these companies. I want to know how you replace the military, police, firefighters, etc.? What happens when one of those contractors, violates your rights, and its discovered? Who will arrest them? Keep in mind, these contractors would likely outnumber the local police department. What happens when you sue the contracted firefighters that just watched your house burn because they didn't want to waste the water? Sue them? Who would make them pay? Your argument has holes that you haven't addressed.
Having said all this, I'm done talking to you about it. Feel free to reply but I have gone off topic too long now.
Quote:There are limitations. It's easy to replace trash companies, water companies, and phone companies.
You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about these companies. I want to know how you replace the military, police, firefighters, etc.? What happens when one of those contractors, violates your rights, and its discovered? Who will arrest them? Keep in mind, these contractors would likely outnumber the local police department. What happens when you sue the contracted firefighters that just watched your house burn because they didn't want to waste the water? Sue them? Who would make them pay? Your argument has holes that you haven't addressed.
Having said all this, I'm done talking to you about it. Feel free to reply but I have gone off topic too long now.
I've never said you can't have military, police and firefighters, I've said in order to have fringe benefits post employment you have to accept it can only be done through socialist programs.
Maybe no one would join the military, police or fire departments without these benefits, maybe they would who knows. For the last time all I've said is you can't have those programs with out accepting social redistribution.
That seems to hit a nerve with a good number of people.
Quote:I've never said you can't have military, police and firefighters, I've said in order to have fringe benefits post employment you have to accept it can only be done through socialist programs.
Maybe no one would join the military, police or fire departments without these benefits, maybe they would who knows. For the last time all I've said is you can't have those programs with out accepting social redistribution.
That seems to hit a nerve with a good number of people.
Those benefits are handed out for a performance of a service, and oftentimes are part of a contractual agreement between two consenting parties. Those kinds of benefits sound reasonable enough to me. If I'm in the Military and I bust my [BLEEP] for this Country for 20 years straight, some kind of benefit for all of that hard work and sacrifice sounds fair to me. I don't even think that, that is socialist at all. As an individual I, and myself alone, worked for those benefits and it wasn't like the Government forced me to do that job and accept those benefits in the first place. Unless of course, we're talking about a draft based system in the military which nobody wants to go back to.
I'll admit. Maybe I'm wrong, but when you have former military members and fellow conservatives/libertarians telling you that the system that you want to implement is either wrong, or just not practical; and that a benefit system is either justified or not socialist, that's when you know that you're on the wrong side of a debate. I also think that people have been looking at this too much in terms of moral relativism.
Eric, I think that the way in which you approached this topic was not appropriate. I'll leave it at that. I think that everyone's just about had enough of this thread. We went from talking about the military's view of Obama, to the military, to talking about saluting, then it diverged into talking about military benefits and pay, then "selective socialism", then different political viewpoints, then privatization, and even a weird moment when we started talking about 9/11 and whether the steel beams from the twin towers melted or not. Lots of mudslinging, lots of accusations, and lots of fighting.
DragonFury, you know what to do.
Quote:Those benefits are handed out for a performance of a service, and oftentimes are part of a contractual agreement between two consenting parties. Those kinds of benefits sound reasonable enough to me. If I'm in the Military and I bust my [BAD WORD REMOVED] for this Country for 20 years straight, some kind of benefit for all of that hard work and sacrifice sounds fair to me. I don't even think that, that is socialist at all. As an individual I, and myself alone, worked for those benefits and it wasn't like the Government forced me to do that job and accept those benefits in the first place. Unless of course, we're talking about a draft based system in the military which nobody wants to go back to.
I'll admit. Maybe I'm wrong, but when you have former military members and fellow conservatives/libertarians telling you that the system that you want to implement is either wrong, or just not practical; and that a benefit system is either justified or not socialist, that's when you know that you're on the wrong side of a debate. I also think that people have been looking at this too much in terms of moral relativism.
Eric, I think that the way in which you approached this topic was not appropriate. I'll leave it at that. I think that everyone's just about had enough of this thread. We went from talking about the military's view of Obama, to the military, to talking about saluting, then it diverged into talking about military benefits and pay, then "selective socialism", then different political viewpoints, then privatization, and even a weird moment when we started talking about 9/11 and whether the steel beams from the twin towers melted or not. Lots of mudslinging, lots of accusations, and lots of fighting.
DragonFury, you know what to do.
Just because it's handed out for a good reason doesn't change how it's distributed. I haven't seen to much mudslinging, plenty of disagreement but that's fine it's politics.
As for what system I want to implement, I haven't suggested even changing the benefits of military members, for the 1000th time all I've done is point out the distribution requires acceptance of social redistribution. That's in line with socialism to each according to his contribution.
We should lock threads because it makes people uncomfortable where the topics gone? Then shut down the political section, politics should make people uncomfortable and the fact that conservative/liberals or even libertarians might disagree with me is great, questioning how and why things are done is healthy.