A two part question for those considering Socialism

​

The link was in the word 'Poppycock'.​

 

All I know is you’ve gone to great lengths to prove that any job or product is only possible through capitalism. You’ve stated so in many different posts through this thread. So you have proven socialism does not exist. Thank you.

 

what does the right have against public schools, public roads, public healthcare, ect....

trickle down is a failure, how much trickle did you get with the bush tax cuts, how about from Dirty Donald's Corp tax cuts?

I am for using what works from ALL systems, limiting ourselves to just one system is setting ourselves up for failure

 

They cost much more than the private alternative, and the quality is also much lower. Roads can be totally free by giving private companies certain rights and tax exemptions in exchange for providing them along with their upkeep. Rights such as the right to advertise along their length, run service stations along their length, and other services. Tax incentives such as paying no tax on the money made from such advertising and or service stations, and so on. The same can happen with private schools. Healthcare can be totally private – the less government interference and red tape the cheaper it will be.

Trickle down gradually benefits the poorest as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest. Did you think the wealthy keep their wealth? Heh. That’s funny. I suppose you think they swim in great vaults of money like Scrooge McDuck? Wow – that’s so ridiculous. No, the wealthy give away most of their money – they have to in order to make it grow. The more they have the more they give away, and that benefits everyone, especially the poorest.

You haven’t tried the most obvious of all. Pure capitalism with very small government. At least try it out before braying about how it couldn’t work.

 

Meh, I answered a few questions, but try it out - see if you can name one thing in your home that’s not there as a result of capitalism, or name one modern, full time, wage-paying job that you could have today, if rich capitalists never existed.

It isn’t easy.

Take this cartoon and replace Scrooge with you, and replace all the money with the thousands of things in your house. You’re swimming it it!

​

 

Hillary did not say that.

 

Steal from whom?

 

Hillary didn't know anything about Iraq either.

 

Iraqi Civilians | Costs of War - Watson Institute for ...

No one knows with certainty how many people have been killed and wounded in Iraq since the 2003 United States invasion.

However, we know that approximately 165,000 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the US, its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through April 2015.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

 

You can't count Iraqis killed by Iraqis as were they killed by our troops. What makes you think you can?

 

Iraqis weren't killing other Iraqis.

 

Wrong again.

"This deadliest year for civilians on record was caused not by a particular group or the U.S. military and its coalition partners but in Sunni vs. Shia clashes. Mosques were routinely bombed and executions became commonplace."

https://fxn.ws/2ORnQMr​

 

(In 2006? LOLOL.. Bush had already declared victory in Iraq... As I said.. His invasion made Iran ascendant)

EXCLUSIVE: Since 2003, more than 4,500 American military personnel have died fighting in Iraq. But in the war-embattled country itself, more than 180,000 civilians are documented to have died from Jan. 1, 2003, through 2016 as a direct result of the ongoing fighting.

According to a report to be released Tuesday by LiveStories and based on data gathered and distributed by Iraq Body Count (IBC), the most Iraqi deaths, on a monthly basis, occurred in March and April of 2003, the first two months of President George W. Bush’s Operation Iraqi Freedom and the “shock and awe” campaign to dismantle the Saddam Hussein regime.

During those two months there were an estimated 7,186 civilian deaths, or some 43 percent of all civilian deaths directly caused by the U.S. or its coalition partners.

 

Again...thank you for proving socialism does not exist.

 

Love and compassion.

Firefighter or police officer.

 

The "either/or" approach to capitalism and socialism posits a false dichotomy.

All advanced, western "first world" nations are pragmatic integrations of both theoretical constructs.

Ideological purity is an airy-fairy notion.

 

On the other hand who are we to argue when they give us such easy targets to shoot down in flames?

 

Ideological paint ball forensics.

​

 

Who own? You could if you think of a product to sell to the masses that they want, build it, and put in the time to bring it to market.

 

Saddam and his "army" fell immediately, and that was a victory. After that is was terrorists who fought back, and they have been since. You know - the ones you say weren't there.

 

LOLOL.. Yeah.. That's exactly what happened to the Brits. They took Baghdad in a couple of weeks then the wheels came off and they were stuck for nearly 20 years. They finally ended up gassing thousands of Kurds and Iraqi Arabs.

Bush was a fool.. who never effing bothered to read any history.

The terrorists were Iraqi Baathists who had been in Saddam's military and police force.

 

"Ideological purity is an airy-fairy notion. " Yep.. Its for teen-agers and navel gazers.

 

What a really bad fallacious argument. Just because the scientific description of cobalt does not mention electric cars does not mean cobalt is not part of an electric car.

The definition does not say "wealth redistribution" either but the idea that taxation is not wealth redistribution is idiotic.

Lastly - it is not just businesses that pay tax, a whole lot of taxes are paid by workers and consumption in general.

Your argument is fallacy on top of fallacy.

 

Part 1): Can you name just one thing in your home that is not there as a result of capitalism?

They are not 'things'. Here is the definition of thing:
1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

Part 2): Can you name just one modern, full time, wage-paying job that you could have today, if rich capitalists never existed?

Without rich capitalists there would be no clothes, shoes, boots, guns, hoses, knives, steel, plastic, glass, copper wiring, screws, nails, rubber wheels, cars, trucks, helmets, axes, water supply, bullets, badges, alarms, electricity, gas, and so on, and thus no modern police or firefighting jobs.

 

We get....there is no such thing as socialism.