Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Socialism DOESN'T Work After All

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Socialism DOESN'T Work After All
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:22 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

..if people are "nucking futs" don't you think they deserve even more support than those who aren't

What support? 3 squares and a rubber room?

So mental problems are not comparable to physical problems and people born with a mental problem should be locked up? Strike one.

mises wrote:

Somalians are a cultural backwater with little to zero respect for education

Racist/national generalisation. Evidence? Strike two.

mises wrote:

If you're going to define equality of opportunity in your own weird way, then no.

People below the age of 18 are considered children, therefore, they should be free from being forced to support themselves (this is how child labour was stopped). Please define equality of opportunity.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 11:50 am Post subject:

Quote:

So mental problems are not comparable to physical problems and people born with a mental problem should be locked up? Strike one.

A great deal of what we think of as mental disease is merely deviance from established social norm. No concern to me.

Anyways, your question was of "support". I'm wondering what support that is. Are the crazy better off wandering around society blowing their "support" on drugs etc or are they better off in a controlled setting? That is a reasonable question. If we are going to "support" them, then shouldn't the primary concern be their standard of living? And if that standard of living is most high in a controlled setting, isn't it then the controlled setting (institution) where they ought to be?

Or, is the support for them really for your own emotional satisfaction, and their standard of living not really a point of concern?

Quote:

Racist/national generalisation. Evidence? Strike two.

Have you been around Korea? Notice how it all looks like Korea? How they eat Korean food? They speak Korean? That they have unique cultural habits and values? That's because Korea has national characteristics. There is variation, but variation within a Korean framework. Koreans have cultural characteristics, and those places in the United States, for example, where they settle in large groups come to resemble Korea. Check out Koreatowns in LA or Virginia. So it goes for Somalis, but with much worse outcomes. This is a fact of life. Your ideology might not like it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

The amount of "support" that is going to be required to bring the average Somali up to European-American standards of living is going to be significantly larger than the amount of "support" needed to help an East Asian vastly exceed the median European-American standard of living.

Quote:

Child labor was ended not by government fiat but by increasing wealth in society. Child labor will always exist in poor nations. Always. When the least wealthy of parents reach a level of wealth that they no longer require their kids labor to survive, then child labor stops. Now I suppose you will argue that the government can just increase the wealth of the poor via welfare, but the only states that can afford this already have a standard of living for the poor that removes from them the need to push their kids into employment.

Equality of opportunity is a fiction that exists only in your mind. It is possible to agree on a certain minimum standard of material wealth for minors, but it is and will always be totally impossible to ensure that all have exactly the same opportunity for material success. If your parents suck and don't make you do your homework, you're poor for life. If your mom is single, young and at the club, you're going to be poor likely for your whole life.

Unless you want the state to institutionalize all kids ensuring an exactly equal standard of parenting, education, homework, precisely identical cultural values etc. Then you can have equality of opportunity, in the sense you speak of it. Good luck with that.

You're not making a good argument for social-markets. Nothing but really muddled, naive thinking on display.

The goal of the social-market is not "equality of opportunity" but a very high minimum standard of living. That's how you should frame the argument.

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

A great deal of what we think of as mental disease is merely deviance from established social norm. No concern to me.

'Mental disease' originates from in-built genetic structural factors. Anyway, there is obviously a difference between choosing to deviate and being unable to make rational/civilised choices. Equality of opportunity provides the possibility of rational choice (something Somalis don't usually have).

mises wrote:

Are the crazy better off wandering around society blowing their "support" on drugs etc....

Good 'ole assumption.

mises wrote:

or are they better off in a controlled setting? That is a reasonable question. If we are going to "support" them, then shouldn't the primary concern be their standard of living? And if that standard of living is most high in a controlled setting, isn't it then the controlled setting (institution) where they ought to be?

There is obviously a middle ground between being locked up (in a place with three padded walls, as you suggested) to being looked after within society. Do you think people with autism should be locked up?

mises wrote:

Or, is the support for them really for your own emotional satisfaction, and their standard of living not really a point of concern?

To an objective person it would seem I was more concerned with their standard of living, but please continue to try and smear me....blah...blah. If I support welfare for the mentally disabled and you don't I am de facto supporting a better life for them = same argument back at you. (yes, it is emotionally driven; sympathy it's called)

mises wrote:

So it goes for Somalis, but with much worse outcomes. This is a fact of life. Your ideology might not like it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

Please provide facts, you postulated all Somalia's were averse to education, I'd like you to back that up with facts....

mises wrote:

The amount of "support" that is going to be required to bring the average Somali up to European-American standards of living is going to be significantly larger than the amount of "support" needed to help an East Asian vastly exceed the median European-American standard of living.

This doesn't negate the need to do so. Socialism is about moral values, not subjective viewpoints and value systems based on what a person from a particular country is worth. You just argued that because it costs more to educate a Somali person it's not worth it - indefensible!!.

mises wrote:

Child labor was ended not by government fiat but by increasing wealth in society.

You obviously haven't studied social laws in 19th century England. I will provide proof if you ask: laws were made.

mises wrote:

Child labor will always exist in poor nations. Always. When the least wealthy of parents reach a level of wealth that they no longer require their kids labor to survive, then child labor stops.

If a child can make profit (or increase efficiency) they will always be exploited by a purely capitalist free market system, this is simple economics.

mises wrote:

Now I suppose you will argue that the government can just increase the wealth of the poor via welfare,

Yes, relative wealth, AKA equality of opportunity, please see the first 6 pages of this debate.

mises wrote:

Equality of opportunity is a fiction that exists only in your mind.

Conjecture. Dependent upon definition, yes, equality of opportunity is entirely possible.

mises wrote:

It is possible to agree on a certain minimum standard of material wealth for minors, but it is and will always be totally impossible to ensure that all have exactly the same opportunity for material success.

Correct, but do you think we shouldn't try? And you failed to answer my question with regards to whether children (18-) should be given freedom of opportunity via healthcare and education to provide freedom of opportunity for children.

mises wrote:

Unless you want the state to institutionalize all kids ensuring an exactly equal standard of parenting, education, homework, precisely identical cultural values etc. Then you can have equality of opportunity, in the sense you speak of it.

You can't force kids to do the homework, but you can give them the opportunity to do so... this is what the socialist programs of the entire western world (yes, America has socialised education) argue.

mises wrote:

You're not making a good argument for social-markets. Nothing but really muddled, naive thinking on display.

You have to give examples if you're going to say stuff like this. I have made very rational arguments so far, you're just slinging mud. Also, social democracy is on display in the whole of Europe and (arguably) America.

mises wrote:

The goal of the social-market is not "equality of opportunity" but a very high minimum standard of living. That's how you should frame the argument.

In fact, that is exactly the goal of social democracy, to increase equality. People like you in the 20th Century would be arguing clean water is good enough, the poor should be happy. However, because social democracies see wealth (opportunity) as relative we've always argued for more.

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject:

Furthermore,

mises wrote:

If your mom is single, young and at the club, you're going to be poor likely for your whole life.

you obviously believe structural factors have a large effect upon a childs ability to become 'rich'. Therefore, if Obama introduced a 'child-care' system to look after these kids whose moms are "at clubs" you'd support it? Or would you prefer the kids just to take their lot and be poor? - answer please :) Beware... this is socialism!

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat May 30, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject:

RufusW wrote:

However, if a child is born into a poor family and isn't given government education/healthcare, they have a reduced opportunity to have a fulfilling life. We're talking about opportunity, they may not make the most of it, but at least their given a chance. If a free market reigned in education/healthcare poor children would be left to starve/work in subsistance level jobs. This is economic fact according to free markets.

I agree entirely. Education has too much potential and can be too transformational for it to be left aside. And health care should be paid for collectively.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:04 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

RufusW wrote:

I agree entirely. Education has too much potential and can be too transformational for it to be left aside. And health care should be paid for collectively.

Nobody is arguing that education shouldn't be govt subsidised.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe