From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Mon Oct 28 2002 - 00:58:04 MST
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 09:36 PM, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/27/2002 10:55:47 PM Central Standard Time,
> charleshixsn@earthlink.net writes: You still haven't identified any
> sources.
> I'm not even saying sources that we could check on, just *SOMETHING*.
> If you
> don't, and won't, then don't be surprised if people suspect the worst.
>
> Now Charles,
> I really don't think folks are going to suspect the worse of me
> if I
> don't give you a long list of sources to cherry pick. There is an old,
> old
> rule of law that says we don't have to be so objective that we require
> evidence to know that the Sun comes up in the morning.
> For those that read my contributions to this exchange have read
> the
> same accusations in their daily papers for the past forty years or so,
> depending on their age. They have heard me quote various authors and
> books
> in support of my position.
> They have also heard me ask you (plural, you have supporters)
> repeatedly to come down to Earth and point to countries that you regard
> as
> socialist without trying to explain away the ones that are an
> embarrassment
> to you.
> After all I am not the one trying to prove something. I only
> want you
> to show us a decent socialist country and explain how you will prevent
> the
> situation you had in Germany, Italy, the USSR, China, Viet Nam,
> Cambodia,
> Chile, Cuba, etc. I know some of those are ongoing but I got lazy in my
> sentence construction. I also know that list is not exhaustive. You
> have a
> long long list of deadly failures.
> Ron h.
>
Sweden ain't too bad. Every country has problems.
The United States has plenty of socialism. There are many
"entitlements", probably the most well-known being "Social Security"
retirement allotments. Canada and the United Kingdom have socialized
medicine. Those are facets of a socialized polity.
Those countries you mention are or were arguably fascist, totalitarian,
or lawless and not socialist.
There are few or no totally capitalist or totally socialist societies.
Government itself is a form of socialism.
Did you know that income taxes in the United States are about a third of
personal income for low income workers? Is that not ridiculous? On top
of that are plentiful regressive sales and fuel taxes. Property taxes
vary. That money goes to fund many arguably socialist programs.
Umpteen of them are arguably too inefficient to be justified in their
existence, or their inefficiency is unjustified. For example, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs had hundreds of millions stolen from the
Indians that is not being adequately investigated, HUD apparently
misplaced several hundred million dollars, and the Pentagon can't
account for, according to some figures, 25% of its budget, which is 25%
of tax proceeds.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22can%27t+account
for%22
Those kinds of incompetencies, some arguably crimes, hurt the economy a
lot more than anything else that comes to mind.
The means of production are in private hands because there haven't been
any governments efficient enough to survive, or rather, thrive in a
competitive global economy, after taking over the means of production.
That's a point open to wide interpretation and debate, I'm a firm
believer in equitably private property, and often against statism.
"No confidence, none of the above."
Back in the fifties or whatever, there was a wav of what was called
McCarthyism, dark ugly days in the American history, where socialism was
lambasted as being evil and even criminal. That kind of polemic logic
ignores political and economic realities.
According to the Constitution, the federal government is to raise its
proceeds through tariffs on international trade, and that is all.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:49 MST