# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Socialism is successful in Sweden, Norway and Denmark?  Why?

## ClayTrainor

> Capitalists would like people to believe that Socialism is Communism because Communism has failed. Socialism is thriving in areas like Sweden, Norway and Denmark.


I get a bit confused between the difference between socialism and communism.  How is Communism not socialism?

Is socialism really succeeding in these countries?

----------


## Josh_LA

1. They're smaller in population
2. they're less religious
3. they're less spoiled & pacified
4. They're not PC like us.
5. They invest in education & birth control
6. They don't have Mexicans, blacks
7. Nobody hates them for their freedoms or intervention


The problem with socialism and communism of Fascism is not the system per se, but the fact people are uneducated and unintelligent to deal with it such to take advantage of the system.

----------


## silverlinkx2

Demographics and cultural values.

----------


## raystone

Kind of like Madoff's ponzi scheme was working 3 months ago.  Right before it fell apart.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Kind of like Madoff's ponzi scheme was working 3 months ago.  Right before it fell apart.


socialism won't fall apart if people continue to prop it up

Madoff fell apart people our country's economy is not entirely based on production, agreement or common interests.

----------


## tmosley

Iceland fell apart.  I don't see why the other Nordic countries should fare any better.  They had pretty much the same policies.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> I get a bit confused between the difference between socialism and communism.  How is Communism not socialism?
> 
> Is socialism really succeeding in these countries?


In what ways are they successful?  In the EU countries that have been communist turned socialist or just plain socialist countries the people have pretty much been bitter and miserable.

----------


## ARealConservative

> 1. They're smaller in population
> 2. they're less religious
> 3. they're less spoiled & pacified
> 4. They're not PC like us.
> 5. They invest in education & birth control
> 6. They don't have Mexicans, blacks
> 7. Nobody hates them for their freedoms or intervention
> 
> 
> The problem with socialism and communism of Fascism is not the system per se, but the fact people are uneducated and unintelligent to deal with it such to take advantage of the system.


I would also add that capitalist societies still exist and lead in research and development.  Take medical care for a second.  So long as our society makes it possible for huge profits from new drugs and procedures, smaller societies can piggy back on that and claim their system works where in a vacume it would not work.

----------


## 2_Thumbs_Up

I live in sweden and I'm only speaking for our country now. But the situation is similar in the other nordic countries. This graph shows you the taxes as a percentage of GDP for the past 100 years.

http://www.ekonomifakta.se/sv/Fakta/...r/Skattetryck/

As you can see, we haven't always had as high taxes as we do today. It wasn't until the just before the 80s that they reached their top. In the early 1900s we were free market extremists by todays standards. It was during this time that we actually created most of our wealth. Note that we didn't participate in either WWI or WWII either so we have had quite a head start.

The real question isn't wether we are wealthy or not. The real question is, are we creating more wealth or is our wealth deteriorating. I say the answer is certainly the latter. Our public sector have become very bloated and we don't have the wiggle room with taxes that we used to have. 50 years ago the government still had room to raise taxes in order to fund for the raising costs of socialism. They don't have this luxury anymore so government emplyees are underpaid now instead. Since teachers and nurses etc. aren't getting the payments they deserve we start to see a shortage of these. Why would people educate themself into something underpaid? All of this will have some very bad long term results. If you give it 20 or 30 more years I think you will hear some very different stories on the success of our socialism.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I would also add that capitalist societies still exist and lead in research and development.


Never denied that , in fact, you proved my point.

that socialist countries are not necesarily impressed or jealous of what we have in research, they're just happy with what they have, who are we to say we're better just because we have research and development?




> Take medical care for a second.  So long as our society makes it possible for huge profits from new drugs and procedures, smaller societies can piggy back on that and claim their system works where in a vacume it would not work.


wrong, in ignorance and vaccuum, it works even better.

----------


## Brassmouth

> I get a bit confused between the difference between socialism and communism.  How is Communism not socialism?
> 
> Is socialism really succeeding in these countries?


There was JUST a thread on this a few weeks ago. Please make use of the search engine. 

In summation:

They're not as good as they seem, after reviewing the data, and they have recently been enacting "pro-market" policies to save themselves. I believe I posted some links in the prior thread. 

Also, to those of you that stated otherwise, socialism fails no matter how "intelligent" or altruistic the people are. Read Mises.

----------


## raystone

> socialism won't fall apart if people continue to prop it up



Economies built on anything but free market capitalism and commodity backed currency will always fall apart eventually.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

This is why Socialism has worked in Denmark:  

*http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/mcn/2008/October/27-31/oct3008-danish-speed-control-bandits/?&R=EPI-103891*

----------


## Young Paleocon

With Europe's low birthrate how long can these major welfare programs support the retiring population?  It seems they're safety net situation may be more dire than ours.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Economies built on anything but free market capitalism and commodity backed currency will always fall apart eventually.


no, they will only fall apart if people don't support it (and it's not unreasonable to say, they can't if they wanted to sometimes).

----------


## Mitt Romneys sideburns

At least in these socialist countries they have some seemingly noble goal behind them.  All the "socialist" stuff we are doing here is just an attempt to keep the party going.

----------


## Josh_LA

> At least in these socialist countries they have some seemingly noble goal behind them.  All the "socialist" stuff we are doing here is just an attempt to keep the party going.


like i said, if people aren't smart enough to figure out themselves. no system is better, it all takes humans to hold it up.

----------


## Scofield

> no, they will only fall apart if people don't support it (and it's not unreasonable to say, they can't if they wanted to sometimes).


And eventually people get fed up with socialism.

If you honestly believe people will always accept socialism and the bull$#@! that goes with it, you are naive.  The human psyche doesn't change, and that psyche entails around freedom and prosperity.  You don't have either in Socialism.  A nation can only go so long without freedom and prosperity before they turn that ship upside down, and it's only a matter of time before the current socialist countries are flipped upside down.

----------


## LibForestPaul

Socialism = government helping people. This can work, if the government is actually representative of the peoples wishes, and the people wish for this to be so.

i.e.

After the war, people of Sweden wanted to band together to help each other out. The population was small enough that the leaders actually represented the people. And the people wanted to be "together".

Listen now at the people. Swedes at the top no longer want this system. They see the "riches" of the top Americans and are wondering why they are making only a little bit more than their fellow Swedes " after taxes, pensions, health care".  Greed, downfall of every socialist state. Unfortunate that people do not realise how little room there is in the top 1%. 

Know what you call a top engineer, top salesman, or top manager in a Multi-National?
...
.
.

Slave!

----------


## 2_Thumbs_Up

> no, they will only fall apart if people don't support it (and it's not unreasonable to say, they can't if they wanted to sometimes).


Mises showed through his calculation problem that socialism is not only bad, it's impossible. This is because you lack the information of prices.

----------


## Josh_LA

> And eventually people get fed up with socialism.
> 
> If you honestly believe people will always accept socialism and the bull$#@! that goes with it, you are naive.  The human psyche doesn't change, and that psyche entails around freedom and prosperity.  You don't have either in Socialism.  A nation can only go so long without freedom and prosperity before they turn that ship upside down, and it's only a matter of time before the current socialist countries are flipped upside down.


you obviously have more faith in humanity's greed and  intelligence than I do.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Mises showed through his calculation problem that socialism is not only bad, it's impossible. This is because you lack the information of prices.


you mean without competition, people won't know how to value one thing over another?

----------


## ARealConservative

> Never denied that , in fact, you proved my point.
> 
> that socialist countries are not necesarily impressed or jealous of what we have in research, they're just happy with what they have, who are we to say we're better just because we have research and development?


We are better because captalism is an extension of natural rights which must be repressed for socialism to function at all.

When you say they are happy, who is they?  The 51% that approve?




> wrong, in ignorance and vaccuum, it works even better.


ignorance makes nothing better.

----------


## FreeMama

The Creature from Jekyll Island explains that the only reason the socialist countries have even been able to exist for so long was because of capitalism. . . WE are actually keeping those systems alive (and enslaved by the banskters.
The banksters love socialism because they make so much money off of it. The more they can loan out to a country to keep it's socialism alive the better. Gives them control of that country's resources.

----------


## 2_Thumbs_Up

> you mean without competition, people won't know how to value one thing over another?


No, I mean that violent intervention in the marketplace alter the prices of goods and resources. Prices are an absolutely necessary piece of information for production and with faulty prices even the simplest economic calculations will eventually become impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation_problem

----------


## Josh_LA

> We are better because captalism is an extension of natural rights which must be repressed for socialism to function at all.


I don't believe in natural rights, you don't need them if you don't believe you have them (and for some countries, they just don't care). Socialism does not require anything to be repressed, it just requires people to cooperate, as would any system. 





> When you say they are happy, who is they?  The 51% that approve?


If you want to question my claims, feel free to come up with better statistics, always asking "but what" is cheap. 

I never said 51% or 99%, but if I actually took a poll and 99.99% said they're happy, would you shut up? Or just say "but that's still wrong"?




> ignorance makes nothing better.


then keep complaining.

----------


## Josh_LA

> No, I mean that violent intervention in the marketplace alter the prices of goods and resources. Prices are an absolutely necessary piece of information for production and with faulty prices even the simplest economic calculations will eventually become impossible.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation_problem


Prices can be agreed on, or force fed with a gun.

Everybody has his own priorities, a man who likes eggs can trade his hand clapping services for them at any price he wants. 

Socialism is not more than a society deciding that 60, 80 or 99% of the people agree on something to be the priority. 

I am not advocating socialism, I am saying socialism can work if people are stupid enough to support it. Just like capitalism can work if people can respect property.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The Creature from Jekyll Island explains that the only reason the socialist countries have even been able to exist for so long was because of capitalism. . . WE are actually keeping those systems alive (and enslaved by the banskters.
> The banksters love socialism because they make so much money off of it. The more they can loan out to a country to keep it's socialism alive the better. Gives them control of that country's resources.


the Amish do fine free from bankers

----------


## 2_Thumbs_Up

> Prices can be agreed on, or force fed with a gun.


But if they are force fed with a gun they do not reflect supply and demand. This is absolutely crucial. Since there are litteraly trillions of goods in the economy it's impossible to determine what should be produced without this information. This is because prices reflect the combined actions and needs of everyone. Unless you manage to find a way that makes _all_ the people in the economy aware of _all_ actions of _everyone_ else at _all_ times, socialism will continue to be impossible.

Violent intervention in the market always create faulty prices which creates malinvestments. They need to be liquidated through capitalism or dealt with with even more violent intervention in the marketplace. Socialism intervention always have to increase or be removed. It is never sustainable.

If the government chooses to solve threat the symptoms of the problems with more intervention then even more malinvestments will take place. It will only perpetuate the problem. Unless capitalism is allowed to function you will start to see shortages of other goods. This applies to consumer goods as well as capital goods. So when old capital goods deteriorate there will be no replacement. There will be no new machines when the old ones break. There will be no new tractors for farmers when the old deteriorates. As the existing capital keeps deteriorating the production of the most basic neccessities will eventually suffer. Starvation is an inevitable result of prolonged socialism.

----------


## FreeMama

Well yea but that is more of a commune than a socialist country with a government. . . don't know a lot about the Amish, but I think that would be much different than a big socialist country. . .

----------


## Josh_LA

> But if they are force fed with a gun they do not reflect supply and demand. This is absolutely crucial. Since there are litteraly trillions of goods in the economy it's impossible to determine what should be produced without this information.


No, there are not trillions of goods, at least not trillions of essentials, people who care about such goods can find out themselves what the price is.

----------


## LiveFree79

Some of you really  need to pull your head out of your Mises, Paul, and Friedman textbooks and take a look around you.  I.e. THE REAL WORLD!  First off, we don't have free market capitalism in America.  We never really have save maybe for a few decades here and there.  What we have and have had for a while is corporatism.  Huge difference.  With that being said capitalism is as fallable as any system when initiated in reality.  They are all man made systems.  Economics has nothing to do with the laws of nature nor science.  It's all bull$#@! devised by fallable human beings.  For capitalism to work and for so called markets to self regulate that would impose a much higher level of moral functioning than what we've had and probably will have in the near future.  Even Ron Paul advocates that for capitalism to function properly you have to have honesty and responsiblity.  Two qualities many human beings are increasingly devoid of. 

Norway is the third largest oil exporter in the world.  They make tons of money from their oil profits which makes them seem a lot more wealthier, free market, and successful than they really are.

----------


## Conservative Christian

Though they claim to be "socialist", all three countries have significant private sectors that the government taxes heavily in order to prop itself up.

If they ever decide to completely nationalize their private sectors, they can kiss their alleged "success" goodbye.

However, as others in this thread have already mentioned, all three countries face greater problems than they and the news media are willing to admit.


.

----------


## Conza88

Geezus christ.

Those "socialist" countries aren't that at all.

They have kind of FREE MARKETS - the type of socialists, who are BY NAME but don't have the (balls/stupidity/LENINIST/STALINIST) streak of using FORCE and VIOLENCE to enact their policies.

They could take control over the MEANS OF PRODUCTION. But what they do instead, is AFTER the wealth accumulation, the market operates largely uninhibited etc. that's when they REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH, afterward - through welfare etc.

----------


## jkm1864

I worked with several people from norway, denmark, & sweden. There people all had something in common they all bitched about the high taxes. So assuming that it works is wrong because it doesn't. Socialism steals money out of my pocket and gives it to people that don't deserve it or doesn't earn it. Also they bitch about the same things we do especially about the entitlement crowd that has no morals or responsibility.

----------


## acptulsa

This thread was good stuff:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147969

----------


## 2_Thumbs_Up

> No, there are not trillions of goods, at least not trillions of essentials, people who care about such goods can find out themselves what the price is.


You are missing the point. Even if food is the only thing we want to produce the production of food happens in many complex stages. You need tractors to grow food. In order to create tractors you need to create all the different parts in the tractor. In order to create the parts you need machinery and education. In order to create the machines you need different tools. Even if food was the only essential there would be literally billions of different stages of production. This process is impossible to plan. Without proper pricing it's eventually gonna be impossible to determine wether society needs more farmers, more tractor wheel producers or more engineers. What is commonly refered to as central planning is not planning at all. It's all just a guess work.




> With that being said capitalism is as fallable as any system when initiated in reality.  They are all man made systems.


Capitalism is not a man made system. Capitalism is just the name of the spontaneous system that exists when private ownership and liberty is respected. It exists in all societies to some extent and it always "works". Even in Soviet people managed to satisfy some of their needs through voluntary exchange. That was capitalism working. The question is how much the government and other criminal gangs (like mobsters and banks) get in the way of capitalism. Your points about morality are not points against capitalism. You simply point out that there will always be some groups of people that will try to get rid of capitalism. But if that happens capitalism hasn't failed, it's just the defence of capitalism that has failed.

----------


## theoakman

> Even Ron Paul advocates that for capitalism to function properly you have to have honesty and responsiblity.  Two qualities many human beings are increasingly devoid of.


Pure hogwash.  People become responsible when they lose their safety nets or implied safety nets.  You see how fast little Johnny will learn how to grow some vegetables when he's starving.  He'll make sure that crap is watered every day, regardless of how much American Idol he used to watch.

----------


## tremendoustie

> 6. They don't have Mexicans, blacks



Offensive, racist, collectivist bull$#@!.

----------


## JoshLowry

> 6. They don't have Mexicans, blacks


What a bunch of garbage.  Keep your supremacy to yourself.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I don't believe in natural rights, you don't need them if you don't believe you have them (and for some countries, they just don't care). Socialism does not require anything to be repressed, it just requires people to cooperate, as would any system.


socialism requires those in power to suppress the desires of those not in power.  It doesn't require cooperation because it is a deviation from a system based on voluntary cooperation.  It requires force and the ability to defend the use of force.





> I never said 51% or 99%, but if I actually took a poll and 99.99% said they're happy, would you shut up? Or just say "but that's still wrong"?


Depends on what the 99% were doing to me.  If 99% of you socialist fricktards felt it was ok to take my kidney, I wouldn't shut up.





> then keep complaining.


we will

----------


## Josh_LA

> socialism requires those in power to suppress the desires of those not in power.  It doesn't require cooperation because it is a deviation from a system based on voluntary cooperation.  It requires force and the ability to defend the use of force.


Why can't people be brainwashed into cooperating voluntarily? By your logic, a society of law is a deviation and suppression of those who wish to murder and rape.





> Depends on what the 99% were doing to me.  If 99% of you socialist fricktards felt it was ok to take my kidney, I wouldn't shut up.


by then, they'll take your tongue first, then your arms.




> we will

----------


## LiveFree79

> Pure hogwash.  People become responsible when they lose their safety nets or implied safety nets.  You see how fast little Johnny will learn how to grow some vegetables when he's starving.  He'll make sure that crap is watered every day, regardless of how much American Idol he used to watch.


You live in a fairy tale.    Human beings have been taking advantage of each other, killing each other, stealing from each other ever since they lived in caves.  This is the 21st century not the 1800s.  There are 6 billion people living on this earth.  Go tell everyone that lives in New York, LA, Paris, London, Mumbai that they should grow their own vegetables.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Why can't people be brainwashed into cooperating voluntarily? By your logic, a society of law is a deviation and suppression of those who wish to murder and rape.


Why even use the term brainwashing?  If you can be convinced to cooperate, then it is voluntary.  





> by then, they'll take your tongue first, then your arms.


nice job glossing over the substance there.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You are missing the point. Even if food is the only thing we want to produce the production of food happens in many complex stages. You need tractors to grow food. In order to create tractors you need to create all the different parts in the tractor. In order to create the parts you need machinery and education. In order to create the machines you need different tools. Even if food was the only essential there would be literally billions of different stages of production. This process is impossible to plan. Without proper pricing it's eventually gonna be impossible to determine wether society needs more farmers, more tractor wheel producers or more engineers. What is commonly refered to as central planning is not planning at all. It's all just a guess work.


You assume planning is necessary, as if hunger and greed is not enough to get things going. Agricultural societies don't need numbers on paper or somebody to tell them what to do, they do what works for them.




> Capitalism is not a man made system. Capitalism is just the name of the spontaneous system that exists when private ownership and liberty is respected.


Might makes right is not a man made system either, so that's better?




> It exists in all societies to some extent and it always "works".


Name me one historical or current example where might didn't make right. 
Civil cooperation is fine, but it does not exceed might if it ever comes.




> Even in Soviet people managed to satisfy some of their needs through voluntary exchange. That was capitalism working. The question is how much the government and other criminal gangs (like mobsters and banks) get in the way of capitalism. Your points about morality are not points against capitalism. You simply point out that there will always be some groups of people that will try to get rid of capitalism. But if that happens capitalism hasn't failed, it's just the defence of capitalism that has failed.


Capitalism will not fail, but people may not use it to their best advantage, and people can always choose what works for them.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Why even use the term brainwashing?  If you can be convinced to cooperate, then it is voluntary.


Ok, so if I can convince people to kill themselves, that's OK, since it's voluntary? Cool.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Norway is the third largest oil exporter in the world.  They make tons of money from their oil profits which makes them seem a lot more wealthier, free market, and successful than they really are.


Are  you saying, if a country has money, whether by theft, luck or work, any system can work because they can afford anything? (I tend to agree, how did US get away so long?)

----------


## Josh_LA

> Geezus christ.
> 
> Those "socialist" countries aren't that at all.
> 
> They have kind of FREE MARKETS - the type of socialists, who are BY NAME but don't have the (balls/stupidity/LENINIST/STALINIST) streak of using FORCE and VIOLENCE to enact their policies.
> 
> They could take control over the MEANS OF PRODUCTION. But what they do instead, is AFTER the wealth accumulation, the market operates largely uninhibited etc. that's when they REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH, afterward - through welfare etc.


aren't what at all?

aren't as successful? or aren't as "bad" as socialism is supposed to be?

----------


## Expatriate

Didn't have time to read the whole thread, but IMO saying socialism is successful is essentially the same as saying organized crime is successful. Sure, some people may benefit from it, but at the expense of losing the basic rights and dignity that individualists strive for.

And although I can't think of a single country that doesn't currently use socialism to steal and redistribute, that doesn't mean we can't do without it. I can't think of any countries without burglaries, muggings and car thefts either, but I don't think anyone would argue that we NEED those vices.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Well yea but that is more of a commune than a socialist country with a government. . . don't know a lot about the Amish, but I think that would be much different than a big socialist country. . .


so then the solution is simple, segregation and isolation, small communities, stay separate.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Didn't have time to read the whole thread, but IMO saying socialism is successful is essentially the same as saying organized crime is successful. Sure, some people may benefit from it, but at the expense of losing the basic rights and dignity that individualists strive for.


yes, socialism DOES work at the expense of some, so does capitalism and crime.




> And although I can't think of a single country that doesn't currently use socialism to steal and redistribute, that doesn't mean we can't do without it. I can't think of any countries without burglaries, muggings and car thefts either, but I don't think anyone would argue that we NEED those vices.


yes, somebody would argue we need crime, to keep stupid jobs like policemen.

----------


## Agent CSL

I believe a large part of it is their population, culture and pacifism. People aren't willing to fight and as long as they can live a semi-cushy lifestyle, why fight anyway? 

I've read some stories from Americans who vacation in Denmark. Apparently they felt creeped out by the "Stepford Wife" feel of the whole place. Others will call it nice, peaceful. Nice and peaceful is just another way of saying the place is a little too perfect, a little too medicated. 




> After careful study, Christensen thinks he isolated the key to Danish anti-depression. "What we basically figured out that although the Danes were very happy with their life, when we looked at their expectations they were pretty modest," he says.
> 
> By having low expectations, one is rarely disappointed.
> 
> Christensen's study was called "Why Danes Are Smug," and essentially his answer was it's because theyre so glum and get happy when things turn out not quite as badly as they expected. "And I was thinking about, What if it was opposite? That Denmark made the worst, number 20, and another country was number one. I'm pretty sure the Danish television would have said, 'Well, number 20's not too bad. You know it's still in the top 25, that's not so bad,'" he says.
> 
> History may also play a role in the country's culture of low expectations. If you go to the government's own Web site, it proudly proclaims the present configuration of the country is the result of 400 years of forced relinquishments of land, surrenders and lost battles."

----------


## ARealConservative

> Ok, so if I can convince people to kill themselves, that's OK, since it's voluntary? Cool.


sure. 

but from what I am seeing, your power of persuasion is greatly overrated.

----------


## ARealConservative

> yes, socialism DOES work at the expense of some, so does capitalism and crime.


the difference is in capitalism, the losers can generally find a shorter path to get the blame.  It requires looking in a mirror.

----------


## slamminshaun

Depends on your definition of success.  How many great inventions can you name that originated in those countries over the past 50 years?

----------


## Josh_LA

> the difference is in capitalism, the losers can generally find a shorter path to get the blame.  It requires looking in a mirror.


but in crime, the victim has nobody to blame.

and I'm well aware I won't be the person convincing people to join Heaven's Gate, but the fact Americans elected Obama means somebody's doing a good job.

----------


## ARealConservative

> but in crime, the victim has nobody to blame.


sensible people blame the criminal.




> and I'm well aware I won't be the person convincing people to join Heaven's Gate, but the fact Americans elected Obama means somebody's doing a good job.


sure.  the have-nots have always outnumbered the haves.  

The problem is Lady Liberty has had the blindfolds removed and the have-nots are fighting to prevent them going back on.

----------


## Agent CSL

> but in crime, the victim has nobody to blame.


Well, there are a few shady spots to this. Ultimately it is the criminal who does the action, but the victim is the person who chose to put themselves in harms way. 

If you walk down a dark alley, you run the inherent risk of being mugged or raped. 
*Solution*: Don't walk down a dark alley

If you use an ATM in a poorly lit or poorly crowded area, you run the inherent risk of being robbed.
*Solution*: Use an ATM in a better lit place, inside a bank or a place where a lot of people are around.

If you choose to drive on icy roads, you run the inherent risk of getting into a car accident.
*Solution*: Don't drive in times when it's icy or snowy. Walk, or catch a bus that has chains.

If you buy anything, you run the inherent risk of buying lemons.
*Solution*: Research before you buy any expensive item, check out the item and if possible, try it first. Make sure you keep the receipt. 

Every possibility has a negative and a positive possibility. It's not as certain as life and death, but when you make obvious poor choices then YES, it is your fault. But when you get hurt by someone else you will never blame yourself for putting yourself in the position to get hurt. Blame is easy to pass onto others. If you do anything you risk everything. The only way out of this law of life is to kill yourself. 

But let's keep life the way it is. Let's keep blaming criminals for crimes, shall we.

----------


## Josh_LA

> sensible people blame the criminal.


About as sensible as blaming somebody for selling you goods.




> sure.  the have-nots have always outnumbered the haves.  
> 
> The problem is Lady Liberty has had the blindfolds removed and the have-nots are fighting to prevent them going back on.


people are just looking out for their interests, people have priorities as to what Lady Liberty and Lady Justice should be blind about.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Well, there are a few shady spots to this. Ultimately it is the criminal who does the action, but the victim is the person who chose to put themselves in harms way. 
> 
> If you walk down a dark alley, you run the inherent risk of being mugged or raped. 
> *Solution*: Don't walk down a dark alley
> 
> If you use an ATM in a poorly lit or poorly crowded area, you run the inherent risk of being robbed.
> *Solution*: Use an ATM in a better lit place, inside a bank or a place where a lot of people are around.
> 
> If you choose to drive on icy roads, you run the inherent risk of getting into a car accident.
> ...


I totally agree, that's why we shouldn't complain or blame corporatism, we should become them!

----------


## Josh_LA

> Depends on your definition of success.  How many great inventions can you name that originated in those countries over the past 50 years?


great inventions is a good way to measure success, just look at Africa

They didn't even invent the famous 419 scam they're so good at.

----------


## Agent CSL

> I totally agree, that's why we shouldn't complain or blame corporatism, we should become them!


If I become a lobbyist, I run the inherent risk of becoming a lobbyist.

----------


## ARealConservative

> About as sensible as blaming somebody for selling you goods.
> 
> 
> 
> people are just looking out for their interests, people have priorities as to what Lady Liberty and Lady Justice should be blind about.


you are making no sense

----------


## Josh_LA

> If I become a lobbyist, I run the inherent risk of becoming a lobbyist.


or being shot by an anarchist

----------


## Josh_LA

> you are making no sense


apprently not to you.

you can blame the criminal just like you can blame the capitalist, or you can prevent the crime and prevent the transaction.

some people believe justice should be colorblind, some people belive justice should be money blind, what part do you not get?

----------


## ARealConservative

> apprently not to you.
> 
> you can blame the criminal just like you can blame the capitalist, or you can prevent the crime and prevent the transaction.
> 
> some people believe justice should be colorblind, some people belive justice should be money blind, what part do you not get?


You can blame a blade of grass for tripping too, but like I said, sensible people know where to place blame.

----------


## Agent CSL

> you are making no sense


Josh_LA is an intellectual sheepdog. He is trying to herd you into a circular logic so you end up contradicting yourself and making you rethink your positions.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh_LA is an intellectual sheepdog. He is trying to herd you into a circular logic so you end up contradicting yourself and making you rethink your positions.


If I am able to do that, you can't blame me

----------


## Josh_LA

> You can blame a blade of grass for tripping too, but like I said, sensible people know where to place blame.


ok, so does your society allow freedom to every human being ? or only sensible ones?

what's to prevent dumbMOCKracy or Idiocracy?

----------


## loudes13

Those countries and EU as a whole do not have the rugged individualism that our country was founded on. The exceptional people that wanted to get ahead of the mediocre masses came to countries that encouraged success  like the USA.

The majority of the EU citizens compromise their individual values and conforms to socialist tendencies. The USA is coming dangerously close to conforming also. People like us need to keep reminding others that we are a Country of Rebels. Our Founder Fathers fought Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We need to win the hearts and minds of our friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> 1. They're smaller in population
> 2. they're less religious
> 3. they're less spoiled & pacified
> 4. They're not PC like us.
> 5. They invest in education & birth control
> 6. They don't have Mexicans, blacks
> 7. Nobody hates them for their freedoms or intervention


Number 6 is disgusting and collectivist nonsense and the other reasons make our movement look debunked. Way to go.

----------


## Conza88

> aren't what at all?
> 
> aren't as successful? or aren't as "bad" as socialism is supposed to be?


Aren't as socialist as they are proclaimed to be, and proclaim themselves.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Number 6 is disgusting and collectivist nonsense and the other reasons make our movement look debunked. Way to go.


Yeah, no joke. Josh_LA, you're officially on my ignore list, which makes you number 2 in the year and a half I've been here, quite a distinction.

I can't stand racist ideas, and furthermore, you don't actually take consistent positions you believe in, you seem to throw statements around, I suppose trying to catch someone in a contradiction, or trying to be provocative. It wastes people's time to have discussions this way -- I think courtesy compels us to respect each other's time more than this.

Anyhow, that's my point of view, after witnessing many discussions, all of which end up as tangled as this one. Others are welcome to their own perspectives, of course. But that's my decision, and I recommend others do the same.

----------


## phaster

> I get a bit confused between the difference between socialism and communism.  How is Communism not socialism?
> 
> Is socialism really succeeding in these countries?



Basically socialism works in Scandinavia, because the society is very homogenious in terms of cultural background, shared ethnic traits and beliefs.

Denmark for instance has a total population of about 6 million people, and if you visit the country one wouold notice that there are Danish flags all over the place, which is kind of a national obsession. Basically the Danes are damn proud with their national pride and shared cultural heritage.

In the USA people also fly american flags but not to the same extent. Remember back to 9/11 and ya saw american flags everwhere, but now not so much. Well in a country like Denmark there is consistency in national heritage and pride so along with traits of very homogenious cultural background, and beliefs it is possible to secure long term funding (basically taxes), from society as a whole to support educational, medical and a social safety net.

The US by comparison is very tribal in tolerating kinda way. By this I mean people in this county tend to segregate themselves by ethic background for example there are Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, etc. (look around and you'll notice various communities and neighborhoods tend to self segrate segregate by hyphenated ethnic background). Tribes in the USA are further self segrate segregate by lifestyles and beliefs; for example the only time bible thumpers interact with gays or lesbians might be at some protest.

Now think about what's important to a bible thumer in the USA, would most likely absolutely enrage a flaming ****. Here I'm just trying to illustrate that the political and social agendia of both these groups are vary differnt, so given limited amounts of money it makes it hard in this country to get a wide consensus on spending priorities.

Another glaring example I'll give is the general outlook of Chinese-Americans and African-Americans. The historical Chinese tradition of placing a very high value on education manafests its self in Chinese-Americans going to university in a much greater percentage than say African-Americans who might not have role models or a long historical tradition of placing a very high value on education. So this is another example of where  Chinese-Americans in general would be willing to tax themselves heavily to fund higher education programs, but  African-Americans in general might not because that social-economic groups does not use that service in as large a number.

If youre wondering what the difference is between Capitalism, Socialism and Communism, here is how I see it.

In a capitalist system, basically it is survival of the fittest: if you are young, bright and hard working, you can grow up to dominate the world (think of Bill Gates), if you are old, dumb and lazy, chances are you would end up as a bag-person wandering the streets rummaging through trash cans looking for clothing and food. In a capitalist system, there are many political parties and it is possible to use wealth to buy influence in government (via high priced lawyers and lobbyist who work for special interests such as big business so they can benefit a shareholder as opposed to the society as a whole). In a capitalist system many innovative products and services are created because creativity is unhindered and rewarded financially.

In a socialist society there is a recognition that there is a responsibility to care for individuals who may not be all that bright or hardworking. In a socialist society if you are young, bright and hard working, you can grow up and move to a country such as the United States (where taxes are relatively low) so you can start a company, have an IPO and try and dethrone Bill Gates. If you are old, dumb and lazy, you work the system and live a somewhat comfortable life. In a socialist system, there are many political parties and it is harder to buy influence, because the government takes away most of the money you earn (in the form of taxes) so old, dumb and lazy individuals can live a somewhat comfortable life.

In a communist system, there is lip service paid to a recognition that there is a responsibility to care for individuals who may not be all that bright or hardworking. In a communist system, there is only one political party and if you want to get anywhere in life you better belong to that party. In a communist system, if you are young, bright and hard working, chances are you would be thrown in jail for sedition if you just mentioned that you would like to move to country where you could fully utilize your natural born talents. In a communist system one does not see innovative products and services because creativity is stifled.

----------


## misterx

I could argue against every point you made, if I had the time to waste. You clearly know nothing about Scandinavia. Their system will come crashing down too. The cracks are already there.

----------


## Conza88

> Basically socialism works in Scandinavia, because the society is very homogenious in terms of cultural background, shared ethnic traits and beliefs.
> 
> Denmark for instance has a total population of about 6 million people, and if you visit the country one wouold notice that there are Danish flags all over the place, which is kind of a national obsession. Basically the Danes are damn proud with their national pride and shared cultural heritage.
> 
> In the USA people also fly american flags but not to the same extent. Remember back to 9/11 and ya saw american flags everwhere, but now not so much. Well in a country like Denmark there is consistency in national heritage and pride so along with traits of very homogenious cultural background, and beliefs it is possible to secure long term funding (basically taxes), from society as a whole to support educational, medical and a social safety net.
> 
> The US by comparison is very tribal in tolerating kinda way. By this I mean people in this county tend to segregate themselves by ethic background for example there are Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans, etc. (look around and you'll notice various communities and neighborhoods tend to self segrate segregate by hyphenated ethnic background). Tribes in the USA are further self segrate segregate by lifestyles and beliefs; for example the only time bible thumpers interact with gays or lesbians might be at some protest.
> 
> Now think about what's important to a bible thumer in the USA, would most likely absolutely enrage a flaming ****. Here I'm just trying to illustrate that the political and social agendia of both these groups are vary differnt, so given limited amounts of money it makes it hard in this country to get a wide consensus on spending priorities.
> ...


Tell me how being of a different race, color, sexuality, whatever the hell differences you can think off - alter the fact that you are an individual, a human - with the ability to reason. Where Human action is an AXIOM.

Civilization is built on the division of labor, and private property. Social cooperation comes out of this fact, it is because people realise they are better of - working together, (division of labor) that society is created.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Tell me how being of a different race, color, sexuality, whatever the hell differences you can think off - alter the fact that you are an individual, a human - with the ability to reason. Where Human action is an AXIOM.
> 
> Civilization is built on the division of labor, and private property. Social cooperation comes out of this fact, it is because people realise they are better of - working together, (division of labor) that society is created.


Civilization cannot work or happen if people can't forget their stupid differences, such as race, religion, moral standards, cultural backgrounds. 

_race, color, sexuality,_ may not change the fact you're an individual, just like being without arms and legs does not make you less of an individual, being retarded and brain dead does not make you less human, but being in an environment where intelligence, productivity and greed are valued, many things start to matter. being black or Mexican does not make you stupid or violent, but being a member of a society where blacks and Mexicans are frowned upon, stigmatized does change a person's productivity, directly or indirectly (if you want to refute this, then why is racism wrong?)

----------


## Conza88

> Civilization cannot work or happen if people can't forget their stupid differences, such as race, religion, moral standards, cultural backgrounds. 
> 
> _race, color, sexuality,_ may not change the fact you're an individual, just like being without arms and legs does not make you less of an individual, being retarded and brain dead does not make you less human, but being in an environment where intelligence, productivity and greed are valued, many things start to matter. being black or Mexican does not make you stupid or violent, but being a member of a society where blacks and Mexicans are frowned upon, stigmatized does change a person's productivity, directly or indirectly (if you want to refute this, then why is racism wrong?)


Wrong, it can work. Everyone is different, unique - individuals. This is what makes us human, i.e the ability to reason. It's what separates us from the animals.

People have a right to be racist. They also have the right to be one ignorant, dead in the head, fcken fool. It's wrong, because their premise is completely flawed thats why. There is no difference in the logical structure of the mind between humans, race, sexuality, whatever the fug you want to name. Yet the racists, contend there is. FAIL.

You have a right to be discriminatory all you want with what you sell, you own the property - if you don't want to sell it to whites, blacks, green, blue, whatever - then you don't have too. Others can boycott your ass, and protest, and inform, and let the market do what it does best.

Others who aren't racist will get the customers, beat the competition, and the other racist fool with fail. S-I-M-P-L-E.




> "It is neither natural nor necessary that the members of the same race or the inhabitants of the same country cooperate with one another more closely than with members of other races or inhabitants of other countries. The ideas of race solidarity and racial hatred are no less ideas than any other ideas, and only where they are accepted by the individuals do they result in corresponding action. "


_~ The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p. 81_

----------


## Josh_LA

> Wrong, it can work. Everyone is different, unique - individuals. This is what makes us human, i.e the ability to reason. It's what separates us from the animals.


so those who are not able to reason are animals, cool.




> People have a right to be racist. They also have the right to be one ignorant, dead in the head, fcken fool. It's wrong, because their premise is completely flawed thats why. There is no difference in the logical structure of the mind between humans, race, sexuality, whatever the fug you want to name. Yet the racists, contend there is. FAIL.
> 
> You have a right to be discriminatory all you want with what you sell, you own the property - if you don't want to sell it to whites, blacks, green, blue, whatever - then you don't have too. Others can boycott your ass, and protest, and inform, and let the market do what it does best.
> 
> Others who aren't racist will get the customers, beat the competition, and the other racist fool with fail. S-I-M-P-L-E.
> 
> _~ The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, p. 81_


*SO say with me, the civil rights movement was WRONG
Equal opportunity housing is WRONG.
It is WRONG to force equality down people's throats.*

----------


## Conza88

> so those who are not able to reason are animals, cool.


I knew you'd go there, you really are too obvious. That's a non sequitur.  




> SO say with me, the civil rights movement was WRONG
> Equal opportunity housing is WRONG.
> It is WRONG to force equality down people's throats.


Why the fck should I say it with you? I'm not coming to any conclusion because of anything you've said, you imbecile. 

*The Trouble With Forced Integration by Rep. Ron Paul, MD*

_Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed._




> Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
> 
> This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
> 
> Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> ...

----------


## Conza88

*Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray Rothbard*

And OF COURSE *FORCE* IS WRONG. It breaks the non aggression axiom. MIGHT doesn't make right.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature by Murray Rothbard*
> 
> And OF COURSE *FORCE* IS WRONG. It breaks the non aggression axiom. MIGHT doesn't make right.



Ok, I am not going to argue with you.

*YES, IF "non aggression axiom" is your axiom, then force is wrong.
AND IF "might makes right" is my axiom, then your axiom is wrong.* 

Axioms are exactly that, assumed truths, worldview foundations, and possibly exclusive to alternative axioms.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I knew you'd go there, you really are too obvious. That's a non sequitur.


Why did you say it then?

What else makes us un-animal? I'm not arguing with you, I fully agree only intelligent people get to be treated like people.




> Why the fck should I say it with you? I'm not coming to any conclusion because of anything you've said, you imbecile. 
> 
> *The Trouble With Forced Integration by Rep. Ron Paul, MD*
> 
> _Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed._


*why do you have a problem repeating what you agree with?*

Are you at least comfortable saying "Racism is OK as long as it's voluntary & private property"?

----------


## virolai

Scandinavian countries are not as socialist as some people say. In fact they do much better than Italy, Spain or France in economic freedom rankings. *Denmark*, where hire and fire employees costs zero, ranks in world top10 of economic freedom (8th in 2009). France ranks the 64th.

By the way, Sweden suffered a financial collapse in early 90s and government bailed out banks spending more than 5% of GDP, with large deficits and unemployment figures. Since then they have privatizated many sectors. And (bankrupt) Iceland was the best country to live according to United Nations in 2007. So they are not perfect.

----------


## Conza88

> Ok, I am not going to argue with you.
> 
> *YES, IF "non aggression axiom" is your axiom, then force is wrong.
> AND IF "might makes right" is my axiom, then your axiom is wrong.* 
> 
> Axioms are exactly that, assumed truths, worldview foundations, and possibly exclusive to alternative axioms.


Might does not make "right" - whatever that is.

It is not an axiom and it is NOT self evident. 

HUMAN ACTION is axiomatic. It is self evident.

"Might makes right" is nothing more than a platitude. 

The non aggression axiom/ PRINCIPLE does have foundations.

*The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block*

----------


## Josh_LA

> Might does not make "right" - whatever that is.
> 
> It is not an axiom and it is NOT self evident. 
> 
> HUMAN ACTION is axiomatic. It is self evident.
> 
> "Might makes right" is nothing more than a platitude. 
> 
> The non aggression axiom/ PRINCIPLE does have foundations.
> ...


No it does not.

If anything, might makes right has 100% history behind it (the only exceptions where when people were being nice).

An axiom is anything you want to believe in and too lazy to prove.
Anything can be an axiom, do you even know what "self evident" means? 
It means "I'm too lazy to explain it to you, JUST ACCEPT IT"
So what you do not wish to accept, is your choice, I can refuse to accept your axiom altogether. 
*There is no foundation for your axiom other than the fact you WANT TO believe it and you WANT it to be used for the best ideal society (not that that's not good enough, but that's all it is).*

----------


## Conza88

> Why did you say it then?
> 
> What else makes us un-animal? I'm not arguing with you, I fully agree only intelligent people get to be treated like people.


It is the fact that we CARE for others that have the inability to care for themselves, that makes us HUMAN.

Absolutely fcken pwnd. 

You're the one who is acting in-HUMANE, in practically every facet of bull$#@! you constantly divulge. 




> why do you have a problem repeating what you agree with?
> 
> Are you at least comfortable saying "Racism is OK as long as it's voluntary & private property"?


I don't have a problem repeating what I agree with. I have a problem with a deluded clown trying to twist my words. 

Racism is NOT "OK", it is wrong, it is stupid, it is ignorant, it is moronic and based on flawed premises. But in a free society it would be allowed, but in a FREE society, the majority of people wouldn't put up with the bull$#@!, they wouldn't go to the State to try impose bull$#@! on everyone, the market would operate and drive the racists out, their businesses would fail from protests, boycotts, whatever. This has been covered in length by me before.

----------


## Josh_LA

> It is the fact that we CARE for others that have the inability to care for themselves, that makes us HUMAN.


Caring for those who can't care for themselves? That makes you socialist, not human. (I'm not saying socialists are not humans, I'm saying not all humans are socialists, but caring for those who cannot is definitely socialist)





> Absolutely fcken pwnd. 
> 
> You're the one who is acting in-HUMANE, in practically every facet of bull$#@! you constantly divulge. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem repeating what I agree with. I have a problem with a deluded clown trying to twist my words. 
> 
> Racism is NOT "OK", it is wrong, it is stupid, it is ignorant, it is moronic and based on flawed premises. But in a free society it would be allowed, but in a FREE society, the majority of people wouldn't put up with the bull$#@!, they wouldn't go to the State to try impose bull$#@! on everyone, the market would operate and drive the racists out, their businesses would fail from protests, boycotts, whatever. This has been covered in length by me before.


fair enough.

----------


## Conza88

> Caring for those who can't care for themselves? That makes you socialist, not human. (I'm not saying socialists are not humans, I'm saying not all humans are socialists, but caring for those who cannot is definitely socialist)


*No it doesn't.*  Wrong _AGAIN._ 

Socialists (coercive) advocate the use of force. It has nothing to do with compassion. 

*It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion."* _ Harry Browne_

It is WRONG, IMMORAL - because it is COERCIVE, the threat of VIOLENCE and use of force is what makes it immoral.  Not because they_ "care."_

Voluntaryism is fine. People donate their time, or use their own money to care for others, donations, charity etc.

Josh, at least provide some kind of challenge if you're going to be a retard about it.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *No it doesn't.*  Wrong _AGAIN._ 
> 
> Socialists (coercive) advocate the use of force. It has nothing to do with compassion. 
> 
> *It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion."* _– Harry Browne_
> 
> It is WRONG, IMMORAL - because it is COERCIVE, the threat of VIOLENCE and use of force is what makes it immoral.  Not because they_ "care."_
> 
> Voluntaryism is fine. People donate their time, or use their own money to care for others, donations, charity etc.
> ...


So compassion is good, as long as it's voluntary.
Just like murder is good, as long as it's voluntary, not state sponsored, fair enough.
You think murderers and child molesters don't find it unfairly coercive they have to obey laws against murder and child molesting?

----------


## Conza88

> So compassion is good, as long as it's voluntary.
> Just like murder is good, as long as it's voluntary, not state sponsored, fair enough.
> You think murderers and child molesters don't find it unfairly coercive they have to obey laws against murder and child molesting?


COMPASSION CAN ONLY BE VOLUNTARY.

There is no coercive compassion. That is the point. 
Geezus, you're dumber than a 3 year old.

Murder - CANNOT by DEFINITION be voluntary.  Voluntary Euthanasia, isn't 'murder'.

Why are you such an idiot Josh, why? What is wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a Child?

----------


## Josh_LA

> COMPASSION CAN ONLY BE VOLUNTARY.
> 
> There is no coercive compassion. That is the point. 
> Geezus, you're dumber than a 3 year old.
> 
> Murder - CANNOT by DEFINITION be voluntary.  Voluntary Euthanasia, isn't 'murder'.
> 
> Why are you such an idiot Josh, why? What is wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a Child?


*That's why I asked, is everything OK as long as it's voluntary?
*
You keep stressing how good voluntaryism is.

Murder is voluntary to the perpetrator, not a two way voluntary, but fair enough if you insist it has to be two ways.

The more important point is, why should anybody agree with laws against murder? Because it violates your non-aggression axiom?
But you agree with self defense, so can't it be argued that the fact the government exists is already a coercion that it's defensible and justifiable to murder people who work for the government? Wouldn't you advocate violence against oppressors in revenge or self defense?

Shouldn't the government ask us if we all voluntarily agree that murder is wrong? Isn't letting 99% of the people decide for the 1% still democratically mob rule?

----------


## Knighted

> Why are you such an idiot Josh, why? What is wrong with you? Dropped on your head as a Child?


Nah, he just has too much time on his hands, being unemployed and all.  It gives him too much time to overthink things like this.

----------


## yoshimaroka

Was reading this article at mises.org today
http://mises.org/story/3304





> But what are the "structural conditions" for dictatorial power? And are corporations really "about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any [institution] that humans have so far constructed," as Chomsky contends? Is Starbucks as close to the totalitarian ideal as, say, the National Socialist regime of Adolf Hitler? Is Walmart as totalitarian an institution as the Bolshevik state of Vladimir Lenin? Even to ask these questions is to see their patent absurdity. For, while a dictatorship is certainly structured as a hierarchy, this is most clearly not a sufficient condition. Rather, the most basic and essential condition for dictatorial power, which stands out unmistakably in truly totalitarian regimes, is the ability of the dictator to initiate physical force to compel others to do as they are told.

----------


## silverhandorder

> *That's why I asked, is everything OK as long as it's voluntary?
> *
> You keep stressing how good voluntaryism is.
> 
> Murder is voluntary to the perpetrator, not a two way voluntary, but fair enough if you insist it has to be two ways.
> 
> The more important point is, why should anybody agree with laws against murder? Because it violates your non-aggression axiom?
> But you agree with self defense, so can't it be argued that the fact the government exists is already a coercion that it's defensible and justifiable to murder people who work for the government? Wouldn't you advocate violence against oppressors in revenge or self defense?
> 
> Shouldn't the government ask us if we all voluntarily agree that murder is wrong? Isn't letting 99% of the people decide for the 1% still democratically mob rule?



No one is making you agree with laws against murder. The government is letting you know if you go around killing people it will come down on you hard. You posses free will and can do w/e you want. So it is your decision if you want to follow the said law or break it.

----------


## Conza88

> That's why I asked, is everything OK as long as it's voluntary?
> 
> You keep stressing how good voluntaryism is.
> 
> _**Murder is voluntary to the perpetrator, not a two way voluntary, but fair enough if you insist it has to be two ways._


We have ALREADY discussed this. I thought you learned the lesson. How silly of me... thinking you actually learnt something.  Remember our whole fraud discussion, yeaaaah - all your little voluntary queries were addressed.

** One of the stupidest things I've read in a long time. 




> The more important point is, why should anybody agree with laws against murder? Because it violates your non-aggression axiom?
> But you agree with self defense, so can't it be argued that the fact the government exists is already a coercion that it's defensible and justifiable to murder people who work for the government? Wouldn't you advocate violence against oppressors in revenge or self defense?


Because it destroys private property. Someones life. Hell you don't need to agree to it. You can be a psychopath, just like yourself and go and violate it. Just don't be suprised when you're doing life in jail, working to pay back the victims family.

The state doesn't need to be around to reign you in. Insurance companies and private security forces would do just that, backed up with private courts.

What is government? - It's make up of individuals. Merely working for the beast, doesn't justify revenge in self defence you fool.

If someone is about to raise a gun at you, and in all liklihood fire and try kill you - you have a clear ability to use self defence, to defend your property. If it turns out to be a lighter or something, and you kill the guy - well then manslaughter, or murder, whatever - you killed a guy unjustly.




> Shouldn't the government ask us if we all voluntarily agree that murder is wrong? Isn't letting 99% of the people decide for the 1% still democratically mob rule?


Your opinions mean fck all. You and advocating murder is comparable to marxists and leninists advocating the abolition of all private property. WELL, that includes your body. It becomes property of the state.  Stop being a tyrannical mther fcker.

----------


## Josh_LA

> We have ALREADY discussed this. I thought you learned the lesson. How silly of me... thinking you actually learnt something.  Remember our whole fraud discussion, yeaaaah - all your little voluntary queries were addressed.


No we didn't discuss this, you said fraud is not allow even if it's voluntary, completely missing what fraud is.


** One of the stupidest things I've read in a long time. 





> Because it destroys private property. Someones life. Hell you don't need to agree to it. You can be a psychopath, just like yourself and go and violate it. Just don't be suprised when you're doing life in jail, working to pay back the victims family.


While I'm not stupid enough to do something I can't get away with. What you're saying is that justice and morality needs to be enforced, quite an anarchist or voluntaryist you are. 




> The state doesn't need to be around to reign you in. Insurance companies and private security forces would do just that, backed up with private courts.


By this logic, those who hold these positions, insurance companies, private security and private courts, can just as much use their power if they decided to be the bad guy (yes, I am well aware, that's exactly what our State does today). 




> What is government? - It's make up of individuals. Merely working for the beast, doesn't justify revenge in self defence you fool.
> 
> If someone is about to raise a gun at you, and in all liklihood fire and try kill you - you have a clear ability to use self defence, to defend your property. If it turns out to be a lighter or something, and you kill the guy - well then manslaughter, or murder, whatever - you killed a guy unjustly.


I don't need to ask you where you got these standards, I know already you agree with existing statist standards that socialists would be proud of. 




> Your opinions mean fck all. You and advocating murder is comparable to marxists and leninists advocating the abolition of all private property.


The difference is, I don't advocate abolition of private property, I advocate private property as long as you can hold it. I don't oppose private property in favor of public property. 

I don't oppose psychopathic individualism in favor of sociopaths. I don't oppose vigilante justice in favor of state sponsored justice and prison.




> WELL, that includes your body. It becomes property of the state.  Stop being a tyrannical mther fcker.


Just because I don't believe in the same definition of private property does not mean I don't believe a person owns his own body. Even if I did say a person doesn't own the shoes he wears, does not mean the State owns it.

I'm not a tyrannical mofo.
*
Let me ask you this one.*

Does a parent have sole control and ownership over their child?
If yes, does that give them the right to molest and kill them?
If not, then what's wrong with the State (or any 3rd party who seeks justice) kidnapping a person's child because the parent is ruled as incompetent, financially unviable or abusive?
The question is not about the State, the question is whether a parent owns a child.

It's very easy to say 
"The state does not have the right to tell a parent what to do"
"Never get between a parent and child"
"It's nobody's business how one is raised"
But do you actually believe physical abuse, sexual abuse, and training children to be suicide bombers is included here?

*I will accept an answer that sounds like 
"Ok, a line needs to be drawn as to when a parent's parenting is another person's business, I just don't know where right now"*
Anybody who says otherwise would either permit domestic molestation, or advocate intervention of bad parenting.

----------


## Lord Xar

> Number 6 is disgusting and collectivist nonsense and the other reasons make our movement look debunked. Way to go.


I am not sure what the problem is here? I would remove black from #6, but I'd certainly keep the mexicans on that last, assuming "illegals" -- being that Josh is in Los Angeles, like me. Perhaps we have a different view of the impact of illegals on the system. When food banks, HUD housing etc.. are all going to higher proportion of illegals than citizens, it sorta gets on ones' nerve. So much so, at least for me, I really am forming a dislike for it. Also, the culture in los angeles/california is ' we are owed your resources'.... so the mentality is all out of whack. That is my 2 cents. Call me a collectivist, I don't a $#@!. When you are paying thru the nose in taxes, your neighborhood going to $#@!, your childs school and local hospital are over-run, and quality is plummeted -, THEN you can call me a collectivist. Till then, stifle yourself.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I am not sure what the problem is here? I would remove black from #6, but I'd certainly keep the mexicans on that last, assuming "illegals" -- being that Josh is in Los Angeles, like me. Perhaps we have a different view of the impact of illegals on the system. When food banks, HUD housing etc.. are all going to higher proportion of illegals than citizens, it sorta gets on ones' nerve. So much so, at least for me, I really am forming a dislike for it. Also, the culture in los angeles/california is ' we are owed your resources'.... so the mentality is all out of whack. That is my 2 cents. Call me a collectivist, I don't a $#@!. When you are paying thru the nose in taxes, your neighborhood going to $#@!, your childs school and local hospital are over-run, and quality is plummeted -, THEN you can call me a collectivist. Till then, stifle yourself.


*what do you think he's gonna say ?*
"Hey, nobody's forcing you to pay taxes"
"Don't say illegals abuse your tax dollars as if you have a better use of it"
"Just because some illegals are bad doesn't mean they all are"

----------


## anaconda

> 6. They don't have Mexicans, blacks


How does this affect the peceived success or failure of their societies?

----------


## ChooseLiberty

The Swedish have a concept called "Lagom" which generally means enough for everyone.
It works well enough when you have a homogeneous one-culture productive population, which helps their "socialism" work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagom

Now they've let in around 10% "political rufugees" i.e. non-Scandanavians into their respective countries.  It's only a matter of time before they reach the tipping point where it doesn't work anymore.

----------


## Jeremy

Sweden is trying to get rid of universal healthcare actually.

----------


## lucius

> I get a bit confused between the difference between socialism and communism.  How is Communism not socialism?
> 
> Is socialism really succeeding in these countries?


_No, go travel there--talk about 'uniform' depression. These countries are the vanguard of NWO inculcations, for example teaching five year olds on how to explore the sexuality etc...pull the fork out 'they're already done.'_

----------


## Josh_LA

> How does this affect the peceived success or failure of their societies?


cultural and racial differences, compounded with inherent bias, economic inequality and historical institutionalized discrimination, makes it very hard to homogenize or unify people. Unification and homogeny is essential to a system built on cooperation or trust.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> I am not sure what the problem is here? I would remove black from #6, but I'd certainly keep the mexicans on that last, assuming "illegals" -- being that Josh is in Los Angeles, like me. Perhaps we have a different view of the impact of illegals on the system. When food banks, HUD housing etc.. are all going to higher proportion of illegals than citizens, it sorta gets on ones' nerve. So much so, at least for me, I really am forming a dislike for it. Also, the culture in los angeles/california is ' we are owed your resources'.... so the mentality is all out of whack. That is my 2 cents. Call me a collectivist, I don't a $#@!. When you are paying thru the nose in taxes, your neighborhood going to $#@!, your childs school and local hospital are over-run, and quality is plummeted -, THEN you can call me a collectivist. Till then, stifle yourself.



Don't give them welfare, but you have no right to kick out families if they are productive and work here. There are unproductive legal parasites here too, notice a difference? At least the Mexicans can be productive, and they are.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Don't give them welfare, but you have no right to kick out families if they are productive and work here. There are unproductive legal parasites here too, notice a difference? At least the Mexicans can be productive, and they are.


yes, we definitely SHOULD stop giving welfare and other government services, to everybody, then we won't care who's legal or not, those who make it, make it.

----------


## Lord Xar

> Don't give them welfare, but you have no right to kick out families if they are productive and work here. There are unproductive legal parasites here too, notice a difference? At least the Mexicans can be productive, and they are.


As I would suspect. No valid argument, and purely based on emotion and an utopian thought process that has no basis in reality. Way to go. 

They broke the law
The system can't support the tens of millions that have streamed across the border
The system can't support the birthrates
The system can't support the endemic pattern of taking from the system more than they put in.
The citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill for suppressed wages, loss of jobs, loss of culture, loss of property values, loss of quality of schools/hospitals.
Higher crime, higher illiteracy.

What a place california is gonna be in 10 - 15 years when the same pattern of corruption from mexico plants itself right in good ol' cali. 

read again: They broke the law. 
Just in case you missed it: They broke the law.

Anyways, we can go on like this for a long time. Welfare, free schooling (for illegals), free medical etc.. ain't gonna stop. And because of that, thinking of the rest of the argument as valid is a fallacy.

----------


## Josh_LA

> As I would suspect. No valid argument, and purely based on emotion and an utopian thought process that has no basis in reality. Way to go. 
> 
> They broke the law
> The system can't support the tens of millions that have streamed across the border
> The system can't support the birthrates
> The system can't support the endemic pattern of taking from the system more than they put in.
> The citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill for suppressed wages, loss of jobs, loss of culture, loss of property values, loss of quality of schools/hospitals.
> Higher crime, higher illiteracy.
> 
> ...


not to be argumentative, but some laws SHOULD be broken, ignored and undermined. Borders and immigration may be one of them to some people's standards (while murder and theft may be to others)

----------


## JaylieWoW

> As I would suspect. No valid argument, and purely based on emotion and an utopian thought process that has no basis in reality. Way to go. 
> 
> They broke the law
> The system can't support the tens of millions that have streamed across the border
> The system can't support the birthrates
> The system can't support the endemic pattern of taking from the system more than they put in.
> The citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill for suppressed wages, loss of jobs, loss of culture, loss of property values, loss of quality of schools/hospitals.
> Higher crime, higher illiteracy.
> 
> ...


If it makes someone "racist" or a "collectivist" to point these things out then our problems are much bigger than any one of us can ever imagine.

Pardon me for quoting Rand on this but A = A, Reality IS Reality.

My definition of Socialism is that it is one great big Ponzi scheme.  ALL Ponzi schemes thrive for sometime, but in the end, the last ones in are always the biggest losers and then the whole thing comes crashing down.

I just got back from our local children's hospital ER and it was quite an eye-opener for me.  I have no doubt at all that we cannot continue as we are now.

(PS:  ER visit was because I suspected my daughter had broken her toe, thankfully she is fine).

----------


## auctionguy10

> As I would suspect. No valid argument, and purely based on emotion and an utopian thought process that has no basis in reality. Way to go. 
> 
> They broke the law
> The system can't support the tens of millions that have streamed across the border
> The system can't support the birthrates
> The system can't support the endemic pattern of taking from the system more than they put in.
> The citizens shouldn't have to foot the bill for suppressed wages, loss of jobs, loss of culture, loss of property values, loss of quality of schools/hospitals.
> Higher crime, higher illiteracy.
> 
> ...


Well if welfare, free schooling, and free medical care isn't going to stop- what makes you think illegal immigration is ever going to stop? The welfare state is the problem- not the immigrants. People are going to do what benefits them the most- if you give out free medical care, welfare, etc.- of course people are going to take advantage of those situations.  If the system can't support new additions to the population- its proof that the system is garbage and you need the market to handle it. 

So what if they "broke the law"- I thought that's what we're all talking about here- that the laws in this country are horrible and are anti-freedom. I guess you're ok with jailing anyone who has a marijuana plant because "they broke the law"-, that if I make a deal with my employer to pay me $4/hr for one day its not ok because "I broke the law", those people who dare not pay their taxes deserve to be in prison to because they "Broke the law".  The laws are the problem.

----------


## Met Income

> not to be argumentative, but some laws SHOULD be broken, ignored and undermined. Borders and immigration may be one of them to some people's standards (while murder and theft may be to others)


you'll have a grand ol' time justifying murder.

----------

