Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
I indeed have the socialist reflex to protect people from themselves. I believe it's necessary for some people :)
You could say I'm a socialist, I won't be offended. I'm not a real socialist (I vote CD&V), but I do have more tendencies to left than to right, that's true.
For my personal best, your system and your thoughts are perfect. I could perfectly live in your ideal world. The problem I have with your ideology however, is that your ideal world requires smart people. In real world not all people have the necessary intelligence to survive in your system ;-)
You could say I'm a socialist, I won't be offended. I'm not a real socialist (I vote CD&V), but I do have more tendencies to left than to right, that's true.
For my personal best, your system and your thoughts are perfect. I could perfectly live in your ideal world. The problem I have with your ideology however, is that your ideal world requires smart people. In real world not all people have the necessary intelligence to survive in your system ;-)
That would require that the wealth was in the hands of the poor in the first time. So no, it has nothing to do with giving back. It's about taking (threatening with violence) and giving it to others.
If you talk seriusly I would like to answer that nothing is of someones property by its nature.
People take, give, lend only what they can. With the rules they find/do.
If you change those rules you change who's having, giving, lending etc..
let's make an example: if you cancel the rules about thieves, and legalize thetf, no rich man can says "this is mine"!
So there's no way someone can demonstrate that the rich has things in a different way than the poor has. So it's really not important HOW people get the things they get.
It does not matter at all if it's a libertarian self-gain or a state redistribuition (in this discussion!).
One can have only things that rules allow him to have.
So the question is about rules.
Rules to do what?
What we like to.
(edited)
If you talk seriusly I would like to answer that nothing is of someones property by its nature.
People take, give, lend only what they can. With the rules they find/do.
If you change those rules you change who's having, giving, lending etc..
let's make an example: if you cancel the rules about thieves, and legalize thetf, no rich man can says "this is mine"!
So there's no way someone can demonstrate that the rich has things in a different way than the poor has. So it's really not important HOW people get the things they get.
It does not matter at all if it's a libertarian self-gain or a state redistribuition (in this discussion!).
One can have only things that rules allow him to have.
So the question is about rules.
Rules to do what?
What we like to.
(edited)
And yes, (neo)liberal capitalism is the best system there is. There is no competition.
Hah, this sentence reminded me why i never even bothered to write in this topic. It is like a wolf and a sheep trying to discuss what to eat.
For one thing i m sure, in a few hundred or thousand of years the people of the future will be so shocked because of the stupidity of their ancestors that they were allowing real lives of real people being destroyed by virtual debts that were made from virtual money. They will be standing in awe of our stupidity.
Maybe our generation wont manage, maybe personaly i m sentenced to continue living a life of working 51 hours per week for peanuts and without any time for personal life, but hopefully our children will get to know a world without economic vultures eating greedily the flesh of poor people.
Hah, this sentence reminded me why i never even bothered to write in this topic. It is like a wolf and a sheep trying to discuss what to eat.
For one thing i m sure, in a few hundred or thousand of years the people of the future will be so shocked because of the stupidity of their ancestors that they were allowing real lives of real people being destroyed by virtual debts that were made from virtual money. They will be standing in awe of our stupidity.
Maybe our generation wont manage, maybe personaly i m sentenced to continue living a life of working 51 hours per week for peanuts and without any time for personal life, but hopefully our children will get to know a world without economic vultures eating greedily the flesh of poor people.
It is like a wolf and a sheep trying to discuss what to eat.
Nice phrase :)
And everyone can see the current system of capitalism is sick, and the more it becomes an economic liberalism the more sick it will become. The question should be 'what is best for humanity' and not 'what is best for businesses'.
But about the virtual debts and Greece, this isn't virtual at all. A lot of money is borrowed by Greece or else many Greeks would't get paid anymore (like government officials and civil servants). Besides, Greece, like many other countries lived way to long above their living standard and the world wide crisis made an abrupt end of this possibility. The crisis only showed the real economic problems sooner as many probably hoped for. And because of this, countries with the least economic 'safety net' are hit first and hit the hardest.
Nice phrase :)
And everyone can see the current system of capitalism is sick, and the more it becomes an economic liberalism the more sick it will become. The question should be 'what is best for humanity' and not 'what is best for businesses'.
But about the virtual debts and Greece, this isn't virtual at all. A lot of money is borrowed by Greece or else many Greeks would't get paid anymore (like government officials and civil servants). Besides, Greece, like many other countries lived way to long above their living standard and the world wide crisis made an abrupt end of this possibility. The crisis only showed the real economic problems sooner as many probably hoped for. And because of this, countries with the least economic 'safety net' are hit first and hit the hardest.
I indeed have the socialist reflex to protect people from themselves. I believe it's necessary for some people :)
I must admit i hate those tendences , per example i would legalize all the drugs--> so bye narco, a lot of new jobs new taxes for state ..everyone wins. ( this imo..i know is a topic where people has a lot of prejudices)
i agree with the rest if your opinions, specially the one about support wealth system for people less intelligent than levitate ; ) ..or just with less luck ( yeah, luck is a veleidum bitch)
@levitate: yeah if you mean the economic notion of public good, then only public tv, the army.. would be public goods
but you know what i mean when i say public education or wealth system ; P
(edited)
I must admit i hate those tendences , per example i would legalize all the drugs--> so bye narco, a lot of new jobs new taxes for state ..everyone wins. ( this imo..i know is a topic where people has a lot of prejudices)
i agree with the rest if your opinions, specially the one about support wealth system for people less intelligent than levitate ; ) ..or just with less luck ( yeah, luck is a veleidum bitch)
@levitate: yeah if you mean the economic notion of public good, then only public tv, the army.. would be public goods
but you know what i mean when i say public education or wealth system ; P
(edited)
and you know, here also private hospitals, usually people with money here contract a private inssurance..so apendicits? so go to private hospital and you will have a room with TV instead of sharing a room with an unknown guy , with one TV
But if you got cancer.... then the private hodspital transfer the ill guy to the public ( public has better machines )---> "it happens because contracts between state and private hospitals"
saying this in economic language: You want a private company ruling wealth system, when some illnes are just not worthy unless the patient is millionary
so with your theory, full medium and working class..if having cancer bye bye
(edited)
But if you got cancer.... then the private hodspital transfer the ill guy to the public ( public has better machines )---> "it happens because contracts between state and private hospitals"
saying this in economic language: You want a private company ruling wealth system, when some illnes are just not worthy unless the patient is millionary
so with your theory, full medium and working class..if having cancer bye bye
(edited)
I could perfectly live in your ideal world. The problem I have with your ideology however, is that your ideal world requires smart people.
Contradictio in terminis :D
Contradictio in terminis :D
if you cancel the rules about thieves, and legalize thetf, no rich man can says "this is mine"!
Theft will still be wrong, even if you legalize it (like taxes). Nothing changes.
Theft will still be wrong, even if you legalize it (like taxes). Nothing changes.
I must admit i hate those tendences , per example i would legalize all the drugs
I agree on this. I want to legalize weed, cocaine, heroine, whatever people will find to get high. However, I'm very anti-drugs; I've never even smoked a cigarette and I'm almost 22 ;-)
yeah if you mean the economic notion of public good, then only public tv, the army.. would be public goods
You are mistaken. Public tv is not a public good. It's not because you put 'public' in front that it becomes a public good. Public goods are (from a practical point of view) non-excludable and non-rivalrous in consumption. The army (national defense) is the most perfect example. Or clean air.
but you know what i mean when i say public education or wealth system
I do, but it doesn't make them public though.
Why should people who don't have the brains to go to university help me getting to university? That's unfair.
I agree on this. I want to legalize weed, cocaine, heroine, whatever people will find to get high. However, I'm very anti-drugs; I've never even smoked a cigarette and I'm almost 22 ;-)
yeah if you mean the economic notion of public good, then only public tv, the army.. would be public goods
You are mistaken. Public tv is not a public good. It's not because you put 'public' in front that it becomes a public good. Public goods are (from a practical point of view) non-excludable and non-rivalrous in consumption. The army (national defense) is the most perfect example. Or clean air.
but you know what i mean when i say public education or wealth system
I do, but it doesn't make them public though.
Why should people who don't have the brains to go to university help me getting to university? That's unfair.
saying this in economic language: You want a private company ruling wealth system, when some illnes are just not worthy unless the patient is millionary
so with your theory, full medium and working class..if having cancer bye bye
Why wouldn't private hospitals treat cancer?
so with your theory, full medium and working class..if having cancer bye bye
Why wouldn't private hospitals treat cancer?
I'm not a real socialist (I vote CD&V), but I do have more tendencies to left than to right, that's true.
"Yes sir, I'm a real tsjeef." ;-)
"Yes sir, I'm a real tsjeef." ;-)
nothing wrong with CD&V :)
/going completely off-topic now. Get back to studying you! (and me!)
/going completely off-topic now. Get back to studying you! (and me!)
Public tv is public good because the consumition of the good is consumition no rival
per example, me looking that channel dosent mean you cant watch that channel of tv. In english i cant explain myself properly :(
Why wouldn't private hospitals treat cancer?
they would, but making treatments absolutly expensive( because they´re expensive in fact), like if you are middle class you can sell your house to the bank while you expect your wife/mother/sun to be safed, sad but true
(edited)
per example, me looking that channel dosent mean you cant watch that channel of tv. In english i cant explain myself properly :(
Why wouldn't private hospitals treat cancer?
they would, but making treatments absolutly expensive( because they´re expensive in fact), like if you are middle class you can sell your house to the bank while you expect your wife/mother/sun to be safed, sad but true
(edited)
Theft will still be wrong, even if you legalize it (like taxes). Nothing changes.
Wrong?
you can say wrong if you can say right.
But nobody can say it.
What's your it's not really your.
It's what state permit you to have.
so if state decides it's wrong to have more than (f.e.) 1000000 euro you can't have it.
liberist people always forget they are rich/ poor because of state rules!
PS: liberism is failing all over the world, today is not clearly and simply visible what is going to take its place, but i bet we'll see another world during our life, maybe after a new war..
Wrong?
you can say wrong if you can say right.
But nobody can say it.
What's your it's not really your.
It's what state permit you to have.
so if state decides it's wrong to have more than (f.e.) 1000000 euro you can't have it.
liberist people always forget they are rich/ poor because of state rules!
PS: liberism is failing all over the world, today is not clearly and simply visible what is going to take its place, but i bet we'll see another world during our life, maybe after a new war..
In english i cant explain myself properly :(
It's understandable ;-)
Public tv is public good because the consumition of the good is consumition no rival
Non-rivalry is only one of the two conditions to be a public good. Public tv is excludable and therefore is not a public good.
they would, but making treatments absolutly expensive( because they´re expensive in fact), like if you are middle class you can sell your house to the bank while you expect your wife/mother/sun to be safed, sad but true
The point of insurance is that you don't have to pay when something like that happens. You pay your monthly contributions and when something bad happens to you, the insurance covers it (depends on what insurance you have and what it covers of course).
It's understandable ;-)
Public tv is public good because the consumition of the good is consumition no rival
Non-rivalry is only one of the two conditions to be a public good. Public tv is excludable and therefore is not a public good.
they would, but making treatments absolutly expensive( because they´re expensive in fact), like if you are middle class you can sell your house to the bank while you expect your wife/mother/sun to be safed, sad but true
The point of insurance is that you don't have to pay when something like that happens. You pay your monthly contributions and when something bad happens to you, the insurance covers it (depends on what insurance you have and what it covers of course).