9/11-1973 darkness falls over Chile

[mkreku]

The problem is, Mark, that the kid's going through his fire and brimstone lefty phase. It'll pass. He's only addressing the points I make that he's comfortable with and ignoring the others.

 

Please, address the salient points, don't tell me I'm "wrong" so blithely and get with the programme. The intellectually lazy, left-wing, reflex anti-Americanism on this little corner of the forum is like a child's sandpit full of shiny but, ultimately, pointless objects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, so you think I avoid the "salient points"?

No, it definitely isn't. Is blaming the Holocaust on the NSDAP shallow? Is blaming Year Zero on the Khmer Rouge shallow? Heck, is blaming 9/11 on AQ shallow? I don't think so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is part of what I "avoided". To be honest, these examples are so far from the original subject, I see no reason to adress them. If you care to discuss the subject at hand I'll be glad to adress your "salient points" though.

 

Actually, when you compared Allende to Stalin and failed to see the difference between a madman and an entire ideology, I knew this discussion could never lead anywhere but to namecalling and poorly disguised insults.

 

When you care to provide sources for your claims, stop pretending to be above everyone else in the sandpit and actually adress some of the points people have brought up in this thread, then it might be worth continuing. But all I see so far from you are very impotent attempts at insulting people.

 

As a side note, I love this quote by Henry Kissinger as he comments on the outcome of the democratic elections in Chile:

 

"I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people."

 

Must be my "intellectually lazy, left-wing" brain playing tricks on me because I find that comment amusingly ironic. But I'm sure the intellectually sharp, extreme-right Bush-lovers of this forum will be kind enough to explain to me why the quote isn't funny at all..

[Judge Hades]

A people have to right to set up whatever government they wish to put in place without the worry of outside influences forcing unwanted change. WHat happen in Chile is a tragedy and the US needs to be held accountable. They same thing with Iraq and Al Queda. We put Saddam in power. The CIA trained Osama.

 

Someone needs to put the US in its place and kick its arse..

[Monte Carlo]

Could Dakoth please learn to selectively use the quote function?

 

As for Mkreku, meh. No point, is there?

[Product of the Cosmos]

We in America have no more say in what our government does than the common people of China.

 

Easily, by far, the silliest and most offensive thing I've read on the Internet this month.

 

Cheers

MC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I dont completely agree with the statement either. Although I do agree with some of it. We are under a false understanding that we control the government IMO... We are not a democracy IMO, but a blend of Republic and Monarchy that holds elections of the same 'neo-royal' groups(with minor exceptions). lol.

 

People think we change leadership every 4-8 years.... Well, IMO we have the same leadership with different names. lol.. All perception i suppose...

 

What we do have is if unified, we can overthrow. But the corps and hierarchies here help divide us quite a bit, whether intensional or not....

 

We do have freedoms though... But there is such intense propaganda sponges out there, ussually people will not listen if there is a true reason to ovethrow or rebel..

[Kaftan Barlast]

first of all, that has nothing to do with the oxymoron notion... you did not address my counter that democratic vs. totalitarian communism is essentially the same thing.

 

 

you wrote:

 

not truly, no. in the end, socialism requires a government dictating what it is the people need. while on the surface said governmental leaders may be elected democratically, they are still performing the will of the state, not the will of the people comprising the state.

 

And I agree with it because it applies to all forms of representative democracy, not just a socialist democracy. Thus your argument is not an argument against socialism, but an argument against representative democracy.

 

But its very important to differentiate between Soclialism(the political system we have in sweden and many other free countries) and what Communism ended up to be in the Soviet union and China.

 

 

secondly, capitalism, totalitarianism, communism and democracy are all principles that can't be directly compared.  totalitarianism and democracy are both governmental forms, though neither dictates socio-economic policy (though both may, depending upon implementation).  neither encompasses a "system" in that they only define one aspect of our lives (type of government).  capitalism, however, does not technically dictate social or government policy other than self reliance and a hands-off approach to government.  in the end, however, capitalism is not a system developed by man, but the result of the free market concept.  i.e. it is more of an observation of the behavior of free market principles rather than the creation of a socio-economic ideal.  communism IS, however, a system invented by man.  it is not a result of anything other than man trying to envision the perfect society.  it is not an observation, but an ideal, invented within and existing only in philosophical debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Capitalism evolved out of feudalism and the old class society. Its a system created by the circumstance and the will of many people but that does not mean it has evolved enough to be free of "bugs".

The capitalist ideal is that anyone can rise to the highest peaks of power by nothing but intelligence and hard work. This is the freedom capitalism offers.

What really happens in capitalism is the creation of an economic elite(rich people), which like the nobility of old times, disctates the conditions of life for all subordinate classes- those that do not have money or the means to aquire the money needed to live their life on their own terms.

Another ideal is that by free competition, it is enshured that the general public will have access to the veery best products at the most affordble prices

What really occurs is that the public gets the product cheapest to manufacture with a quality as low as to just not cause too much complaints. Another injustice is that only major companies can afford to sell products on a major scale.

 

 

Thus, capitalism is in reality just as flawed and just as lacking in freedom as communism. It doesnt really work but since it is the system we have and a system that benefits the people in power, we stand no chance of getting rid of it.

 

I mean, if capitalism was fair- why has every single president of the US in the last 100 years been 1. Rich 2. White 3. Male ?

 

 

 

I dont know if this is any real argument against your standpoints, but its a fine rant nontheless.

[taks]

And I agree with it because it applies to all forms of representative democracy, not just a socialist democracy. Thus your argument is not an argument against socialism, but an argument against representative democracy.

what? MC's comment regarding the "oxymoron" was about allende being a democratic socialist vs. a totalitarian stalinist... that's what i was referring to... my argument IS what actually lies underneath a socialist system. regardless of the type of government you implement, socialism is tyranny.

 

 

But its very important to differentiate between Soclialism(the political system we have in sweden and many other free countries) and what Communism ended up to be in the Soviet union and China.

different degrees of the same thing, actually... but different, i agree.

 

edit: the swedish system is very similar to much of what europe is adopting dubbed the "social democracy" system. unfortunately, while said systems are on the surface "the best of both worlds" they will bankrupt themselves in the end. ALL socialist programs are by nature inefficient and lack the ability to self-adjust due to market forces. this limited version of socialism is still oppressive, and tyrannical, it just happens to have nifty gift wrapping to give the appearance of a better system.

 

Capitalism evolved out of feudalism and the old class society. Its a system created by the circumstance and the will of many people but that does not mean it has evolved enough to be free of "bugs".

uh, actually it evolved much earlier than that... the roman and greek free markets, maybe even as early as egypt.

 

The capitalist ideal is that anyone can rise to the highest peaks of power by nothing but intelligence and hard work.

no. not true at all. the capitalist ideal is that anybody has the ability to freely market their goods and work TOWARDS the highest peaks... not that anybody can rise to them. this is a common misconception...

 

This is the freedom capitalism offers.

capitalism ONLY offers freedom... nothing else.

 

What really happens in capitalism is the creation of an economic elite(rich people), which like the nobility of old times, disctates the conditions of life for all subordinate classes- those that do not have money or the means to aquire the money needed to live their life on their own terms.

not true, either. the economic elite are actually beholden to those that work for them. the market demands they offer a competitive wage, and to not do so decreases efficiency and thusly, profit. those that are talented enough (in whatever manner) will rise to the top (though that is not a guarantee). those with skills that are in demand will do better in the end... this the same misconception in different clothing. there are no guarantees.

 

Another ideal is that by free competition, it is enshured that the general public will have access to the veery best products at the most affordble prices

What really occurs is that the public gets the product cheapest to manufacture with a quality as low as to just not cause too much complaints. Another injustice is that only major companies can afford to sell products on a major scale.

not true again. there is not "very best" or "cheapest" guarantee. the consumer gets competition, which results in reduced prices. the consumer pays a price he is willing to pay for ANY product. if the product is of lesser quality than he wants, or costs too much, he stops paying for it. this is where the door opens to alternative products offering either a higher quality for the same price or a lower price for the same quality. you keep assuming that capitalism guarantees certain aspects of itself, when in fact capitalism only offers the opportunity for such things. this is why it is not referred to as an ideal, but an observation of market forces.

 

 

Thus, capitalism is in reality just as flawed and just as lacking in freedom as communism. It doesnt really work but since it is the system we have and a system that benefits the people in power, we stand no chance of getting rid of it.

again, it is not flawed simply because it is NOT an ideal. it is an observation. capitalism is nothing more than observed behavior based on the free market principle. period.

 

I mean, if capitalism was fair- why has every single president of the US in the last 100 years been 1. Rich 2. White 3. Male ?

i'm failing to see how this is indicative of an economic system? capitalism has nothing to do with our elected officials. if anything, our government is the number one impediment to capitalism as it should be.

 

i call straw-man alert on this one - you used a counter based on an unrelated, and weaker, argument... the rich white male thing is actually something i'm not too happy with either, but it is not a result of capitalism... quite the opposite, actually, as a real capitalist society would breed better politicians due to the lack of coporate influence in our system. they'd have nothing to regulate in terms of the economy other than military spending!

 

I dont know if this is any real argument against your standpoints, but its a fine rant nontheless.

 

though parhaps a tad inaccurate. this was not really an argument against what i was originally stating, however, which i pointed out in the first line...

 

taks

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

I'm really not into communism, but I don't really think that capitalism is the answer. They both, in my mind, won't really work like the people who designed them wanted them to. The concept of the system might be perfect, I don't know, maybe it is, but when built, it's going to be lacking in someplace or another, because the materials, us, are flawed.

After all, even dictatorship would be just plain wonderful if we just found the right dictator.

 

Designing alternatives for existing systems is fun, but unfortunately (or not) it's quite hard to make one reality and see how it operates in practice.

[taks]

ah, ah, ah, ah... remember, capitalism wasn't really "designed"... it's more of a result of the free market concept. hence it is not referred to as an ideal (except by those who do not agree with its principles).

 

and no, dictatorship cannot be wonderful. absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. no dictator can replace the will of the market, nor can he truly understand the will or needs of the people.

 

taks

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Designed, born, semantics.

 

"dictatorship cannot be wonderful. absolute power really does corrupt absolutely."

 

We'll never know, will we? Maybe if we had a dictator who wouldn't know he had power, but then again, maybe not.

[taks]

there have been more dictatorships in history than any other form of government... it does not work.

 

there is a BIG difference between "designed" and "born" as a matter of fact. it is not just semantics. communism, marxism, etc., are truly "invented" systems. somebody sat down and said "let's do things this way!" with capitalism, somebody sat down and said "wow, look at the way this works in practice!"

 

not just semantics...

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

And I agree with it because it applies to all forms of representative democracy, not just a socialist democracy. Thus your argument is not an argument against socialism, but an argument against representative democracy.

 

what? MC's comment regarding the "oxymoron" was about allende being a democratic socialist vs. a totalitarian stalinist... that's what i was referring to... my argument IS what actually lies underneath a socialist system. regardless of the type of government you implement, socialism is tyranny.

 

 

I think I saw something you didnt intend, or I just missunderstood. Either way, this is very interesting, can you explain exactly how socialism is tyrranic? and does that stretch over to all types of goverments that try to control the market economy? (I dont mean this as rethoric, I am sincerely interested)

 

 

 

edit: the swedish system is very similar to much of what europe is adopting dubbed the "social democracy" system.  unfortunately, while said systems are on the surface "the best of both worlds" they will bankrupt themselves in the end.

 

Yes, this is true.

 

ALL socialist programs are by nature inefficient and lack the ability to self-adjust due to market forces.  this limited version of socialism is still oppressive, and tyrannical, it just happens to have nifty gift wrapping to give the appearance of a better system.

 

As I said earlier, Id like it very much if you clearified this whole thing.

 

 

 

 

uh, actually it evolved much earlier than that... the roman and greek free markets, maybe even as early as egypt.

 

Probably even before then, the babylonians invented the.. I have no idea what "kilskrift" is in english. I think I was referring to the class system.

 

 

not true, either.  the economic elite are actually beholden to those that work for them.  the market demands they offer a competitive wage, and to not do so decreases efficiency and thusly, profit.  those that are talented enough (in whatever manner) will rise to the top (though that is not a guarantee).  those with skills that are in demand will do better in the end...  this the same misconception in different clothing.  there are no guarantees.

 

 

In modern day society it is the workers(people who make their living by working for a salary) that are in the mercy of the economic elite. Companies are constantly theatening, directly or indierctly, their employees with unemployment. Companies are doing their best to hold the employees down. This can be seen by the increase in "project-based" and such work tasks where people are only employed for shorter periods of time, and the decrease in real, longterm employment. This also allows the companies to save money by cutting back benefits and so on. The work climate in todays society is much harder than 20 or 30 years ago and this can be seen by the rising number of stress-related illness among workers.

The workers must work for their living and in that they are bound to be ruled by companies they must work for. This is the tyranny of capitalism as I see it.

 

And capitalism offers no guarantees, I agree. I did not actually intend to claim it did. But the general public often think it does.

 

 

 

again, it is not flawed simply because it is NOT an ideal.  it is an observation.  capitalism is nothing more than observed behavior based on the free market principle.  period.

 

But we who are critical to it usually refer to it as a sort of an ideal, much like feminists talk about the patriarchy. Its perhaps not an ideal, but its there.

And it is flawed, one example that comes to mind is the fact that farmers burn enormous amounts of crops in order to keep the prices high. This is a hideous, inexusable and most of all inhuman waste of resources.

Another is the fact that medical companies make more money by not curing disease. Its is more profitable if a patient needs contineuos doses of a preparate than if he is cured of the ilness entirely.

The inhumanity of capitalism is its biggest flaw, there is no such thing as compassion in capitalism(unless theres profit in it). It is a ruthless thing, whatever it is.

 

 

 

i call straw-man alert on this one - you used a counter based on an unrelated, and weaker, argument... the rich white male thing is actually something i'm not too happy with either, but it is not a result of capitalism... quite the opposite, actually, as a real capitalist society would breed better politicians due to the lack of coporate influence in our system.  they'd have nothing to regulate in terms of the economy other than military spending!

 

Yes, it was a bit ierrelevant. But it showcases that in a country ruled by money, only the rich have power. A goverment without control over the economy is controlled by the economy and what is then the point of having a goverment at all?

 

 

 

Id like to make it clear that I am not a communist or anything of that sort, I dont know if I could really call myself socialist either. But I belive that the market economy/capitalism is inhuman and must be strictly controlled in order for the well-being of mankind.

[Weiser_Cain]

The rich don't have a monopoly on power they just have more influence than they should.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Yes, in a better society the amount of influence you wield should be relative to the merits of your arguments, not the size of your stock portfolio.

[taks]

I think I saw something you didnt intend, or I just missunderstood. Either way, this is very interesting, can you explain exactly how socialism is tyrranic? and does that stretch over to all types of goverments that try to control the market economy? (I dont mean this as rethoric, I am sincerely interested)

no, i didn't take it as such. you've been very concise with the debate as it is...

 

socialism is very tyrannic for one reason: individual rights are trampled for the good of the people. in a socialist society, it is the community that benefits, not the individual. workers are not toiling for themselves, but for the good of society. this is enforced by government threat of violence on your person - if you refuse to pay taxes you will be imprisoned, if the government takes those taxes without your permission, you have no recourse. this is tyranny by any definition. the tyrant, however, is the society itself.

 

As I said earlier, Id like it very much if you clearified this whole thing.

missed the request... here goes:

socialism puts the government in place of determining production levels for all goods. the government is forced to counter demand based on guesswork. hence long lines for products that have high demand or shortened supply. the socialist system has no way to counter the affects of market forces, which exist in ANY system. capitalism, however, counters demand efficiently simply by price changes (not cost). when demand increases, the prices increase, reducing demand... this is a sort of feedback loop resulting in a stable balance between supply and demand.

 

 

In modern day society it is the workers(people who make their living by working for a salary) that are in the mercy of the economic elite. Companies are constantly theatening, directly or indierctly, their employees with unemployment.

the companies themselves don't threaten that. the market threatens that. remember, companies are subject to the will of the market. why should a company continue to produce a product nobody wants? further, an inefficient company will be ousted by another, more efficient, competitor. if an employee has a skill or trade that is marketable and in demand, employment is not an issue.

 

Companies are doing their best to hold the employees down. This can be seen by the increase in "project-based" and such work tasks where people are only employed for shorter periods of time, and the decrease in real, longterm employment. This also allows the companies to save money by cutting back benefits and so on. The work climate in todays society is much harder than 20 or 30 years ago and this can be seen by the rising number of stress-related illness among workers.

they do not hold employees down in the least. if an employee has a skill or trade that the company needs, the company is at the employee's mercy. real, longterm employment is gained by marketable skills. short term jobs are farmed out like that simply because they aren't in demand. why should a company continue to employ somebody that serves no function?

 

The workers must work for their living and in that they are bound to be ruled by companies they must work for. This is the tyranny of capitalism as I see it.

not a tyranny... they don't have to work if they don't want to. granted, a stupid notion, but true. in reality, the company is bound by the skills of its employees. if they choose to not pay them what they are worth on the open marketplace, the employees will leave and find a competitor that will. further, in a capitalist society, people are free to choose a career path to their own liking. if they choose a low-demand career, it is their own fault.

 

in a socialist society, there's a problem with this concept... capitalism counters low-demand for a skill by not offering jobs, hence people choose other careers. with socialism, however, either the state dictates your career (tyranny) or you don't work. why hire a boat builder if half of the existing boat builders are already out of work? this is another consequence of the lack of self-adjustment in a socialist system... there is no way to meter supply and demand.

 

But we who are critical to it usually refer to it as a sort of an ideal, much like feminists talk about the patriarchy. Its perhaps not an ideal, but its there.

true, but still inconsistent with reality...

 

And it is flawed, one example that comes to mind is the fact that farmers burn enormous amounts of crops in order to keep the prices high. This is a hideous, inexusable and most of all inhuman waste of resources.  Another is the fact that medical companies make more money by not curing disease. Its is more profitable if a patient needs contineuos doses of a preparate than if he is cured of the ilness entirely.

i've never heard this though i do know the government pays farmers not to farm. this is not a problem with capitalism. remember, in a capitalist economy, if there is too much food, prices will drop due to excess supply and farmers will go out of business... in a capitalist economy, only enough food is grown to meet the needs of the society's population.

 

secondly, regarding the medical industry, this theory is flawed. dead people can't buy drugs and disease will ALWAYS exist. most of the big bad diseases that linger for very long times are actually being sold at a loss due to government pressures and immoral foreign contracting policies ("sell this drug without a real profit or we'll violate your patent and make it ourselves!"). also, if one drug company wants to bank its future on such a principle, another company can easily step up and develop a cure (your assumption requires that a cure could in fact be found instead), sell the cure to all the other company's patients and then put the other company out of business... not a very wise business plan.

 

The inhumanity of capitalism is its biggest flaw, there is no such thing as compassion in capitalism(unless theres profit in it). It is a ruthless thing, whatever it is.

i'll give you that it is ruthless, but it is this ruthless nature that actually provides its greatest benefit... better products and a lower price and above all, choice. hence its inherent morality, not found in socialist systems. in the end, the consumer has control over what a company can do. he decides what price and quality, and refuses to buy if he is not happy with the quality or price.

 

Yes, it was a bit ierrelevant. But it showcases that in a country ruled by money, only the rich have power. A goverment without control over the economy is controlled by the economy and what is then the point of having a goverment at all?

to protect the rights of its citizens. period. this means protecting its borders and its people from harm. not much else to do.

 

personally, why does it matter if the rich have power? in our society, most of that power is from the fact that the government controls aspects of the economy. if they didn't have that control, they couldn't be bought by corporate interests. if the rich have power just from being rich (assume no political control) who cares? let 'em. i have quite a life that would probably not improve much even if i were rich.

 

edit: curiously, i'd like to know why so many people are concerned about being rich and having power? jealousy, envy? are we so shallow we think that happiness can ONLY occur if we're rich? certainly, very few are rich in a socialist society, much less than in a capitalist society (1/15 are millionaires in the US, 1/100 elsewhere). what gives?

 

Id like to make it clear that I am not a communist or anything of that sort, I dont know if I could really call myself socialist either. But I belive that the market economy/capitalism is inhuman and must be strictly controlled in order for the well-being of mankind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not inhuman at all. historically, it can be shown that the most prosperous people are those in capitalist societies. EVERYBODY has it better in such a society. not just the rich. the standard of living even for those below the poverty line in developed, capitalist societies is much greater than those in any socialist society, ever. even our poor have it good compared to socialism... coincidentally, the poor usually don't stay below the poverty line for more than a few years, which is another point socialist advocates usually miss. in a socialist society, you cannot ever improve your lot in life. not so here...

 

taks

[Dakoth]

While I agree with all your points Taks there is one thing that bothers me about American economics. That one thing is the greed that prevades the system. Whether it was the cut throat nature in which the Enron execuateives treated their employees, or the moving of jobs to Mexico and China with the half hearted promise of cheaper goods the only thing big buisness is worried about is money. I have yet to see a CEO take a pay cut in a company going bankrupt even though he asks maybe thousands of employees too. Now maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if CEOs were not making rediculas amounts of money, it just seems hypicriticle for a man/woman that makes 6 million a year to tell 3000 people who make 20000 a year that they cost the company to much money.

 

There are other things too, don't forget the government regulates most all the utilities, why because they have a monopoly in the areas they are in and if not regulated could ask for what ever amount of money they thought they needed. If you need proof why monopolies are bad just look at microsoft. We are still paying a hundred dollars for a product that has been out since the early 80's, have they improved on it, yes is some thing 20 years old still worth 100 dollars?

 

Capitalism is great unfortunatly just like goverment systems it is only as good as the people who run it.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"socialism is very tyrannic for one reason: individual rights are trampled for the good of the people. in a socialist society, it is the community that benefits, not the individual. workers are not toiling for themselves, but for the good of society."

 

Well, we humans are pack animals, aren't we?

 

A bit offtopic, but IIRC, psychological problems like depression, etc are far more common in individualistic systems that in communal ones. Is freedom really all that important, when it seems that a large part of mankind has no idea what to with it?

 

By the way, could someone please explain me what is it that you can get with a $6 million/year you can't get with $5 million/year?

[Dakoth]

By the way, could someone please explain me what is it that you can get with a $6 million/year you can't get with $5 million/year?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was partially my point those people are making enough money in the space of a few years to live the rest of their lives on. Yet the people who absolutely need there job are the ones to lose it when the chips are down.

[Nartwak]

You don't need both of your kidneys either.

[Dakoth]

You don't need both of your kidneys either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually medical science has improved to the point you don't need your kidneis at all. Your quality of life is diminished greatly by it but you can still live without them.

[Nartwak]

Actually medical science has improved to the point you don't need your kidneis at all. Your quality of life is diminished greatly by it but you can still live without them.

A: It's kidneys.

 

B: The point. You've missed it.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

You can hardly compare having two kidneys instead of one to making humongous amounts of money instead of making only lots and a lot more money, can you?

[Nartwak]

Yes. You don't need both to function; and other people need one.

 

You're just rich in organs. Redistribute the wealth.

[Judge Hades]

Um... Most people on this planet already have 2 kidneys. No need to redistribute.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Plus, you might still need that kidney of yours later on. What do you need that extra million a year for when you're already rich beyond most people's dreams?

[~Di]

In my experience, (which is limited, I know... but then again, so is everyone's), those who holler loudest for "redistribution of wealth" economies are those who stand to benefit from it. In other words, those who will be given free stuff stolen from others, not those who will have their stuff taken away.

 

Not surprisingly, I've spoken to a lot of folks who salute the concept of socialism/communism womb-to-tomb governmental care... folks who are sitting home on their computers all day and all night, venturing out only to cash government dole checks. Their biggest complaint is that the dole checks aren't big enough to supply them with all the luxuries they want. Oh, they have free food, free clothes, a free roof over their head (and somehow manage to have a computer, internet connection and games, LOL!), but nonetheless complain that they should have MORE free money!

 

This means they believe that others should work harder to have more money available to be taken away and given to strangers who choose not to work at all. Does this sound like a great system? Of course it does! Trouble is, it won't survive unless there are more people who believe in earning their own way than there are people who have decided to let others earn their way for them. Historically, it doesn't take long for the abused to get sick of carrying the lazy on their backs; they decide to become one of the supported rather than continue to be a supporter.

 

That's when the government has to step in and become, well, dare I say it? Totalitarian. The government has no choice but to take over control of the entire workforce or else it has nothing to redistribute.

 

The redistribution of wealth, you see, is a one-time deal. You steal it from the rich, hand it over to the poor, then what? There are no more rich folks left to support the poor folks. Or to operate companies that supply jobs. So only the government has jobs to offer. Soon the entire country must work for the government.

 

Personally I think a combination of capitalism/socialism, similar to what we have in the USA is best. Those who work hardest will gain more than those who don't; therefore, we have incentive to work hard (USA workers are the most productive in the world, I have heard... hard to believe but I'm assured by NOVA on PBS that it's true!), yet we still take care of those who cannot care for themselves. I'd like to add healthcare to our list of socialist programs, which include but are not limited to food stamps, welfare, medicare and unemployment insurance... but all in all, I think we do pretty well with a reasonable tax rate. Well, reasonable compared to the tax rates of many other countries.