Does National Socialism have any truth or relevance to it?
- Thread starter ~Derek~
- Start date
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
Wow. Tons of good stuff said.
I'm by no way trying to enforce what I think on others, I'm just saying what I feel. Like cookie said, I'm no economist either. All I know is what I've read about and learned in history classes, etc.
I think a big issue regarding this topic is the issue of theory versus practicality. I don't believe we will ever see a system of government work perfectly. As InFlames said earlier, all it takes is one person to fuck it up, and there will always be that one person who is thinking too much for themselves and nothing for their society.
However, I would still rather have a capitalistic society that doesn't work perfectly than a communist one that does. I know this probably sounds bad, but that's just how I feel. I believe in a system of competition that drives people to create and better themselves. Unfortunately, in real capitalism, many people get left behind. This cannot be helped, and I don't want to sound as though I lack compassion, because I truly do wish the best for everyone, I do; but it's just impossible to achieve. We can try our best to help others, but eventually you also have to consider your own interests and goals. Capitalism provides an atmosphere and a society to reach for those goals. There will be those who fail, and who knows? I might be one of them; but then I'll end up working a dead-end job somewhere, probably hating it, but still providing a necessary function in society. The hope is that someday I'll save enough money to move on and start something new. I know that this raises an infinite number of other questions that I have no answer for (i.e. minimum wage, education, etc.); but we could talk for our entire lives and never come to a conclusion.
@ Cookie:
I appreciate your response, and I believe that you're partially correct. I suppose that some of the reason people are better off is because of government welfare programs and such since the '30s. And you're right that there definitely is a great deal of government involvement. However, this is why I'm not in favor of government involvement:
I fear large government. Truly, I do. Large government creates a gateway to autocracy, dictatorship, etc. Now, hopefully we would place some kind of system of checks on our government so that this couldn't happen. But once you start giving them power, it's hard to keep them taking even more. That's my fear. It's when societies are in trouble that governments take advantage of the situation. However, I know that there are some examples of societies in Europe that work in this way, as you said; perhaps if you want to share some specifics, we could talk about them. I'm not an expert, and would like to hear more about how they work.
One final thing: health care
Obama and Clinton are both for more socialized health care. They want more government involvement in order to give aid to those who can't afford it. However, it is actually true that if there was LESS government involvement in health care, costs would go down. The reason costs are so high is because government involvement has created a kind of middle-man approach through the insurance companies. Customers of health care (I know this is a somewhat inhumane way to approach the situation, but that's what patients are: customers) pay more because they're going through various channels and not dealing directly with the doctors. If government involvement were lessened, and health care was allowed to operate in a free market manner, costs would decrease by a significant amount, allowing more people to afford health care, as well as provide more money to allow for welfare programs to help those who still couldn't. I read this information in an article that I'll try and locate for you all, but it might take some time.
I'm by no way trying to enforce what I think on others, I'm just saying what I feel. Like cookie said, I'm no economist either. All I know is what I've read about and learned in history classes, etc.
I think a big issue regarding this topic is the issue of theory versus practicality. I don't believe we will ever see a system of government work perfectly. As InFlames said earlier, all it takes is one person to fuck it up, and there will always be that one person who is thinking too much for themselves and nothing for their society.
However, I would still rather have a capitalistic society that doesn't work perfectly than a communist one that does. I know this probably sounds bad, but that's just how I feel. I believe in a system of competition that drives people to create and better themselves. Unfortunately, in real capitalism, many people get left behind. This cannot be helped, and I don't want to sound as though I lack compassion, because I truly do wish the best for everyone, I do; but it's just impossible to achieve. We can try our best to help others, but eventually you also have to consider your own interests and goals. Capitalism provides an atmosphere and a society to reach for those goals. There will be those who fail, and who knows? I might be one of them; but then I'll end up working a dead-end job somewhere, probably hating it, but still providing a necessary function in society. The hope is that someday I'll save enough money to move on and start something new. I know that this raises an infinite number of other questions that I have no answer for (i.e. minimum wage, education, etc.); but we could talk for our entire lives and never come to a conclusion.
@ Cookie:
I appreciate your response, and I believe that you're partially correct. I suppose that some of the reason people are better off is because of government welfare programs and such since the '30s. And you're right that there definitely is a great deal of government involvement. However, this is why I'm not in favor of government involvement:
I fear large government. Truly, I do. Large government creates a gateway to autocracy, dictatorship, etc. Now, hopefully we would place some kind of system of checks on our government so that this couldn't happen. But once you start giving them power, it's hard to keep them taking even more. That's my fear. It's when societies are in trouble that governments take advantage of the situation. However, I know that there are some examples of societies in Europe that work in this way, as you said; perhaps if you want to share some specifics, we could talk about them. I'm not an expert, and would like to hear more about how they work.
One final thing: health care
Obama and Clinton are both for more socialized health care. They want more government involvement in order to give aid to those who can't afford it. However, it is actually true that if there was LESS government involvement in health care, costs would go down. The reason costs are so high is because government involvement has created a kind of middle-man approach through the insurance companies. Customers of health care (I know this is a somewhat inhumane way to approach the situation, but that's what patients are: customers) pay more because they're going through various channels and not dealing directly with the doctors. If government involvement were lessened, and health care was allowed to operate in a free market manner, costs would decrease by a significant amount, allowing more people to afford health care, as well as provide more money to allow for welfare programs to help those who still couldn't. I read this information in an article that I'll try and locate for you all, but it might take some time.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Thanks for the response. I agree that competition is good, I just think that abandoning people to it creates societal problems. Things like welfare, education, healthcare (I'll add more in a second), and other social programs help people when they fail, and help give everyone the opportunity to succeed. The great thing about capitalism is the equality of opportunity. However, until there is equality of condition, we will see class divisions and people in need when it is not their fault.
Health care: We had a big debate about this a few weeks back (2008 Candidates Thread I think) so I'll just state my opinion briefly. I support socialized health care. Health care is a right and people should be able to have it no matter the cost. I think streamlining the system and getting rid of the halfassery we have now will lower costs. Also the problem with having it be free market is that insurance companies will discriminate against the poor and the sick. This means that when they have to get medical care, they will have to pay a lot, raising the cost for them and everyone else when they can't pay.
Health care: We had a big debate about this a few weeks back (2008 Candidates Thread I think) so I'll just state my opinion briefly. I support socialized health care. Health care is a right and people should be able to have it no matter the cost. I think streamlining the system and getting rid of the halfassery we have now will lower costs. Also the problem with having it be free market is that insurance companies will discriminate against the poor and the sick. This means that when they have to get medical care, they will have to pay a lot, raising the cost for them and everyone else when they can't pay.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
What worries me is that education is a critical issue that's being continually ignored, and I believe it's something the government should take more responsibility for. The current socioeconomic system perpetuates the classist hierarchy because the lower classes lack the educational resources to move up and excel, while the middle and upper classes are more blessed with the income of property tax, which is a function of land value and what is the primary source of funding for schools.
Thus, poor neighborhoods will stay poor because their low property tax revenue is insufficient to fund their local schools, with the result that their students cannot compete with those in the upper classes whose tax revenues are sufficient to fund their schools.
And don't even get me started on No Child Left Behind. Talk about unconstitutional bullshit.
Thus, poor neighborhoods will stay poor because their low property tax revenue is insufficient to fund their local schools, with the result that their students cannot compete with those in the upper classes whose tax revenues are sufficient to fund their schools.
And don't even get me started on No Child Left Behind. Talk about unconstitutional bullshit.
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
I would go as far as to say that socialized education is just as valuable as socialized healthcare.
Vilden
From the holy kingdom of Harmonia
I think things that "can't" be run perfectly and making money should be government run, like health care, schools, postal service, road service, etc. Stuff like this gets compromised too much when you sell them out to private companies. atleast that is my experiance from when our government have done it to some sectors. Pretty much everything else should be private run though. The less the government has under their wing the better, imo.
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
Socialism works perfectly in theory. Unfortunately for the human race, most of us are selfish and think in short term periods.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Yeah, let's set limits on hard work and getting farther in life. That's really conducive to the situation, Zeph
Einherjar86
Active Member
You're pointing out the facts that I, unfortunately, have no solution for. I completely understand your stance. All I can say is that, as inhumane as I'm sure I sound, it's simply necessary. I can see no way around it. I purely cannot agree with creating a system in which the wealth of the "aristocracy" is spread out among the poor. I don't agree with that. I agree with helping others, of course; but not on a forced basis.
But it's incredibly hard (I'd say impossible) to do that. I agree that citizens who are better off should help people who aren't, but it's impossible to set limits on personal gain, especially when it's been earned by years of hard work.
Granted, there are some people who even I think don't deserve the money they have. However, I don't think it's my right to take it away from them.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Fucking THIS
No one should be forced to give away money they earned to the disadvantaged. Wealth redistribution is a crock of shit and will benefit no one.
Killbot
A Killer Robot
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
Agreed. A communist society that fails (Russia or China) can kill a lot of people (Great Leap Forward, anyone? Stalin?)
I would definitely say that...
Wrong thread. Again.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
This part is respectable...
but this part is just fucking asinine.
Similar threads
