I worked for a management consulting firm for a time and the sanity definition was a mantra for those guys. I'm sure you heard it at atleast one of your "meetings".

Bravo, Denny. You hit the nail on the head. Why is it so hard for some folks to understand the concept of equality of opportunity? Not everyone has the smarts or the personal fortitude to become a doctor, or an engineer—that is why doctors and engineers are compensated considerably better than, say, assembly workers. Now, I ask, would you like to have a doctor who is paid the same as an assembly worker working on you??

Isn't it ironic that most enviornmentalists also espouse the benefits of socialism, when in fact, every socialist state was an enviornmental shit hole? Look at eastern Europe in the past, or the former Soviet Union.

I love hearing liberals say that Bush is a miserable failure. The truth is, the liberal agenda is a miserable failure. Even after spending trillions of dollars since Johnson's launch of the so called "war on poverty", we still have poor people, we have children graduating high school who are totally unprepared to become productive members of society, and we still have rampant crime and drug abuse in our inner cities. "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he feeds himself for a lifetime."

My favorite Soviet joke:

"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."

"The only way to eliminate poverty is to teach people not to be poor. "

I agree, but I would not try to teach them. I would instead give them the freedom to be as poor as they choose for as long as they choose. Even the stupidest people will soon learn how to stop being poor, with no assistance from anybody. Same for the lazy.

Gonna pick a nit here... well, more like point out an argument flaw.

Socialism/communism, as dictated by Karl Marx, was not "Equalization of outcome." It was "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." (I learnt that on WB's "Hysteria!", ah did!)Those who say socialism failed because of this "equalizing of outcome" are , in fact, making the mistake the advocates of socialism claim.

But hold on-- before you go jumping down my throat, let me continue.

The inherent flaw in socialism--- real socialism--- is NOT in it's "equalization of outcome," though that's what it devolves into, but rather in the fact that it ignores the nature of wealth, and of power.

Wealth is created by the application of human ingenuity to raw resources in order to meet human needs (including "shortages" in raw resources.) The creation, posession, accumulation and dispersal of wealth gives man influence over his environment. In other words, private property is wealth, and Wealth is Power.
Communists do not seek to equalize outcome: they seek to equalize power. And unfortunately they think that they can mend inequalities in human authority and power by redistributing that power--- wealth--- more equitably among the people.

Here's where they hit the three fatal flaws:

1)They assume that wealth is a finite resource. As stated above, it is not. It is as limitless as human ingenuity and can be created and expanded upon so long as man can obtain the raw materials to produce what he has envisioned--- and I do not consider it hubris to say that in an infinite universe, the only handicap to obtaining limitless raw natural resources is finding ways to get to it.

2)they assume the value of wealth is immutable. It is not. To a man dying of thirst, a glass of water is priceless. To a man drowning in a lake, that same glass of water is a joke. Why? Because a person's hierarchy of wants and needs is constantly changing, literally from moment to moment. This is what makes commerce possible-- unequal values. It's very Simple Simon....at the moment you want pie more than money, at the moment he wants money more than pie. This means that what was once trash can become treasure, and what was treasure can become trash....
Because no matter what it is, it's only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.

3)The final flaw: They assume that by dispersing wealth, they equalize power. They do not. The power does not lie in the hands of those who possess wealth, nor in the hands of those who create or consume it---- the power lies in the hands of those who decide how it is dispersed.

This is the consequence: When you say "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," that system requires that someone decides what each person's abilities are, and decrees each person's needs.
Instead of dispersing power to a classless society as they think, they instead CONSOLIDATE power in the hands of those who make all the necessary decisions about Abilities and Needs.

And power invariably corrupts.

Denny, thats pretty much check mate to you. while I dsagree onn what you said about churches - I have a major quarrel with god - you have laid out a strong logical argument which I ccannot dispute. I, persnally would place your figurev of 90% of the poor being lazy much lower, say at 430-40%, but that depends on what statistics one uses and how one interprets them.

by and large, the field is yours, sir.

In a recent interview, Sec Rumsfeld showed a nighttime satellite photo taken over eastern Asia, and he commented on being able to identify the border between North Korea and South Korea, solely because the latter was well lit while the former was virtually black. Same people, same resources, different result. Why? Governmental systems.

Or, as WFB said once in commenting on the criticism of capitalism due to the excesses of a few (i.e. corporate scandals), "The problem with capitalism is capitalists. The problem with socialism is socialism."

To the ash heap, with history's other discarded lies.

Socialism fails. The Pilgrims tried it for 3 years.

Frankenreich have tried it for 50, Europe's going off the cliff.

Real live experiment across the pond if only people will pay attention.

has

has

has
--

Each according

Who decides my "need" and what happens if I have more "needs" than my neighbor?

And if the people w/the ability decide not to put forth their full ability because they get screwed????

Sandy P - But Hitlary Rodent Clinton has not been running it. If only we elect the Hildebeast as president we will finally see the triumph of socialism. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

First off, Props to RHJunior for a well spoken piece.

I guess, seeing Denny restate what I said, I should clarify some.

First, one of the best quotes I know of about us versus the Communists: Viktor Belenko, the MiG-25 pilot who defected, reportedly was shocked when welfare, social security, Medicare, food stamps were explained to him. "But.. you're closer to True Communism than Russia is!"

Socialism, as the political system, will never work. The problem is that Socialism ignores how people work. It presumes that fair minded people can impartially make decisions based on what's best for everyone. But there's a problem with that. Let me toss some Trek talk into here. Who else has noticed that the writers of Star Trek tend to not understand the concept of "Logic" for how much they bandy it around as a base concept? What's logical for you might not be for me. Nor is there one simple "logic" that dictates what's best. Often, there's a branching path, one decision predicates another, with costs/benefits. So when I, as a UNIX gearhead, declare that it's "Illogical" to continue to maintain those friggen insane mainframes - for me, for the way I see things working for companies we dare not name - it's perfectly logical. Denny, likely would declare me to be completely illogical. Neither of us would necessarily be wrong. Because we see different paths, with different problems and solution sets.

It's easy to say "we should do something". Matthew is in that mind-set. It's not rare, by the way, Matthew, and you're in good company. It's much much much harder to come up with a good system that _works_. Because for the most part, mandated systems ignore how people work.

Look at health care in England and Canada. Both are attempting to repress the for-profit parts - that are in high demand. England has a rate of malpractice that no hospital in the U.S. could afford (and stay in business). (Estimates range that 10% of those admitted to UK hospitals suffer major injury or serious infection due to errors or accidents. The US rate is 1/1000). Why is that? Well, partially, it's because the best and the brighest will go to where they can make more - usually the U.S. - but that doesn't explain all of it. More, it's the insulating bureacracy and ass covering (Which isn't unknown in the US, either).

And both systems are on the eve of imploding totally due to burgoning costs.

So do I want to do away with all social programs? No, I really don't. There are some that work well. Not many. But some. I've seen some that were managed well. But what I want is accountability for those services. Clear rules, and clear discipline for failing to follow those rules. I don't mind some of my tax money going to help someone, in a short-term way. I mind much more when people are repeatedly scamming the aid, or doing it because it's easier than working.

I really detest people being trained into the idea that things are beyond them. Especially smaller things, like working, and saving. Public schools have abused their charter, and been hijacked. But those schools served a great good once. The literacy rates in the US (an incredibly diverse country) are something to write home about. Education is now presumed to be needed in the U.S. Now, they're quite often victim factories. Oh, you can't concentrate, because you've got a problem, oh, you can't read, because of this. Or That. It might well be true. But what it does is encourage people to say "I can't".

And that, more than anything, is why I am against wholesale social services. "I can't" is a lousy idea. "It will be harder for me" is slightly better. "I'm going to do it, and damn if anybody is going to stop me" is best yet.

And if Denny doesn't mind, I'm going to comment just a bit further.

Many who design systems (social services usually, but also others) ignore how people work. Think. Expect.

And we don't even have to be insulting for most of them to see where the problem lies. Let's create Social Service Agency A. Matthew, front and center, you're in charge. Your agency is tasked with a job. What is less important.

And we'll presume that Matthew jumps into the job with vim and vigor. And rapidly finds out that he needs help. After all, he needs to take some time off, right? So we'll give him some assistants. And all of them have vim and vigor. And they go about their job with gusto. Now, let's further presume they have the ability to write regulation. Well, now, we don't want them to sit idly by, do we? So lets get some rules out there! Wait, we've got some lowlifes making end runs. Write some more! Get those loopholes taken care of! Well, we're done. But.. if we're done, then we can get laid off. We don't want that, so we'll go write some more! We're hard workers, we are.

Add to that that many civil servants do *not* go about their job with vim and vigor - and do we even need to discuss Union protected civil servants? (Friend of mine tells me that she's union (New York State), and one of the guys in her office, every year, takes his allowed day off to go get a mammogram. Every employee is allotted one day for that, paid time off.)

But let's just presume the best, and that we're industrious, and trying to do our best. How many people do you know who will voluntarily say "You know what? I'm serving no good here. Fire me, or lay me off, or let me go do something else". Some might resign, and go elsewhere. But now, we've got their work to do, slight as it might be - or worse, we might lose prestige if we cut workers. (OK, that's granted, not the best way to look at it, but it is often, a real problem).

Anyone who argues evolution to me, I point to Bureacracy. And not just government. Oh, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a good example. After all, who _defends_ drunk driving now? Who doesn't know? Mission Accomplished! Whoohoo! Ok, let's disband!
One.
Two.
Three. articles discussing that.

So the people involved, once they get involved, and particularly if you start talking pension or bonus or whatnot with continued employment have a vested interest in continuing the status quo. For them, a great decision. For other people, maybe not so much.

You can also see this evolution in most Unions. From being a protector of working men, to what I'd consider a blood sucking leech for the most part. What % of union dues go to the other union members? I think I've seen 10%? The rest go to the union apparatus. All unions? Of course not. But given enough time and enough money, probably.

Private charities, especially those church-run, have a slightly different focus. Reportedly, of church run soup kitchens and shelters, 85% of donations to the charity made their way to the people being served. Government shelters and food services? 20%. Almost total reversal of the figures. 80% overhead. So it takes 4x the tax money to equate the donations given to the church?

And I guess, since we're discussing prolonging the status quo, that we've got to indict the UN. Can anybody name me refugees from prior to 1950 anywhere else in the world still being housed in camps? (other than the UN efforts?) (Though I'm sure that the other UN refugee camps in various parts of the world will exist in perpetuity, barring something happening to their funding).

I went to the Soviet Union with my father when I was 13. It was the most eye-opening experience of my life, which is why I was so violent with Matthew on another thread. He has no idea how evil that system is, and he hasn't a clue that Socialism is a very "slippery slope".

In Moscow, this very poor man was in the elevator with me.
He said, "You're from America. You are the luckiest person on Earth. Do not take it for granted."

My father was invited to study Soviet dental technology and compare their technology to the U.S, and he took me along. Apparently, the Soviets thought they had something on us. Conclusion: Soviet dental technology was 30 years behind the U.S. Apparently, there was no INCENTIVE to innovate. Oh, the stories I can share from that trip.

Thank you for posting this, Denny. You inspire.

I'm afraid i'm far out of my league. My gut says there is something to be said for both ends of the politial spectrum. marxism clearly runs against heman nature, but I also feel that conservitism/capitalism alone is inherantly unfair against societies "have nots".

I have ceribral palsy, annd get DLA of about £200 a month with which my parents feed and clothe me. I'll tell you, therres no way in holy hell i'd be able to hold down a reular job - too many physical limitations. thus, for people like me, leftist policies MUST be implemented. I do not want some goddamn church feeding me; I do not want charity. We arre part of society and thus the democratically elected government is esponsible for us.

addisson and paul - the main eason why you dislike the wealfare state is that you disslike paying high taxes. I will only say this - you are damn lucky to be in a positiion where one can pay such taxes. Please try to understand that such things are necessarry, and not all needy people choose to be poor. It will be a cold day in hell before I recieve money from a chuurch, or anyone other thab a government whom I democratically control.

Matthew, you can get a "regular" job.

It might not be one you want, but depending on your limitations, you could find something. You're typing and you use the internet.

It could be part time. However, your country might have different rules.

You don't want the/a church taking care of you? Does the/a church need a typist?

Bag groceries? Put industrial parts in boxes?

In America, companies get credit for hiring people w/limitations.

It is often claimed that the Soviet Union, for example, was not "true socialism."

The inherent problem with socialism is that it is not stable against totalitarian rule. Friedrich Hayek pointed this out in The Road to Serfdom in the 1940s. A socialist government will become more & more autocratic as time goes by.

I am very glad not to live in the EU, which has an unimaginable set of rules to follow, where no rules are needed.

Matt -

"I do not want some goddamn church feeding me; I do not want charity. We arre part of society and thus the democratically elected government is esponsible for us."

If you don't wanna rely on a church or a charity, I respect that if you're reason is because you want to be self reliant and not a burden to others. But, why would you at the same time be willing to depend on the handout of the government? If anything, that should be less appealing, because the people footing your bill are doing so involuntarily, via taxes.

Matthew - The main reason Paul, Addison, and I do not like the welfare state is because it has been a colossal failure. It has broken up the family, especially in the black community. It has created crime. And it has created an entire class dependent upon the gummint. Look, we do not mind taking care of people like yourself. If we could prevent people who cannot afford them from having babies that we have to support because they are irresponsible, there would be more money to take care of people like you. None of us want to eliminate the social safety net. We want to elimninate the social hammock.

As for churches, they do a damn sight better job than gummint. We have had three babies die in the last year due to the incompetence of the gummint social services. I have written about two of them. But once again, these were babies of people who should not be breeding in the first place.

Even I disagree with Matt's views and his typing and spelling need work, I have enjoyed reading his points and the arguments he makes defending his beliefs. I believe Matt could have huge potiential in the journalism field... with a word processor set up in such a way to enable him instead of automatically thinking he will be a government care case for the rest of his life. There are so many opportunities out there! So many ways to make things happen. I do not pretend to be as intellectual as half the fans on GOC, but I know in my heart what I believe... Denny and friends just say it better than me. (But I can start an IV... so there). Too many times I have taught young mothers of 2 (3...4...5..) children how to be a Certified Nursing Assistant. I have paid for their classes and their state tests only to have them quit in a few months because it was "cutting into my medical card" or "they tried to take away my food stamps" or worse yet "my boyfriend won't babysit our kids" ARRGH!!! Instead of working harder, going to school to be an LPN or an RN (on the state or aided by the hospitals, etc) they would rather quit and let me pay out of my taxes their medical and other expenses. The classes I teach are FREE of charge and are the beginning of a well paying career if they put forth the slightest effort. They could become an LPN in one year! Not too shabby if you ask me, and worth the sleepless nights to take care of a family. But, I get these welfare-to-work applicants who are no more interested in caring for a stranger than they are in caring for their own children. They HAVE to apply for a position in my class or lose their checks. Would you want someone forced to be a CNA caring for you? Me neither. If we focused on how to help people succeed instead of feeding their failures we could then do more for those who really need our tax dollars.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

At the risk of derailing this excellent discussion, I want to interject my first thought every time I see this statement.

We can all thank Microsoft for a generation of computer users who have reason to expect a different result when software malfunctions the first time, but after rebooting the system, it works just fine (until it doesn't).

You are right about how the decisions you make effect your life. I make decent money as a machine operator but most of the people I work with have more to show for it. That's because I'm god awful with money and management decisions of it. I readily admit this and I sure as heck can't blame anybody but myself.But as long as most of the bills get paid and the family taken care of I'm getting along alright.
..........I have felt for years the way you do about welfare. It's soul destroying when carried over generations. But I do feel there should be something in place for people when the world turns upside down. No,not as a lifetime aid but something (job training,real job training not government projects) that will help you get back to a real life. I've said for years it can be summed up as WELFARE should be a LIFEBOAT,Not a LIFESTYLE.

Natela, are you comparing microsoft to the wealfare state? thats it! i'm going out to get a job!

seriously tho, I fully intend to get a job. contrary to my parent's views, i'm not totally bone idle. However, this will be very difficult - I think I am rather good at writing, but type very slowly indeed so I probably wouldn't be able to keep to deadlines etc. as for grocery bag packing, I doubt I could do even this. but dont worry, there willl bbe something I can do.

However, for the time being, I think I need income from another source. Either charity or the state/ Charity I am wary of - for some reason, accepting charity feels as if one has failed, like a beggar on the street. State benefit feels better: it is socially sanctioned, and everyone contributes. the democratically-elected gunmut controlls it, so we all have some degree of control over it. I'm not totally against charity, but I have no democratiic control oover it - charities aren't accountable to the electorate. Churches themselves seem to biggoted - they try to make people convert for charity; i've seen reports of churches trying to 'cure' the disabled (lmao). personally, i'd walk over a tight rope sooner than recieving money from biggots.

If one accepts the necesity for the benefit system for people like myself, then to me it seems reasonable that other people will need it. For the most part, it is my experiience that people would rather work than rely on benefit, but Denny is right in saying many people are lazy and should be encouraged to work. a compromise between our views is necessarry, involving some kind of job-seekers allowance.

Btw, how would you decide who should and shoulldn't be breeding? you're quite sccary sometimes, den.

First, Matthew, we do not decide who breeds and who doesn't in our Capitalist mindset. We just know who shouldn't.

Secondly, "personally, i'd walk over a tight rope sooner than recieving money from biggots." There are more bigots in the European governments than in all of the churches in America! After all, you are polluted with Anti-Semitism, and we are not. Faith-based charity organizations do not cram religion down people's throats.

Case in point: The Dallas Life Foundation is a privately funded homeless shelter that feeds the homeless and provides educational and job placement services. The organization is respected and used as an example all over our country on how to manage and execute care services for the needy. There are more success stories out of this one little organization than from any government assistance program. Why? Because the Foundation doesn't throw money at poverty. Instead, it works to educate, teach responsibility, and rehabilitate. Its not about religion so fear not the faith-based initiatives. Do some homework, and you'll learn that churches and their congregations are more efficient than any government institution.

These kinds of services are exactly the balance you speak of. You mentioned previously that societies need "lefty" policies. Caring for the needy and handicapped is not a "lefty" policy, dude. We work to educate our needy. You just throw other people's money at 'em. Social services represent a necessary social safety net. Our net just happens to be a lot smaller than yours because our policies work, and yours doesn't. Furthermore, our policies will work even better as soon as we weed out these sick fucking liberals out of our government. Our goal is to export our liberals to Europe in order to reduce the trade deficit.

Matthew, why do you think everybody wants to live here? Hmmmmmm. Ain't that a tough question.

Paul, have you ever heard the phrase 'bollox', 'cos it's what your talking. First, lleftist policies do work: the british national health service has been working for 50 years, has saved millions of lives, and is funded by the state. This contrasts strongly with the American system, where, if one doesnt have medical insurance, one cant get treatment. to get said insurance, one has to pay a 3rd company, who will take it's own cut. Thus you americans have to pay more for less treatment.

less bigotry in american churches than in the european parliaament my arse! the european produces a hell of a lot of anti-xenophobic legislationn, wheras from what I hear, american churches - especally those in the south - openly preach sermons denouncing homosexuality and islam. how biggoted can you get?

"This contrasts strongly with the American system, where, if one doesnt have medical insurance, one cant get treatment. to get said insurance, one has to pay a 3rd company, who will take it's own cut. Thus you americans have to pay more for less treatment."

Matthew: that's just flat.. wrong.

If you don't have insurance you have to... PAY FOR IT. Which you do with insurance anyway. I went to a doctor 2 months ago for a flight physical. I paid for it out of my pocket. Tada. No fuss, no muss. I didn't have insurance for a while, got sick, went and paid for doctors to look at me and make me better.

Now, you're saying if you don't have money, you can't get treated, that's not the case either. If you're sick, doctors are forced by the state to look at you, and get paid if possible later. Girlfriend of mine once fainted, fell and hit her head, Ambulance, ER, X-rays, etc. She was billed by them,and paid them off over a several year period.

But more importantly, I don't think you understand how insurance (or nationalized health care) works. By _definition_, more people have to pay into it MORE than they take out.

Let's repeat: More people have to pay more into it than they take out. If you don't believe me, sit down, do the math. And the more administation and bureaucracy you introduce the MORE that goes up to cover overhead costs.

Now, to be quite fair - the advantage a single-payer system has (or buying leverage insurnace has) is to possibly lower costs across the board. So if I have to pay in more than I take out, but my pay-in is less, then that's a win for me, regardless. Problem is, that's not usually (or even any case I can think of) that's the case.

But in theory, for instance, my insurance company can leverage deals for me. My insurance, for instance, does not cover Allegra allergy medicine anymore. Claritin is over the counter, they tell me to go buy that. Doesn't work as well for me. But it's also cheap enough that taking 2 a day is STILL less than my "co-pay" for allegra.

The downside to being "covered" is that people then don't make those sorts of economic decisions. If it's "free" for me to get Allergra - do you think I'd take 2 claritin a day? Despite the fact that it would cost insurance a LOT more?

Your claims about the British system seem to claim that the US system isn't as good at saving people. Which would seem to be rather not the case. It might have been around 50 years, but it's bleeding money like a sieve, the government is trying to stauch that by getting rid of for-pay plans, among other things - and often many people pay twice for treatment - once in taxes, and again when they go to the for-profit medical system.

"less bigotry in american churches than in the european parliaament my arse! the european produces a hell of a lot of anti-xenophobic legislationn,"

Ah, yes, Such as teaching that homosexuality is forbidden by the bible is "hate speech?" Or outlawing "religious" garb? (Women's covering in Islam only goes back to Jordan in the 70s. It's hardly an ancient custom)

"wheras from what I hear, american churches - especally those in the south - openly preach sermons denouncing homosexuality and islam."

Some do. Nothing compared to what comes out of the local mosque, but yes, some do preach that. One of the drawbacks of free speech and religion is that people get to say what they want.

Of course, those aren't very many who do. I work in the deep south. Bible Belt, baby. And whatever people say in church stays in church. I know of several homosexuals that work with very fundamentalist Xians. Basically, Matthew, you've got to remember, what you know about the US (and especially the south) is incredibly bigoted and misinformed if you're getting your info from the Beeb/andor Hollywood, as I suspect you are.

Right on, Addison.

Hey Matt, it aint bigotry if the statement is true!!! Much about homosexuality and Islam preached in the church is very much true. Religion of Peace my ass!!

Matthew: missed this earlier from you:

"I have ceribral palsy, annd get DLA of about £200 a month with which my parents feed and clothe me. I'll tell you, therres no way in holy hell i'd be able to hold down a reular job"

I don't know your situation. I do know several people with CP who hold jobs quite effectively. I don't know about "regular" jobs. But there are all sorts of jobs for all sorts of things. Granted, perhaps less so in England, where things tend to be a bit more stratified, but don't let that hold you back. If you can't get a regular job, then let's find an irregular one that you can do. Easier said than done, I understand. But for example, have you sent a c.v. into companies that make the products that you use? Somebody needs to test them and design them - and you've got a lot of user experience. Right? Maybe nothing will come of it. Maybe something will. In the US, there are several openings I know of for people with various disabilities, to test websites, or machinery, or computers.

"leftist policies MUST be implemented. I do not want some goddamn church feeding me; I do not want charity."

While I understand your concern (I'm not religious, either) - the fact is that if you're getting money from someone, then that *is* charity. You may see a total distinction, and there are some. But it is charity. People donated their money to you, just via a less efficient cut-out.

"We arre part of society and thus the democratically elected government is esponsible for us."

So, if the rest of the people said "hell no, we won't give", they should be able to cut off your DLA? After all, that is what democracy is. I'm sure you're part of society - but that doesn't make the government responsible for you. (This is a key difference between the US view and the European view, granted). In the US - the _people_ are responsible for the government, not the other way around.

"addisson and paul - the main eason why you dislike the wealfare state is that you disslike paying high taxes."

That is a part of it. I work hard. I have a hard time having my money dispensed to people who don't work hard, because they CAN get my money.

But the taxes is not all of it. It's more of a social issue for me. The victim society. The feeling that something is "owed" to someone who doesn't contribute. (My grandmother and I had a argument about this, as she was a "gap baby" - due to bad math, Social Security payments were being made too high. So the group they corrected that on, with my Grandmother in them, were protesting since it was THEM that the cuts fell on. The people before were getting more (due to the bad math) and the people after (due to paying more in))

It's the society and the effects it creates that's my biggest objection. And we can look at places that have gone with heavier social services. France. Germany - about to implode economically.
"In 2000, U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average. Europe's standing hasn't improved since then." Read that. And understand that it's not just high taxes I have a problem with, it's a dependancy issue (taxes cause less growth, causing more people to need help, causing less people to work, less product, etc. etc. etc.)

"I will only say this - you are damn lucky to be in a positiion where one can pay such taxes."

Lucky? Yes, I agree. I'm pretty lucky as things go. As are most of us.

"Please try to understand that such things are necessarry, and not all needy people choose to be poor."

I again appreciate your sentiment. However, I understand your point. But I think you don't understand mine. I don't like mere handouts because of the incapacity they engender. I don't mind helping people over rough spots. Or some programs that assist in others. Want to have some form of national catastrophic health insurance, so something tragic won't wreck everything? Hey, that's more my line.

I don't want to take your money away. But I believe that you have abilities, and I don't want you to lose them due to atrophy or charity.

"It will be a cold day in hell before I recieve money from a chuurch, or anyone other thab a government whom I democratically control."

But, what if the rest of the people disagree? That is the real problem with a democracy. "The people have spoken. Damn them".

"the british national health service has been working for 50 years, has saved millions of lives, and is funded by the state." Yeah, but your beef sucks.

Addison, we're wasting bandwidth here with this guy Matt. Judging by some of the things he's said, I think he might be a teenager, and he's playing around here during naptime. He's starting to sound like a broken record. I doubt the new generation from the United Kingdom will be capable of thinking for themselves when they grow up anyway. I nominate Matthew as our Nu-Communist here at GOC.com.

Paul:

Let's not sell him short. I'm encouraged by his moxie, and hope that we can make an influence on him. He certainly brings up some issues that could well be overlooked with some simplistic solutions. Besides, to be that way would be to be rude, and well, Mama raised me to be polite. (Something to be said about being raised in S.C., no?)

atrophy - a word I remember from my youth. harbinger of death.

addison, do you know, I actually agree with most of what you said. The job hunt will be difficult, but after University next year, who knows. I speak to a 26-year-old lady with CP down in Florida sometimes: she has a job, looks after herself etc (she's also one of the finest writers I know). However, even she still recieves a reduced benefitt payment from the gov't.

Religious garb is outlawed in france only, and I agree that was silly.

"Such as teaching that homosexuality is forbidden by the bible is "hate speech?" " - I think the bible goes something like "if a man lieth with another man, it is a sin unto god", or some such bull.

"Basically, Matthew, you've got to remember, what you know about the US (and especially the south) is incredibly bigoted and misinformed if you're getting your info from the Beeb/andor Hollywood, as I suspect you are."

I did a course in hiistory this year, and one of the first things we learned is that ALL sources of info are biassed, be it the beeb, CNN, MSNBC. however, it's true that i've got a soft spot for the BBC, but on the whole I find their coverage well-balanced, especially post-hutton.

"I do know several people with CP" - cool. how so?

Excellent term to introduce, Matthew. Let's use it in a sentence.

The welfare state claims to take care of its people, but, as a result, their brains often atrophy.

Capitalism (West German output): Mercedes, BMW, Audi, VW.

Socialism (East German output): Trabant.

Same people, same engineering acumen, same everything except same political system.

Talk about different outcomes.

Matthew:

Leviticus 20:13

You might not believe in that. Many people don't. But many do. And when you're dismissing people's religious beliefs, merely stating that you find them "Bull" is less than rigorous.

" it's true that i've got a soft spot for the BBC, but on the whole I find their coverage well-balanced, especially post-hutton."

Check out http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/. The Beeb's got a LONG way to go before they get to "well-balanced". I'll say they have a superlative infrastructure in place, but it's hardly a place I trust for news (Slaughter in Jenin, anyone?)

People with CP: On the internet, where else? :)

Paul - I dont think you're adding much to the debate.

"Check out http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/. The Beeb's got a LONG way to go before they get to "well-balanced". I'll say they have a superlative infrastructure in place, but it's hardly a place I trust for news (Slaughter in Jenin, anyone?)" HAHA - try doing the same for ABC or MSNBC

btw, we wobblies love the net. Its become our natural environment!

And I don't intend to add anymore to the debate, pal. Nu-Communist rhetoric from people like you only strengthens my conviction. You bore me.

bloody NAZI!

Matthew:
"HAHA - try doing the same for ABC or MSNBC" Doing the same, as in talking about infrastructure? Or talking about bias?

I'd never tell you ABC and MSNBC or NBC or CNN aren't falling far over to the left. CBS is just in it's own la-la land, as evidenced by their treatment of Clinton's book (Which they're selling, getting cuts of the sales, etc), or Clarke's book (same deal).

Did you hear about the BBC being taken off the Queen's ships? Sailors insisted on it. Think about that. The guys being reported on, don't want to hear the beeb's take. Pretty. Damn. Powerful. Statement.

The BBC is different, however. Alone out of those mentioned, the BBC is supported by a mandatory tax on British citizens. (NPR is supported in a similar fashion here, as well, and has similar problems). All the others are seeing massive losses in viewers, and money is disappearing as a result. Why advertise on channels that people don't watch? Thus, their bias is being controlled by the market. (leading them to attempt blatant moves to "seem" less Liberal, but failing, and thus causing more damage to themselves).

FOX isn't as biased as most people think. Their upper management is. Their commentators are. But their reporters are still decently from the "usual Liberal School" I've noticed. But since they're the only ones who have INCREASING viewership, this Must Be Attacked as something sinister. Why? They're closer in line with what the US wants. I can't stand O'Reilly. He's a bombastic, egotistical moron. But people watch his show, so he stays on. Less and less people watch the slightly less bombastic Koppel, Jennings, Brokaw. *snort* Rather....

Thus the market starts to correct for people who are either not entertaining (Al Franken recently), or not informative. As opposed to the British system, which takes your money to fund, and continue to fund. As ad revenues go down, the bite from you will go up (after all, we couldn't ask the Beeb to change, or even to reduce costs, now, could we?)

don't u get irritated by all those commercials? when i was last stateside, i saw more adds than propper t.v

Those commercials are what allows them to broadcast without reliance on funding from the government, or more precisely the taxpayers.

Although, if we're gonna be socialists, and have state run media (and healthcare, and welfare, and all the other crap), I guess we won't need all those commercials.

Nah, i'll take the commercials anyday, even the dopey "infomercials" - at least I can change the channel, or turn it off. Try that with socialism!

--Paul, have you ever heard the phrase 'bollox', 'cos it's what your talking. First, lleftist policies do work: the british national health service has been working for 50 years, has saved millions of lives,--

Uh, huh, that's why gas is the equivalent of $5/gal.

Matthew, some of us also pay attention to your NHS. Even frogistan's throwing more money into upgrading their bankrupt system so they don't have to wait in line like the Brits.

Start educating yourself on Canada's NHS. Worse than yours, no private ins. at all. They come across the border for treatment.

AND - as Iain Murray wrote, The British are known for their bad teeth. Britain has also had national dental care for 60 years.

And saving millions of lives until you're over 60.....

Matthew - Godwin's Law. You called someone a Nazi! This thread is officially over and you lost the debate.