Ben No.3

Yes. Unconditional means unconditional They are testing it in Finnland right now.

Free money from the government every month, funded by taxes

I am humbled you ask my opinions. Now, here is the thing. I hold entrepreneurship high, because I realise that it can be a great source of joy, as well as a catalyst for human endeavour. And thus, I have sympathy for people like you. See, answering your question "were the employees treated unfairly" isn't a simple yes or no one. Hardline Marxists will disagree with me, but then again, no single ideology will fix anything. What I'd like to see is the nationalisation of big industries (and the banking sector?). Now a great example of why I see the necessity for this is the pharma industrie: if it is under private ownership, it's Motive is profit. This means that a) it has an interest that there are sick people and b) it has an interest in producing cheap medicine and selling it expensively. A national Industrie on the other hand produces for use. This means, that instead of expensively selling cheap pills that would treat you symptomatically (as a private company would likely do), a nationalised company might give you vaccines. Now I am in no way qualified to judge at which companies should or should not be run by the state, but I think you get the notion. Now I also believe that there should be an unconditional basic income. And I believe in what my friend called "backyard capitalism" when I explained it to him what I imagined. I have nothing against people building up their small private businesses, as long as I can ensure that everyone is well of. So free healthcare, education, and the unconditional basic income. And assuming this, you go ahead a day build up your private business. Expect to be taxed I don't want pure socialism, I realise this won't work. Heck, Lenin himself had to admit this and thus introduced NEP. I would like to see socialism with certain capitalist elements that rule out the weak spots of it. Does that make sense?

okay thanks

Just wondering. Since it's classically the colour of more worker oriented parties...

funny but in some cases inaccurate. for example fascism is not a type of socio economical ideology, it's the belief that any ideology besides your own is wrong and should be banned. a socialist who believes that capitalists should be kicked out of his country is as fascist as right wing extremist who says that all immigrants should go home and take all pro immigrant people with them or an SJW who violently prevents people to exercise their right to free speech because he doesn't like what they say The term "fascist" is very broad today. In its original sense it comes from Italy and was implemented by Mussolini. Mussolini himself was surprisingly left, but mixed this with extreme nationalism, which is classically considered more of a right wing ideology. More obvious is this for the Nazis. Hitler had the same spin, and this is obvious in the term "National Socialism"; more so he even added extreme beliefs concerning race (classically another right wing topic). Stalin and Mao also did a somewhat similar thing, combining Communism with extreme nationalism. Now all of the previously mentioned ended up in tyrannical, totalitarian dictatorships; therefore I feel the need to express how alienated this is form the original socialism, which is a very international and egalitarian movement. This can be pointed out in countless ways; but as an example, the most famous socialist song is even called "The Internationale". However, it should also be pointed out that indeed the nationalisation of all industries, a classicaly left topic, especially in combination with the one party state is an extremely slippery slope.

How? "My" working theory is decades of neo liberal politics causing a resurgence of high inequality levels. This means fear among the diminishing middle class and an even stronger sense of abandonment for the lower class. Thus populism, and that it is Trump specifically... well, the right wing is particularly strong in the US, and I think Trump is somewhat representative of the very specific US type of nationalism. But of course, there's always an element of simply coincidence.

Let me get this straight Bruce... everyone tells you the exact same things, and you think you're the one who is right?

Do we really live in that type of division, what would be an example of this? Before you consider answering this remember you have to ask yourself what the person who lives in obscene wealth does for a living and how they achieved this They are probably bankers. I'm on to you Bruce! Its not quite what you thinking but its not far off You see I have this particular debate probably every 2 weeks with different people all over the world and even though the question or the criticism may appear completely different to your question the expected answer is often similar People ask questions like [*]why do we have such an unequal economic society This is inherent to capitalism. It is also inherent that inequality will grow and grow and grow... r>g and so on. Within capitalism? We don't. The creation of mono/oligopolies is another mechanism inherent to any form of capitalism after the industrial revolution. Changing this requires fundamental changes that would shift the economy considerably to the way of public ownership/common property. Because capitalist systems have to expand to gain new profits. Taking control over your economy means profit for the capitalists, thus this justifies almost every measure to do so. Many probably because of corruption; but in the long run, it can not really be stopped without fundamental changes. The profit incentive is huge, and it allows and requires capitalism to expand over the world. And since very few countries posses the means and the will to resist this, there's nothing to stop it. Unless of course you finally get fed up with being dictated by a small elite that is driven by nothing but profit and sees you as nothing but an exploitable recourse. Maybe you will feel the need to change something. Do call me when that happens. Well... yes

Do we really live in that type of division, what would be an example of this? Before you consider answering this remember you have to ask yourself what the person who lives in obscene wealth does for a living and how they achieved this The real question is wether most wealthy people actually worked so much more and harder than a common worker to justify this huge gap. And let's be honest, no. In fact, I'd argue their wealth is based either on exploitation (I'm not gonna repeat the full argument again) or on gambling (and it is nothing more than that) on Wall Street. Most likely both. But to pretend that the rich are rich because they deserve it is, indeed, moronic.

Ridiculous accusation (mumbles rants about the unfairness of the world)

It exists in the heart of the Internet in the USA, the company I work for is involved in integration We have no access at all to that environment as it is a secure site and they are our customers so no examples right? Pretty much spending billions of cash to watch billions of people without no real reason I have no idea how much a project like Prism costs but yes easily $20-50 Billion, check out this slide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#/media/File:Cover_slide_of_PRISM.jpg But remember Prism and other surveillance systems, like I gained access to, aren't used all the time And now we are in the year 2017 and the war on Islamic extremism is going very well for countries opposed to groups like ISIS. Most of us live in countries that are Western and we have very good lives that use the foundation of what defines the West like freedom of speech and laws that protect your sexual orientation. We don't get arrested for criticizing our governments, its okay to marry the same sex, we have working government services in most cases and opportunities to study and get a good job Its a good life, a very good life. And what gets asked of you Bennie? Nothing really except for the normal things like taxes...its not like you are being sent to fight in Afghanistan So when you discover that a country like the USA has advanced active surveillance you should be grateful as now you can contribute towards your country by supporting this and if you not grateful then you should just accept it as part of your citizen contribution I won't. I do not accept that there has to be surveillance. I do not accept that there has to be inequality. I do not accept that there has to be exploitation. I do not accept that there has to be oppression. I do not accept that there has to be pollution. I do not accept that there has to be poverty. I do not accept that there has to be a status quo. I do not accept "human nature" as a reason or a excuse for anything. I do not accept that anything is unchangable. Yes, the west has produced a lot of achievements. Needless to say, there are a vast number of mistakes and flaws in many ways. Some mistakes we created ourselves, some are inherent to our society. But it is my firm believe that a freer, fairer and more egalitarian society is not only theoretically possible but realistically archivable. It is laughable to say I should be thankful or even proud to be under surveillance. Privacy is an essential component of freedom. If I sacrifice my privacy, my freedom dies with it. If my privacy is sacrificed by the government, my freedom is taken from me. Thus, surveillance is nothing but oppression of the people by the government. I see no reason as to why in any way I should support such an practice. The world you, Bruce, imagine is not one I wish to live in. You praise conformity with obviously bad circumstances, and I am not willing to follow this teaching. I am not willing to sacrifice my ideals in the name of defending these exact ideals. Bruce, I hope I see this world you praise replaced by something better. I believe in a world where we might finally realise that a good and healthy life is a right, not a privilege. That you defend a broken system is not exactly helping the cause. But don't expect me to masochistically praise said system. Bennie I never said you would be under surveillance, I can give you an example but it cant be very specific due to the NDA Lets say a US Ranger team in Afghanistan eliminates a Taliban unit and finds a certain cell phone number amongst all the information and documents This would get sent back to the USA and eventually a copy gets sent to the NSA. Now then NSA would wait for approval or maybe a sign of a impending attack and then a filter would be created throughout the USA on the Internet and its various applications in the USA like Facebook If this number is determined to have been used or someone tried to contact it raises a red flag and the US can investigate But in order to do this you would have to analyze the flow of data from all people in the USA including you but you would never know or be aware of this as a US citizen How is this a bad thing? I explained why I find surveillance bad and you respond by telling me how surveillance works?

It exists in the heart of the Internet in the USA, the company I work for is involved in integration We have no access at all to that environment as it is a secure site and they are our customers so no examples right? Pretty much spending billions of cash to watch billions of people without no real reason I have no idea how much a project like Prism costs but yes easily $20-50 Billion, check out this slide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#/media/File:Cover_slide_of_PRISM.jpg But remember Prism and other surveillance systems, like I gained access to, aren't used all the time The boldened bit made me a wee bit scared of you. I wouldn't go off grid though, I'm trying to change things instead to stop them from doing these things. As much as the thought of Guard Dogs boobytraps scare me, this kind of ignorance terrifies me. What is ignorant about Internet security? Cyber-terrorism and extremists using the Internet is a real threat You guys don't need to understand the precedent, its already working does it works? Any examples?It exists in the heart of the Internet in the USA, the company I work for is involved in integration We have no access at all to that environment as it is a secure site and they are our customers You don't NEED to understand what we are doing. Trust us. We are good. It's gonna be okay. We gonna keep you safe. God Bruce, do you even support democracy? Do you like freedom? Explain to me how constant surveillance can benefit democracy, and I will show you a lying man . I made my case. Bruce, I hate to say it, but it appears you are part of the problem. I absolutely support the principles of Democracy and all the other examples of Western culture like free speech and right to privacy . I would never have ever changed any of these but forces of chaos and extremism descended on the West at 9/11 I think its a good thing you were too young to remember that day and the years that followed.It was a time of war and ideological conflict and many people died defending the right of the West to be as it is And now we are in the year 2017 and the war on Islamic extremism is going very well for countries opposed to groups like ISIS. Most of us live in countries that are Western and we have very good lives that use the foundation of what defines the West like freedom of speech and laws that protect your sexual orientation. We don't get arrested for criticizing our governments, its okay to marry the same sex, we have working government services in most cases and opportunities to study and get a good job Its a good life, a very good life. And what gets asked of you Bennie? Nothing really except for the normal things like taxes...its not like you are being sent to fight in Afghanistan So when you discover that a country like the USA has advanced active surveillance you should be grateful as now you can contribute towards your country by supporting this and if you not grateful then you should just accept it as part of your citizen contribution I won't. I do not accept that there has to be surveillance. I do not accept that there has to be inequality. I do not accept that there has to be exploitation. I do not accept that there has to be oppression. I do not accept that there has to be pollution. I do not accept that there has to be poverty. I do not accept that there has to be a status quo. I do not accept "human nature" as a reason or a excuse for anything. I do not accept that anything is unchangable. Yes, the west has produced a lot of achievements. Needless to say, there are a vast number of mistakes and flaws in many ways. Some mistakes we created ourselves, some are inherent to our society. But it is my firm believe that a freer, fairer and more egalitarian society is not only theoretically possible but realistically archivable. It is laughable to say I should be thankful or even proud to be under surveillance. Privacy is an essential component of freedom. If I sacrifice my privacy, my freedom dies with it. If my privacy is sacrificed by the government, my freedom is taken from me. Thus, surveillance is nothing but oppression of the people by the government. I see no reason as to why in any way I should support such an practice. The world you, Bruce, imagine is not one I wish to live in. You praise conformity with obviously bad circumstances, and I am not willing to follow this teaching. I am not willing to sacrifice my ideals in the name of defending these exact ideals. Bruce, I hope I see this world you praise replaced by something better. I believe in a world where we might finally realise that a good and healthy life is a right, not a privilege. That you defend a broken system is not exactly helping the cause. But don't expect me to masochistically praise said system.

The boldened bit made me a wee bit scared of you. I wouldn't go off grid though, I'm trying to change things instead to stop them from doing these things. As much as the thought of Guard Dogs boobytraps scare me, this kind of ignorance terrifies me. What is ignorant about Internet security? Cyber-terrorism and extremists using the Internet is a real threat You guys don't need to understand the precedent, its already working does it works? Any examples? It exists in the heart of the Internet in the USA, the company I work for is involved in integration We have no access at all to that environment as it is a secure site and they are our customers You don't NEED to understand what we are doing. Trust us. We are good. It's gonna be okay. We gonna keep you safe. God Bruce, do you even support democracy? Do you like freedom? Explain to me how constant surveillance can benefit democracy, and I will show you a lying man . I made my case. Bruce, I hate to say it, but it appears you are part of the problem.

Challenge accepted. When the revolution comes, I'm starting with you Naaaaaaaaah... as if I would ever do that

They could literally force me to strap a GoPro to my wang before I would go live off the grid. "Privacy" aint that important to me. If I ever disappear from the forums you'll know I went "grizzly Adams"! PM me when you done that, will come to visit Will do... bring beer! German beer, I hope?

It isnt a big deal losing what you think is privacy, you have been told your whole life " you need your privacy " or " your privacy is your personal obligation " ..says who? You will be fine if sometimes people are able to check your status and monitor certain Internet traffic, and yes this does mean you will have to accept there are people much clever than you who have your best interest in mind. You can trust me on this one But unless you are a terrorist, paedophile or other demented deviant of the dark web then you will have nothing to worry about Democracy requires that I am not afraid of my government. Democracy requires that I have no reason to be afraid when voicing my opinions. If you are okay with taking a dissidents freedom, you'll find yourself having ended up unfree very quickly. Democracy also requires that my opinions are taken seriously. You asks who says that my privacy is important. Well, I say so. And not only am I entitled to my opinion, but a government that claims to be democratic should under all circumstances be required to follow this opinion. It is, after all, neither dangerous nor illegal. As long as I am not breaking the law and I do not consent, te government has absolutely no justification to spy on me. When did we stop assuming innocence until proven guilty and started to say "if you got nothing to hide..."? This mindset, if followed through, places far too much power in the hand of the government. A monitored people are not a free people, regardless of wether they can choose their oppressors every four years or not. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that you, Bruce, and the opinions you defend are the backsrabbers of democracy; driven by fear and naivety. Completely agree Bruce, if GuardDog and me, of all persons, agree on something, you might have a problem.

It isnt a big deal losing what you think is privacy, you have been told your whole life " you need your privacy " or " your privacy is your personal obligation " ..says who? You will be fine if sometimes people are able to check your status and monitor certain Internet traffic, and yes this does mean you will have to accept there are people much clever than you who have your best interest in mind. You can trust me on this one But unless you are a terrorist, paedophile or other demented deviant of the dark web then you will have nothing to worry about Democracy requires that I am not afraid of my government. Democracy requires that I have no reason to be afraid when voicing my opinions. If you are okay with taking a dissidents freedom, you'll find yourself having ended up unfree very quickly. Democracy also requires that my opinions are taken seriously. You asks who says that my privacy is important. Well, I say so. And not only am I entitled to my opinion, but a government that claims to be democratic should under all circumstances be required to follow this opinion. It is, after all, neither dangerous nor illegal. As long as I am not breaking the law and I do not consent, te government has absolutely no justification to spy on me. When did we stop assuming innocence until proven guilty and started to say "if you got nothing to hide..."? This mindset, if followed through, places far too much power in the hand of the government. A monitored people are not a free people, regardless of wether they can choose their oppressors every four years or not. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that you, Bruce, and the opinions you defend are the backsrabbers of democracy; driven by fear and naivety.

Oh please... if there is no strong left, you end up with scenarios like 2008. Neo liberalism has failed. Besides, surveillance is no question inherent to either the left or the right wing.

Say what? Hah! You amuse me Bruce. I used to side with you. But right now, I am shocked at what you are saying. Our every move is tracked. Every single aspect of our lives are under close surveillance. There is literally we can do without at least three different institutions knowing about it. Privacy is non existent. This is an existential thread to freedom. And not only that everything we do is watched, no, the information gained can now be bought and sold, and we are not as much as compensated for it; needless to say asked for permission. This is the worst kind of exploitation! Our lives are monetarised without us having any influence over it. And indeed, the machine the gained wealth fuels is aimed solely at making us good customers that buy more and more products without thinking about what they are doing. By simply doing as much as living, we are dooming our freedom and integrity. And now you tell us we should be thankful. For what? For being the puppet used to create the wealth of a few privileged? For being watched in our every step? For being ruled by a government that at times is nothing but the extended arm of the upper class? Is this your idea of "responsible capitalism"?

Economy of cows Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbour. Communism: You have to cows. The state takes both and gives you some milk. Fascism: You have two cows. The state takes both and sells you some milk. Traditional Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies; the economy grows. Venture Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with the associated general offer so you can get all four cows back, with an tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights for the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to an Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report lists eight cows, with options to one more. An American cooperation: You have two cows. You sell one and force the other to produce the milk for four. Later, you hire an consultant to analyse why the cow has died. You don't believe what he says and are convinced it's the fault of the Mexican guy you hired to milk the cow, so you fire him. An Indian company: You have two cows. You worship them. An Australian cooperation: You have teo cows. Business seems pretty good. You close office early and celebrate with beer An Iraqi cooperation: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You have none. Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least you are now a democracy. An Italian cooperation: You have two cows. You don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch. An French cooperation: You have two cows. You go on a strike, organise a riot and block the streets because you want three cows. An Chinese cooperation: you have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim to have full employment. An Irish cooperation: you have two cows. One of them is a horse. An Swiss cooperation: You have 5000 cows. None of them belongs to you. You charge the owner for storing them. An Greek cooperation: You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks. You eat both of them. The banks call to deliver their milk, but you can't deliver so you call the IMF. The IMF loans you two cows. You eat both of them. The IMF and the banks call to collect their cows/milk. You are out getting a haircut.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/03/europe/st-petersburg-russia-explosion/ Explosion in St Petersburg, Russia, killing 11. Presumably terror attack

When this bill has passed, anyone who'll still consider Trump a man of the people is a blind moron.

Woo hoo! Only 1313 to go until we pick Trump again or a Democrat that will be just as bad if not worse. Unless voters finally say enough is enough and do something different. Not holding out much hope but you never know. Something very different indeed Clarification: I do not support democratic centralism, Leninism or Stalinism. I just found it amusing.

Hooray! Not only is our every move observed by several organisations Soviet style, no, we are capitalists! We will not only have you under constant surveillance, we will also sell all the information we get to private firms. And we will make you pay for the surveillance via tax money as well. Also, we will tell you to be thankful for it... ever had such personalised ads? I especially like the political ones... we can now adjust our political ads EXACTLY to you, so that you may be stripped entirely from any form of reason based voting and make purely emotional decisions. What, surprised? You do it for 90% of the products you buy already. When was the last time you saw an ad that actually told you something about the product? And yet you buy more than ever. Obviously our political campaigns will be run te same way. Heck, that's basically how Trump won. Did I mention we are also the pinnacle of individual freedom and all other ideologies are evil?