Ah Remember , with Socialism . The purpose is to dumb down Society.
Maybe you escaped that
The purpose of Socialism is common ownership and control of production and resources. Socialism historically has led to better educated Societies. Millions of Students across Europe do not protest increases in Education fees because Socialism has dumbed them down and they don't care about Education.
It's got nothing to do with dumbing anything or anyone down, you indoctrinated buffoon.
BigD said:
I have a BSc in Phys Geography from Massey plus post grad
I respect my teachers of Pass, who stated on my Fail assignment one time.
"There is no Emperical evidence that anthropogenic causes, cause Climate Change"
When you need to lie to defend a viewpoint lol. Worse still you're entering in fallacy in the process :biggrin1:
argumentum ad verecundiam
BigD said:
Giving away Taxpayer money to support 3rd world countries, so they can rage wars
with aK47s & dictator Palaces really pisses me off..
Which 3rd world countries do we give Taxpayers money to, in the way of the support? When governments and companies 'give' money to 3rd world countries, what you're often seeing is investment veiled as Charity. There's nothing goodwilled or ethical about it, it's control of economies, industry and often governments, by proxy. There's been much research into this, I believe for every dollar "given" by America, they see a return of $1.30 cents.
Throw out some examples of these 3rd world countries, the money given and how it's being put to use.
Anyway as you hate Socialism I have a question... What do you think about Co-Optation, Welfare, Universal Healthcare etc in relation to the Free Market?
"A co-opting or less frequently co-optation most commonly refers to action performed in a number of fields whereby an opponent is nullified or neutralized by absorption but there are other distinct senses as well."
The argument that the Free Market leads to a state of inequality by nature... In the process, naturally, an underclass is created. The underclass becomes uncontent with the system and what they perceive to be inequality, and rise up. The only way to prevent said uprising, to nullify it, would be the creation of the welfare state. Keeping people content and dependant upon the system. As can be seen historically in most nations. Without and often with regulation we also see an Oligopoly in which a small number of big businesses and people dominate the Market and use their dominance to influence and exert power. They arrogate to themselves a monopoly of force. Again the only way to prevent or limit this would be through regulation and "Socialism", which is an oxymoron.
That in actuality the Welfare state and everything 'Liberal' and 'Socialist' that you hate, is not a creation of well meaning left wing hippies and commies, not a creation of the "Liberal elite"(They don't exist), but the creation of 'Capitalists' who recognise without it their power and wealth would cease to exist, as it serves and acts as a pacifier to the underclass.
The argument that the Socialist Welfare state is infact an accomodation on behalf of the ruling class. Regulation, welfare and free health care is the only thing keeping Capitalism alive in any capacity. And TPTB moved away from Free Market
true Capitalism for good reason. The people hated it and revolted. Even in America, a nation built on Capitalistic and Invidual ideas, people rose up.
Free Markets are a logical fallacy, and always lead to a state and some level of "Socialism", on the back of their natural instabilities. At one stage or another they'll always need to be repaired or regulated. See the current Economic Crisis caused by housing market instabilities and ridiculous credit schemes, as a relevant example. Or these so-called "charitable donations", needed to maintain our Western lifestyle and luxuries.
Basically almost everything "Socialist" and "Liberal" that you hate is carried out and implemented by your own team. What do you make of that?
