Why are Americans so bloody stupid?

[Immanuel Can]

Under socialist doctrine, according to Marx, "private" property is to be eliminated, "personal" property is not. Therefore, it is false to claim that socialism is the abolition of ALL property.

That's a distinction with no difference. It's not so clear that a "personal" piece of property, like, say, a toothbrush, isn't also "private property" in the sense that it requires "capitalist" energies to produce and involves workers. Who is to define these things? The Socialist elite, of course. So there's nothing you can shelter as "personal" that cannot also be seized from you on the basis of being "private" or "capitalistic" property, as well. You don't get to resist them, you know; they won't allow it.

The important point is that none of the places you can name have abolished property of either kind, and in none of them does the state control all the means of production.

So they are not "Socialist" by Marxian definition.

Like I said, just from the name "socialism" itself, we know that "socialism" stands in contradistinction to its opposite, "individualism".

You're only thinking of the word "social." But "SocialISM" is a dogma, and has definite terms and conditions it demands. The abolition of private property is its sine qua non, according to Marx. Equally, it requires the state control of all the "means of production," of which Marx said that the production of human beings as "Socialist Man" was the most important. So it literally demands the right to dictate the terms under which it will regard you as "dealienated" and actually "human." And then it requires a single totalitarian government, as well; for it cannot coexist with contrary political options. And it aims at a Socialist conception of utopia, as well.

Socialism is far more than just "being social." It has rather stringent demands of its own.

But give me one example of where Socialism has produced a happy, healthy, free and prosperous polity. And you can't. There's no such place. Socialism does not conduce to what it promises.

[Gary Childress]

That's a distinction with no difference. It's not so clear that a "personal" piece of property, like, say, a toothbrush, isn't also "private property" in the sense that it requires "capitalist" energies to produce and involves workers. Who is to define these things? The Socialist elite, of course. So there's nothing you can shelter as "personal" that cannot also be seized from you on the basis of being "private" or "capitalistic" property, as well. You don't get to resist them, you know; they won't allow it.

The important point is that none of the places you can name have abolished property of either kind, and in none of them does the state control all the means of production.

So they are not "Socialist" by Marxian definition.

Like I said, just from the name "socialism" itself, we know that "socialism" stands in contradistinction to its opposite, "individualism".

You're only thinking of the word "social." But "SocialISM" is a dogma, and has definite terms and conditions it demands. The abolition of private property is its sine qua non, according to Marx. Equally, it requires the state control of all the "means of production," of which Marx said that the production of human beings as "Socialist Man" was the most important. So it literally demands the right to dictate the terms under which it will regard you as "dealienated" and actually "human." And then it requires a single totalitarian government, as well; for it cannot coexist with contrary political options. And it aims at a Socialist conception of utopia, as well.

Socialism is far more than just "being social." It has rather stringent demands of its own.

But give me one example of where Socialism has produced a happy, healthy, free and prosperous polity. And you can't. There's no such place. Socialism does not conduce to what it promises.

And you are tragically fixated on Marx, as though everything Marx said was 100% correct about "socialism" and "socialism" could not be interpreted in any other way.

[Immanuel Can]

And you are tragically fixated on Marx, as though everything Marx said was 100% correct about "socialism" and "socialism" could not be interpreted in any other way.

Oh? So you think you know what Socialism is, and Marx didn't? I think you'll find that an awful lot of Socialists make of him their patron "saint," and regard what Marx said as, if not the final word, at least the important first word on what Socialism is.

Maybe you could convince them not to be so fixated on Marx.

[Gary Childress]

And you are tragically fixated on Marx, as though everything Marx said was 100% correct about "socialism" and "socialism" could not be interpreted in any other way.

Oh? So you think you know what Socialism is, and Marx didn't? I think you'll find that an awful lot of Socialists make of him their patron "saint," and regard what Marx said as, if not the final word, at least the important first word on what Socialism is.

Maybe you could convince them not to be so fixated on Marx.

I think I know that the sun is the center of the solar system and our solar system is one of many. Do I not know more about physics or cosmology than Ptolemy (who was working with unreliable information and an outdated conception of the cosmos)? Is it not fair of me to think that Marx was just wrong and had an immature or unrealistic vision of socialism?

Or if "socialism" is indeed (necessarily) the elimination of the ability for people to hold certain types of property (but not others), then what would you call a society that limits individual freedom only in so far as it doesn't end up in behavior (by an individual owner of something) that is destructive to others in society? What would you call such a society if not "socialist"?

[Immanuel Can]

And you are tragically fixated on Marx, as though everything Marx said was 100% correct about "socialism" and "socialism" could not be interpreted in any other way.

Oh? So you think you know what Socialism is, and Marx didn't? I think you'll find that an awful lot of Socialists make of him their patron "saint," and regard what Marx said as, if not the final word, at least the important first word on what Socialism is.

Maybe you could convince them not to be so fixated on Marx.

Is it not fair of me to think that Marx was just wrong and had an immature or unrealistic vision of socialism?

You should maybe entertain the possibility that he was even more wrong than that -- utterly wrong about history, about humanity, about classes, about how society would work, about the future, about economics, and in most other ways, too.

But then, that's Socialism. Neo-Socialisms haven't proved to be any advance on Marx's follies. Again, point to anywhere in the world or in America that you regard as a Socialist haven. Let's see what their condition is.

...what would you call a society that limits individual freedom only in so far as it doesn't end up in behavior (by an individual owner of something) that is destructive to others in society?

Normally, it's called "the rule of law."

[Gary Childress]

Oh? So you think you know what Socialism is, and Marx didn't? I think you'll find that an awful lot of Socialists make of him their patron "saint," and regard what Marx said as, if not the final word, at least the important first word on what Socialism is.

Maybe you could convince them not to be so fixated on Marx.

Is it not fair of me to think that Marx was just wrong and had an immature or unrealistic vision of socialism?

You should maybe entertain the possibility that he was even more wrong than that -- utterly wrong about history, about humanity, about classes, about how society would work, about the future, about economics, and in most other ways, too.

But then, that's Socialism. Neo-Socialisms haven't proved to be any advance on Marx's follies. Again, point to anywhere in the world or in America that you regard as a Socialist haven. Let's see what their condition is.

...what would you call a society that limits individual freedom only in so far as it doesn't end up in behavior (by an individual owner of something) that is destructive to others in society?

Normally, it's called "the rule of law."

As I say, if you don't consider European countries as being "socialist" countries (or even partly "socialist" countries), then, yes. We are in agreement that the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China were all horribly wrong. I wish the US would follow the lead of European countries and have universal access to subsidized health care for everyone. And since that is, by your definition, NOT "socialism", it should be OK to try to institute it in the US.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it not fair of me to think that Marx was just wrong and had an immature or unrealistic vision of socialism?

You should maybe entertain the possibility that he was even more wrong than that -- utterly wrong about history, about humanity, about classes, about how society would work, about the future, about economics, and in most other ways, too.

But then, that's Socialism. Neo-Socialisms haven't proved to be any advance on Marx's follies. Again, point to anywhere in the world or in America that you regard as a Socialist haven. Let's see what their condition is.

...what would you call a society that limits individual freedom only in so far as it doesn't end up in behavior (by an individual owner of something) that is destructive to others in society?

Normally, it's called "the rule of law."

As I say, if you don't consider European countries as being "socialist" countries

They don't even consider themselves that. Why would we?

...We are in agreement that the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China were all horribly wrong.

And Russia, and Germany, and Cambodia, and Cuba, and Venezuela, and Congo, and Zimbabwe, and North Korea, and Romania, Albania, Bulgaria...

I wish the US would follow the lead of European countries and have universal access to subsidized health care for everyone.

I wish I had a dozen Ferraris. Unfortunately, there's nobody to pay for them.

I live where health care is government-provided. And in all honesty, I've got to tell you that it's both good and bad. The good part is that if you need a super-expensive procedure, like brain surgery, you will not be bankrupted and your family ruined. On the bad side, you may have to wait for it for a year, or two years, and die of a brain tumour. Or you may not be able to get the machine or surgeon you need, and thus not even have access to the treatment at all. And it will take more tax money out of you than any other single expense, so you'll be poor in every other area -- personally and for other kinds of government-paid benefits. And your best medical researchers and specialists, and your doctors and nurses will migrate to places where they can get more money, have the latest technology, and not be worked to death, in other countries; so you may not have a doctor at all. All that happens quite routinely, where I live.

That's the reality. So before you decide you want it, be sure you're prepared for the downside, too.

[Gary Childress]

You should maybe entertain the possibility that he was even more wrong than that -- utterly wrong about history, about humanity, about classes, about how society would work, about the future, about economics, and in most other ways, too.

But then, that's Socialism. Neo-Socialisms haven't proved to be any advance on Marx's follies. Again, point to anywhere in the world or in America that you regard as a Socialist haven. Let's see what their condition is.

Normally, it's called "the rule of law."

As I say, if you don't consider European countries as being "socialist" countries

They don't even consider themselves that. Why would we?

...We are in agreement that the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China were all horribly wrong.

And Russia, and Germany, and Cambodia, and Cuba, and Venezuela, and Congo, and Zimbabwe, and North Korea, and Romania, Albania, Bulgaria...

I wish the US would follow the lead of European countries and have universal access to subsidized health care for everyone.

I wish I had a dozen Ferraris. Unfortunately, there's nobody to pay for them.

I live where health care is government-provided. And in all honesty, I've got to tell you that it's both good and bad. The good part is that if you need a super-expensive procedure, like brain surgery, you will not be bankrupted and your family ruined. On the bad side, you may have to wait for it for a year, or two years, and die of a brain tumour. Or you may not be able to get the machine or surgeon you need, and thus not even have access to the treatment at all. And it will take more tax money out of you than any other single expense, so you'll be poor in every other area -- personally and for other kinds of government-paid benefits. And your best medical researchers and specialists, and your doctors and nurses will migrate to places where they can get more money, have the latest technology, and not be worked to death, in other countries; so you may not have a doctor at all. All that happens quite routinely, where I live.

That's the reality. So before you decide you want it, be sure you're prepared for the downside, too.

Do you really think wanting affordable healthcare is similar to wanting a dozen "Ferraris"? And if so, what would a valid and sound argument be to demonstrate that healthcare is a special luxury that only some can have?

How does socialized medicine work where you are? Does the government own and operate the clinics and hospitals? What about something like "Medicare for all" where subsidized health care insurance is available to everyone but we have to use it at mostly privately owned clinics and stuff like that? Would that not be possible? I have to tell you, Medicare is a great system here in the US. The elderly and sick would be dying on the street without out it. And medicare covers costs at even some of the most expensive hospitals. If all the elderly and sick can have decent subsidized medical insurance, what would be wrong with everyone else having it too?

[Immanuel Can]

As I say, if you don't consider European countries as being "socialist" countries

They don't even consider themselves that. Why would we?

...We are in agreement that the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and China were all horribly wrong.

And Russia, and Germany, and Cambodia, and Cuba, and Venezuela, and Congo, and Zimbabwe, and North Korea, and Romania, Albania, Bulgaria...

I wish the US would follow the lead of European countries and have universal access to subsidized health care for everyone.

I wish I had a dozen Ferraris. Unfortunately, there's nobody to pay for them.

I live where health care is government-provided. And in all honesty, I've got to tell you that it's both good and bad. The good part is that if you need a super-expensive procedure, like brain surgery, you will not be bankrupted and your family ruined. On the bad side, you may have to wait for it for a year, or two years, and die of a brain tumour. Or you may not be able to get the machine or surgeon you need, and thus not even have access to the treatment at all. And it will take more tax money out of you than any other single expense, so you'll be poor in every other area -- personally and for other kinds of government-paid benefits. And your best medical researchers and specialists, and your doctors and nurses will migrate to places where they can get more money, have the latest technology, and not be worked to death, in other countries; so you may not have a doctor at all. All that happens quite routinely, where I live.

That's the reality. So before you decide you want it, be sure you're prepared for the downside, too.

Do you really think wanting affordable healthcare is similar to wanting a dozen "Ferraris"?

Yes, in this one thing: both have to be paid for. Who is going to pay?

How does socialized medicine work where you are? Does the government own and operate the clinics and hospitals? [/quote]
Essentially, yes. Government sets everything from the training and compensation for physicians to the order of who can get care, and when, and what procedures.

If all the elderly and sick can have decent subsidized medical insurance, what would be wrong with everyone having it?

Nothing would be "wrong." But who pays? That's the problem.

[Gary Childress]

They don't even consider themselves that. Why would we?
And Russia, and Germany, and Cambodia, and Cuba, and Venezuela, and Congo, and Zimbabwe, and North Korea, and Romania, Albania, Bulgaria...

I wish I had a dozen Ferraris. Unfortunately, there's nobody to pay for them.

I live where health care is government-provided. And in all honesty, I've got to tell you that it's both good and bad. The good part is that if you need a super-expensive procedure, like brain surgery, you will not be bankrupted and your family ruined. On the bad side, you may have to wait for it for a year, or two years, and die of a brain tumour. Or you may not be able to get the machine or surgeon you need, and thus not even have access to the treatment at all. And it will take more tax money out of you than any other single expense, so you'll be poor in every other area -- personally and for other kinds of government-paid benefits. And your best medical researchers and specialists, and your doctors and nurses will migrate to places where they can get more money, have the latest technology, and not be worked to death, in other countries; so you may not have a doctor at all. All that happens quite routinely, where I live.

That's the reality. So before you decide you want it, be sure you're prepared for the downside, too.

Do you really think wanting affordable healthcare is similar to wanting a dozen "Ferraris"?

Yes, in this one thing: both have to be paid for. Who is going to pay?

How does socialized medicine work where you are? Does the government own and operate the clinics and hospitals?

Essentially, yes. Government sets everything from the training and compensation for physicians to the order of who can get care, and when, and what procedures.

If all the elderly and sick can have decent subsidized medical insurance, what would be wrong with everyone having it?

Nothing would be "wrong." But who pays? That's the problem.

Why wouldn't everyone still be able to contribute to universal healthcare if there were Medicare for all? No one would make any money at their jobs to pay taxes if we all had universal health care coverage.

[Immanuel Can]

But who pays? That's the problem.

Why wouldn't everyone still be able to contribute to universal healthcare if there were Medicare for all? No one would make any money at their jobs to pay taxes if we all had universal health care coverage.

Here, the system is the number one government expenditure. It's more than twice as much of the government budget than the next item, education. Everything else, like welfare, homelessness, addiction relief, psychiatric care, infrastructure, etc. is way down the list. And still...long wait times, more antiquated technology, fewer doctors and nurses, fewer procedures performed...the system is running the whole government into the ground...People have died in emergency waiting rooms.

But we have universal health care. Of a sort. For now. But it's not good, and getting worse, and no matter what we do, it won't last. It will not only take itself down, but everything else, too.

[Gary Childress]

But who pays? That's the problem.

Why wouldn't everyone still be able to contribute to universal healthcare if there were Medicare for all? No one would make any money at their jobs to pay taxes if we all had universal health care coverage.

Here, the system is the number one government expenditure. It's more than twice as much of the government budget than the next item, education. Everything else, like welfare, homelessness, addiction relief, psychiatric care, infrastructure, etc. is way down the list. And still...long wait times, more antiquated technology, fewer doctors and nurses, fewer procedures performed...the system is running the whole government into the ground...People have died in emergency waiting rooms.

But we have universal health care. Of a sort. For now. But it's not good, and getting worse, and no matter what we do, it won't last. It will not only take itself down, but everything else, too.

What about Finland? Their healthcare system is broken too? It's not possible that it's just a problem peculiar to Canada (and maybe a few other countries), but it is existent in all countries with universal health care?

[Immanuel Can]

Why wouldn't everyone still be able to contribute to universal healthcare if there were Medicare for all? No one would make any money at their jobs to pay taxes if we all had universal health care coverage.

Here, the system is the number one government expenditure. It's more than twice as much of the government budget than the next item, education. Everything else, like welfare, homelessness, addiction relief, psychiatric care, infrastructure, etc. is way down the list. And still...long wait times, more antiquated technology, fewer doctors and nurses, fewer procedures performed...the system is running the whole government into the ground...People have died in emergency waiting rooms.

But we have universal health care. Of a sort. For now. But it's not good, and getting worse, and no matter what we do, it won't last. It will not only take itself down, but everything else, too.

What about Finland?

It runs on "capitalism" and massive offshore oil reserves.

Without those, it would be bankrupt.

[Gary Childress]

Here, the system is the number one government expenditure. It's more than twice as much of the government budget than the next item, education. Everything else, like welfare, homelessness, addiction relief, psychiatric care, infrastructure, etc. is way down the list. And still...long wait times, more antiquated technology, fewer doctors and nurses, fewer procedures performed...the system is running the whole government into the ground...People have died in emergency waiting rooms.

But we have universal health care. Of a sort. For now. But it's not good, and getting worse, and no matter what we do, it won't last. It will not only take itself down, but everything else, too.

What about Finland?

It runs on "capitalism" and massive offshore oil reserves.

Without those, it would be bankrupt.

We have resources too. Couldn't we sustain universal health care? We'd just go bankrupt. Are you certain that is the case?

[Immanuel Can]

What about Finland?

It runs on "capitalism" and massive offshore oil reserves.

Without those, it would be bankrupt.

We have resources too. Couldn't we sustain universal health care? We'd just go bankrupt. Are you certain that is the case?

I'm in a country with massive natural resources. We're going bankrupt on our medical health subsidies. And it doesn't help that we are, because the system itself is also collapsing at the same time. So nobody is going to win, here. We're going to have to change it, but we just don't know how we can.

It's a serious problem. Don't underestimate it. We all like the idea of free healthcare...but there's no such thing, unfortunately. There's only healthcare that's expensive in one way, or cripplingly expensive in another.