Forum Post: Oh you naïve freeloaders
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 3:58 p.m. EST by genanmer
(822)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
You will never defeat corporatism because you live in a corporate society. You are dependent on the corporations for your sustenance, your information, your stability/security, and everything else.
You will never reach 99% of the population because most just don’t care. The corporations have them pre-Occupied with enough entertainment, health problems, test grades, legal issues, and disinformation to last them multiple lifetimes.
This ‘is’ the free market. Built upon the foundation of competition, there will always be winners and losers. And for the free market to truly thrive, groups must suffer. People must die.
Do you really believe a competitive environment will create people that care about the environment, about ‘other’ people’s wellbeing, or cooperate on the simplest of matters? Your ideals about collaboration are naïve and unprofitable in a truly free market.
In this competitive environment freedom is reserved. It is reserved for all who have earned their spot among the elite. It is reserved for those who have learned the fine art of kissing authoritarian a$$ or enforcing their own agenda as an authoritarian. The reward is a life above the law without the worries of meeting basic survival needs.
If you reset the market another group will simply take its place. It is the nature of a competitive environment. So long as society is run on opinions competition will remain and the dichotomy of winners and losers will remain. So long as competition makes up our societies foundation, terms like ‘freeloaders’ will remain labels for rebels on the losing side.
We need a society based upon the collaboration of evidence-based decisions which put humanity and sustainability at the forefront.
If you have a solution better than Jacque Fresco’s “Resource Based Economy” I’m all ears.
This is an intentionally ignorant argument. Not everyone is here to "reset the market." If you think that's what this is about, you're very mistaken. If the NYTimes (most recent article) can get a decent view of it and you can't maybe you need to think about what that means with regards to yourself. We don't need your pessimism. If you think we're doomed to fail, good for you, but your explicitly pessimistic preaching serves only the purpose of attention seeking.
Ha, actually I think just the opposite. I know this movement will succeed in gaining momentum but I'm more interested in what kind and the general direction.
In regards to pessimism. Some individuals thrive on pessimism. They take it as a challenge.
You have exactly the right idea... but that has to be the worst delivery of an idea ever. Yes Jacque Fresco's "Resource Based Economy" would be a great solution to the current problems as it aims to provide solutions to all based on available resources. This approach would lead to the next advancement of society as it would be of benefit to all and at the expense of no one to have free energy and to seek out medical advances that actually cure people. This does not mean a return to the start of the 20th century as advances in technology are for the betterment of society not for profit. As an example - what would stop America building an electromagnetic transport network to allow people to move around without being reliant on fossil fuels. Under Capitalism - Lack of money to fund it and destruction of Petroleum company profits. Under a resource based economy - nothing, provided the knowledge manpower, and materials are available.
Under this government in its current form wouldn't be required and their would be no use for lobbyists as it decisions are based on what is best for the community band the environment - not on how legislation could be influenced to increase profit.
Did you know that closed loop (no radioactive material at the end of the process) nuclear energy systems have been worked out but legislation was passed outlawing them so as not to impact on Oil Company profits and the 'economy' with everyone having free safe energy.
But seriously worst delivery ever and will have put people off something that should seriously be looked at.
I would actually ask people to ignore this guys delivery and take a look at www.thevenusproject.com Even their slogan is quite fitting here - "beyond politics, poverty and war".
the people just have to re take control of the government. thats the problem here, yes, corporations are taking advantage of everything but government is supposed to protect us, which they havent.
http://www.knowyourvalues.org/propaganda
http://www.knowyourvalues.org/swiftboat
Every system is susceptible to corruption, and every system in the history of mankind has become corrupt. When the resource management system of the Resource Based Economy becomes corrupt, how do the 99% rebel when the powers that be control their access to food, water and energy?
every political system in the history of mankind has relied on the opinion of authoritarians.
But not so much in scientific systems. Evidence is used and mistakes are prevented before implementing through testing and collecting evidence.
The whole point of a resource based economy is to make access to food, water, and energy so abundant that no single power can control all of it. Make the system transparent (open sourced) so corruption is prevented and detected. And most importantly allow the system to evolve based on new information we collect so it will improve as we go along.
If we apply the scientific method to social concern we can create an abundance of the things people need to survive as well as provide abundant access to many things people desire.
So long answer short, people only rebel when their necessities are not met.
People also rebel when their freedom is curtailed, when they don't feel their getting their "fair share", when they feel their voice is not being heard......
Your answer on the corruption front seems to be, "this system will be uncorruptable". I respectfully suggest that is naive.
Again, this comes down to the difference between people living in scarcity (poverty) vs those living a high quality of life.
Those with all their needs met are happy, fulfilled and will not be preoccupied by the forced occupations many people work today. They won't feel threatened by "the man".
Their free time will be devoted to hobbies and activities they enjoy.
So you're in a way stating people will both smile and frown at the same time.
An RBE requires sustainable abundance in order to function, if it can't provide this, it won't develop.
We have people in society today who have all their needs met and much more, and they persist in activities that are harmful to their fellow man and society as a whole. Drug kingpins, mob bosses, Wall Street CEOs. Clearly something other than having their needs met is motivating these people. How do you propose to change that?
That is where removing the incentive for competition comes in.
By this I mean removing the urge to 'win' at the expense of other people.
Competition itself implies inequality, winners and losers. And these greedy individuals are simply playing that game as best they can, even if it is unethical/immoral.
By providing needs in abundance there is no reason other people will willingly participate in these games. There's no reason they'd fuel their addiction for acquisition, with the exception of these addicts using force. (Similar to how bullies on a playground act)
Change society at it's roots and the people itself will gradually change.
Competition is hard-wired into the human brain, and it extends beyond just meeting basic needs. It has been advantageous from an evolutionary perspective since the dawn of man. Abundance may create the environment to allow that hard-wiring to begin to change, but it will require an evolutionary change and not just a change in incentives. Much, much longer process.
The question is really to what extent.
Darwin didn't actually coin the phrase "survival of the fittest". It was a political tool used by Herbert Spencer to interpret Darwin's natural selection which has been passed down through the education system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
We as a species wouldn't of been able to go from nomads -> villages -> cities -> nations if we did not collaborate. We are at stage now where we must go global or risk not just a financial collapse but an ecological one as well. (global warming, finite resource consumption, war, etc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
And this change from competitive to collaborative forms of interaction can happen within a person's lifetime.
Here's a few more links on the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oojpTr_8Y_4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FG2JLn1gJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5Z-Xqe6ww
Many personal development groups thrive on their ability to turn negative habits into productive behaviors. So education can also make people more collaborative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63NTB7oObtw
"And for the free market to truly thrive, groups must suffer. People must die."
That's fine--as long as you don't whine when some of the "winners" have to die, too. After all, people who are unhappy with the way the "free market" is treating them are still part of the free market, and if they decide to eliminate some of the winners, well, that's just the free market at work! It's all good--enjoy!
exactly, the free market is a giant game rigged to justify inequality.
We need to advance society beyond the opinions which back money, and politics otherwise people will continue to die. (due to starvation, war, etc)
Apply the scientific method to social concern. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo&list=PL0A700023AC90017C&index=4
wow, this really makes me want to scream, but that is probably genanmer's aim.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqLMjYT3b4w
No, you won't reach the 99% because it isn't the 99%. It's the 1% who have achieved a great deal versus the 15% that want something for nothing and the remaining 84% of us stuck in between.
Frankly, I'm on the side of corporate America in this fight. Yes, they have too much power but you fools are just tools of Marxists. Useful idiots!
On the one hand it would be nice if everybody in the world had the same comfortable standard of living as we in the West.
It would be even nicer if we could all enjoy that lifestyle as it existed for us the 99% in say around 1980.
However the 1% decided it would be necessary to let alot of the air out of that Middle Class baloon, in essence bringing us all down to the level of the rest of the world, rather than bringing them up to our level.
The reason? Why the need to increase profits and 15% annual quarterly profit growth demanded by Wall Street Corporations.
Corpotations dont get hungry, they dont get sick, or tired, or grow old. But they have been able to buy themselves the designation of a "person" under the US Law with the help of some very clever and high priced lawyers.
A "person" who does not grow hungry, tired, sick, or old is a person to be feared. When that person is not a real living person, and has no soul, and is interested in nothing but profit, regardless of the human cost, we have created what may be considered a threat to the public good by some.
When that non living corporate entity has effectively bought and paid for the Government of the very people whos "public good" the government is charged with protecting, we have a dis-connected political situation that is bound to become imbalanced.
Although the top 1% effectively control the major media outlets, word on the the street is a lot the folks dont really believe much of what they are being told by that 1%.
The Picture Of Dorian Grey is a prime example of a dangeroues person who doesn't grow old. In my opinion its the picture of American corporations.
How about "The Terminator"? : )
You're on the wrong site. You meant to post on:
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/
or
http://theteaparty.net/
or
http://www.teaparty.org/
You might also be interested in:
http://www.gop.com/GoodBet/
or
http://nraila.org/
or
http://crossroadsgps.org/
You should be looking at movements/web sties for conservatives, libertarians and republicans. Coincidentally, the same political ideologies which the banks and corporations that the movement is protesting against typically align themselves with.
Im glad you sent him in the right direction :~)
You defend the notion that "freedom is reserved" for a few? Oh dear. When did the founding documents and the very kernel of all that is American get shredded in favor of rampant capitalism? Sorry you're so upet.
Read a little further in. Freedom is reserved for the few in a "competitive environment".
No, I got the qualifier, I can read. Slavery was a competitive environment that restricted a lot of people's freedom, too. It in no way makes your argument any more palatable, or American. In fact, it's basically anti-humanist.
That is exactly the point, a society based around competition leads to anti-humanist activities. I'm in no way defending it. Just pointing it out to the free-market advocates.
True, "if you reset the market another group will simply take it place", and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves, and thus "taking their place". Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Troll
“There is little difference in people, but that little difference makes a big difference. The little difference is attitude. The big difference is whether it is positive or negative.” W. Clement Stone
http://occupywallst.org/forum/friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears/
If you want to convince anyone, don't start your argument with "oh you naive freeloaders". There are quite a lot of non-naive non-freeloaders in this movement, some have formed corporations and know the benefits of them. It's not anti corporation, it's anti corruption.
I think you missed part of the intention of what I posted. The foundation of our society is run out of competition.
Competition implies winners and losers, haves and have nots. And if the winning side wants to protect their 'winnings' they must game the system in order to remain ahead, hence corruption.
And yes, the thread title was purposely misleading. Why be offended by the label (freeloaders) unless you associate yourself with it?
I'm offended by anything offensive, and I believe that there are hard working college graduates who simply weren't trained correctly, put into debt who really want to work and don't deserve to be called freeloaders. For the record, I have a valuable degree and a good job, and worked my ass off to get where I am. And I agree with competition is inevitable, good, and evolutionary and the reason humans exist in the first place. Actually, my complaint about corporations is the lack of competition, because they've formed monopolies.
Alright, then let me clarify. Derisive terms like freeloaders are only applied to those individuals in society that are not held in high-esteem. They are simply labels thrown out to discredit those with a lower social status.
But the term itself means: A person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return.
So in reality the term applies much more frequently to the greedy individuals using it. I'm referring to the Elite freeloaders that have a tremendous amount of wealth and throw out a bone only for the obligatory positive public relations.
There's no reason for any of us to associate ourselves with these labels at all. If you are offended then you 'are' associating yourself to these judgments and becoming overly defensive. That's the point, it's meant to attack one's social status. (based on our current social hierarchy of haves and have nots)
"And I agree with competition is inevitable, good, and evolutionary and the reason humans exist in the first place." While I agree that competition in some forms is inevitable it is only through collaboration that villages, towns, cities, and nations developed. Collaboration progresses us faster than if separate groups are competing for resources.
"Actually, my complaint about corporations is the lack of competition, because they've formed monopolies." The point of making it to the top of the social hierarchy is to then defend your position however you can. Even if it means corruption. Those who are unsuccessful or unwilling will not remain on top because they will have fewer advantages over time. This is natural in a society with competition at its foundation.
Hope this clears up some points
By that definition, a lot of protesters and elites, and corporate zombies are freeloaders. "Oh you naïve freeloaders .. You will never defeat corporatism" does seem directed at the protestors. I agree, it is naive to think we will defeat corporatism - as you say, corporations are what thrived, and this pooling of resources allowed us to efficiently research solutions.
I've read hundreds or thousands of posts here and often give up after two sentences, but with your post I judged a little too quickly.
I apologize if I made the initial post unclear
"And for the free market to truly thrive, groups must suffer. People must die". How about we start with you?
Troll.
It was the competitive market that created the desire for a better environment.
The first objective of a human being is survival, the environment is secondary (this is still relevant today in poor countries). It is only the wealth created by capitalism that gives us the luxury of caring about our environment.
There is no elite in a free competitive environment. You may be "elite" on day (like Microsoft) and be displaced the next by another company like Google or Apple. You may be "elite" like Blockbuster only to find that Netflix has taken your place.
The only elites are those created by force, in a market rigged by political influence. Those are the ones that cannot be displaced and it hurts everyone.
In a political economy which you advocate, there will always be losers. In a free market all have the ability to move up if they so desire.
"It was the competitive market that created the desire for a better environment" Do you really believe that? What about the open source movements working to collaborate rather than compete on projects? Many scientists and healthcare professionals voluntarily devote their time to helping people because they want to help them. (Not out of an external profit motivator)
"The first objective of a human being is survival, the environment is secondary" The environment determines one's survival. If the individual groups running the proposed free market reforms do not understand that, then we will continue living unsustainably and consuming resources at a rate faster than we can replenish.
"The only elites are those created by force, in a market rigged by political influence." Exactly how would the free market keep politics out of the free market? And how would it prevent certain groups from gaming their way back into the system, reimplementing corrupt laws in their favor?
Again, I'm all ears to solutions but these remain questions that must be answered.
Humanity and sustainable abundance of personal needs must be at the top of our value list.
"In a free market all have the ability to move up if they so desire."
This is a spurious argument, because it assumes that all have the same starting point. That all have the same privilege or opportunity starting out. That there is a level playing field. It is not a level playing field, and, as the poster points out, it probably never will be. If you are born to drug or alcohol addicted parents in poverty, do you really think you have the same opportunities as others? Forget the occasional exception, but the main rule remains: no, in all probability, no.
The crux of the argument then--if one assumes that not everyone has the same opportunities--is whether the free market is fair. Laissez faire, if you will. I argue that, in general, it's laissez unfaire, because I believe in the baseline assumption that not everyone has privilege or the opportunity to "make it." I do agree with your statement:
The system is geared to ensure that a certain percentage fail or die outright. Why? Because the current system is one that places the aggrandizement of the few over the needs of the many. The underlying assumption of the traditional right (and is underscored by Cain's recent statements) is that if you don't somehow "make it," then there must be something inherently wrong with you. You're somehow defective--and that, too, is at the core of your argument.
What one person calls socialism or even marxism, another calls "priorities." Take Finland. They ensure that everyone has a home; regardless of whether you're employed or not. That's their policy and that's their priority: You shouldn't be homeless. Now, you can say that's un-American (and it probably is, because we're fine with homelessness), but it's a priority they've decided is important. They have determined that human shelter is a basic human right. It really doesn't matter what you call it. And frankly, it hasn't "destroyed the country" as many who oppose that kind of thing would have you believe. Oh, and it doesn't rely on the "free market" to succeed. Finland is still a successful capitalist society, but it's a modified form, isn't it....
Should this kind of thing be a priority for #OWS? Probably. But I wouldn't call it socialism so much as a concerted priority; why rely on failed labels? It's just prioritization; what are our priorities? Read more about Finland's efforts to eradicate homeless here: http://www.feantsa.org/code/en/country.asp?ID=5&Page=22
Yes, I've heard this point before about "the same starting point".
What you are in essence saying is that everyone must be perfectly equalized and not just at birth but throughout life. That is impossible and would destroy any motivation for people to improve their lot. You also confuse wealth with opportunity. If that were true you wouldn't hear about kids squandering immense inheritances and destroying family businesses. Wealth is no predictor of success, motivation is and some of the wealthiest people we have today started with nothing.
Besides the example of drug addicted parents is a bad one. A child born to that family would have an example of going through life having needs satisfied without working for them. Giving this person free money would only reinforce their belief that they need to be "taken care of" for the rest of their life.
Yes, a certain percentage will fail if a free market. BUT, the overall condition of society will be far better. If you try to equalize by force everyone will have their standard of living drop precipitously. Eventually far more people are failing or dying outright. That is my point.
Again, this comes from the question of motivation. Why do we need an external motivator (money) in order to want to contribute?
Can't we achieve the same thing directly through better forms of education?
Spirituality/religion falls under this category as well. Why be spiritual/religious if no money is involved?
Money isn't the only motivator but it is an integral one in the part of many lives. I don't quite understand you question about needing money to contribute, but I'll try to answer.
Improving yourself is the best way to contribute to society and if in doing so you become wealthy (or are motivated purely by money, few people are though..) so much the better. Because along the way scores of people are helped by your wealth.
Ask anyone why they are in a 9-5 job. Ideally it would be because we love doing our work. The truth is though that the majority of us would be happy to do something else besides work, so what motivates us? Money. Because money helps us survive and is the basic measure of our value. That sounds horrible right?
Well...ask a person how highly they think of you. You'll get one answer. Then ask them to put money behind their statement, you'll get an entirely different reply.
Religion is another matter, it is anti-capitalism and anti-freedom. It has its roots in sacrifice, that all must not live for themselves but purely for others. I find this very depressing and not much different than slavery.
Money by itself is nothing without the access it provides.
If we had a billion monopoly dollars but it provided no access to goods nor services it would be worthless. The same applies to the money we currently use and any future forms of money. While that might seem scary, it is great if we can provide an abundance of goods and services without money.
Think of it this way, we have tons of air but no one pays for the air. The same applies for sunshine, wind, and whatever else is abundant.
If we can create abundance, there's no need for money.
But in order for money to function there Must exist scarcity. The supply of a good or service must be lower than the demand for it. Otherwise there is no point in applying the use of money to it. Again there's just too much of the product to use money on it.
While scarcity will always exist in some form we should not allow it to be artificially created, especially with the necessities for human survival. People should not be starving to death, or deprived of clean water for the sake of profit.
But if any group is successful in making these necessities scarce a HUGE demand is created. The groups that claim these resources can then force others to pay their price for it or die.
Another issue is that money itself becomes associated with every scarce/rare good and service it is used to obtain. So again, gaming the system to obtain money becomes inevitable in the current competitive environment.
If it was collaborative rather than competitive maybe individuals would compromise for the benefit of all.
In the meantime the economy requires infinite growth in order to function. There must be consumers buying products, employees to do the work, and employers to pay the employees. If consumers/people stop buying in mass the system collapses. If employees stop getting paid the consumers stop buying and the system collapses. If the employers stop paying employees in favor of automated machinery the system collapses.
So, many ‘jobs’ are created with no purpose other than to push money around. Automated machines are becoming even more efficient than outsourcing to 3rd world countries now. In effect more jobs are being replaced by machines and less people have purchasing power.
The irony is these machines and technologies are creating abundance however this abundance undermines the need for money. So unless a new system can eliminate the use of money more people will become displaced (jobless/homeless) in favor of machines, or the most efficient forms of technology will have to be forcibly suppressed. (meaning we would have to continue living in scarcity with a money-centric society)
The point is: Money is an outdated method of providing access to goods and services. It pits people against one another in favor of obtaining rare goods/services or products which are made artificially scarce.
As for religion, I can't give a generalization for all religions but for the few that require unquestionable authority to socially proclaimed holy individuals over belief in oneself, they can't be healthy.
"What you are in essence saying is that everyone must be perfectly equalized and not just at birth but throughout life."
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that to "make it," in general, you often have some form of privilege--not always, as I specifically stated--but more often than not.
I don't confuse wealth with opportunity. I'm talking purely about privilege, and the fact that a system that relies solely on individual responsibility as a criteria is a prioritized decision. We have decided that the basis for success is, as Reagan popularly phrased it "boostraps."
I said nothing about wealth being a predictor of success--that's your assumption. I didn't even address motivation at all; that is, again, your interpretation of what I intended.
As for your assumption that a person would be taken care of throughout life, that's just not true (it could be to a limited degree). Your position is unfounded (data, please) and based on conjecture. It's possible that it's accurate for some, but not in all. In the case of Finland--which you never mentioned in your response--they are a successful society. There is no arguing that. They are not chaotic and insane or governed by crazed armed Marxists. They simply made a decision to prioritize the distribution of resources to prevent homelessness. That's what they did. Collectively. For the common weal. It undermines your argument that public assistance derails a society, because it doesn't. There are myriad examples of this, including our partner to the north, Canada. It's a simple matter of priorities, and not a matter of strict, uncompromising orthodoxy promulgated by Adam Smith or anyone else.
I didn't say equalize by force. I said it was a prioritization. Again, sorry, but you're putting words in my mouth, and not actually addressing my specific points.
And your claims are academic and misleading and don't address specifics. Tell me where this has happened, specifically: "Eventually far more people are failing or dying outright." Give me specifics on how this is substantiated in the real world? Did this happen to the UK, where people are "forced" into their system of socialized medicine?
A country makes decisions on how to parse out its resources and wealth. In some cases, like the Netherlands, they spend a huge percentage of their budget on bike trails. It's part of their healthcare system. It's all about priorities, and the standard bullet points about eroding people's motivation or willingness to succeed assumes that the countries I've mentioned are loaded with ne'r-do-well freeloaders.
Here's the truth: they're not.
Details, please, and in future posts, address specifics, not what you think someone is saying; thx.
Peace.
Fair enough. I've been in many discussions about privilege and found that those who discount it want some type of forced equalization.
In a free society there is no promise that you would be taken care of for life however there is a promise that everyone will be far better off as a whole.
I don't know enough about Finland to make good observations but I'll hazard a few. Is Finland a world leader in innovation, product development and wealth creation like the USA? I'd also note that Finland benefits from not having to police the world like we do. When Iraq attacked Kuwait it was largely the USA that had to bail them out, just like in WWI and WWII.
I've lived in countries like Finland and the cost of living is astronomical. Basic goods like beer, consumer electronics, housing etc. costs a small fortune. I know that Sweden has rent control which makes it almost impossible to find living quarters.
Canada is actually a freer society than ours, their corporate taxes are much lower and their regulations are far less of a burden compared to the USA. Federal income tax top rate in Canada is only 29%, corporate income tax is 18% vs our 34%. They also have stronger private property rights than we do.
Yes it did happen in the UK. I read UK newspapers often and there is constant talk of waiting lists (they even publish them) for basic health care, and shortages of medicine. How do you judge the medical care provided by a system? By the survival rate, and the UK pales in comparison to the USA. Get cancer in the UK and you are far more likely to die than here, I can provide data on that if you wish. Liberals like to quote longevity but that is skewed by life styles and factors like homicides. One of the reasons the USA has less longevity is the sheer number of murders that occur every year, has nothing to do with our health care system.
What you neglect to mention is that when a country builds bike trails it does so by taking money away from its citizens. That money could be used for better health on a private basis. Also, it is dubious to say that creating bike trails make people healthier. If that were the case all the efforts of the US government in that arena would have diminished obesity in this country (food laws, taxes on "bad" food, parks, etc.).
As to the freeloaders. It is inevitable that when you start taking care of people that they become less motivated and more demanding, this is human nature. Read newspaper accounts of what it is like to work in Sweden, managers actually have to coax their workers back in using bribes like free massages (no joke). Also, many of these countries have started to clamp down on immigration because foreigners were draining their social service programs. Lastly, look at the state of Europe today, it is bankrupt.
Finland? Interesting article here:
Once a timid and compliant member of the European Union, Finland has become one of its most rebellious.
The Finns have made headlines recently by threatening to pull out of a rescue plan for debt-stricken Greece and blocking Romania and Bulgaria from joining Europe's passport-free travel zone.
The Nordic nation's dwindling enthusiasm for European integration challenges the cohesion of the 27-nation bloc as it struggles to tackle the debt crisis.
"Finland is stepping out of line. It's very clearly a new phenomenon," said Jan Sundberg, professor of political science at the University of Helsinki.
PART B: "It is inevitable that when you start taking care of people that they become less motivated and more demanding, this is human nature."
Again, you didn't address my point: are the countries I've mentioned undone by this? No. Are there people who take advantage of the system? Yes. But again, your logic is flawed. Again, look at Finland: they offer homes to everyone. It has not destroyed their country. There are still very successful people, and they are actually one of the most educated country's on the planet. Sweden, anecdotally. That's your evidence? Some people are lazy? I granted you that. My main point is that it doesn't destroy societies. Countries decide what's important to them.
The US, for example, decided that rather than spend $1 trillion on upgrading its roads, or its schools, or making healthcare or higher education more affordable, or make housing more available, we decided--collectively--to go to war based on lies. That was a decision that the United States made. And when the people who got us into that situation left power, we didn't throw them into jail, we allowed them to live off of fat tax-funded pensions.
This was a decision that we made as a country. We'd rather go to war and fund the military industrial complex than use our resources to do the things I mentioned above. It's simple opportunity cost and national priorities.
re: "foreigners" draining social service programs, I know this is a problem. No easy solution, but I can only say that if more countries offered more affordable and available services, this probably wouldn't happen. But I give you a point here.
Europe is definitely in trouble, but it's not a simple "if this, then that" scenario. it's also tied up in the poorly executed EU integration and the fiasco of the Euro. They are no more or less in trouble than the United States. I'm not saying Europe is perfect, and don't really care about specific examples.
My main point was this: countries have priorities. Some involve providing housing or healthcare or other services. Your last paragraphs prove my point, ironically enough: it proves that you can have a viable, successful country that's highly educated--and has successfully integrated programs that don't rely on the free market system, but on a system of social services priorities.
PART A: First, you still haven't addressed my core issue: prioritization. Seriously. In a give and take polemic, at least try to address the "other's" key premise. Finland wasn't the main point; it was a simple example of how key planks of the traditional right are easily undermined by other examples. Anyway, I'll address yours:
"In a free society there is no promise that you would be taken care of for life however there is a promise that everyone will be far better off as a whole"
Finland is free.
"Is Finland a world leader in innovation, product development and wealth creation like the USA?"
Finland has Nokia, which is a pretty powerful country, even though it doesn't have the wealth of natural resources and temperate zones that enabled the United States to become a great country. It is, of course, an empire in decline. Finland? Not so much.
"Is Finland a world leader in innovation, product development and wealth creation like the USA?"
Really. So, we have to police the world. Your premise is incorrect. We most definitely do not have to police the world, but we do so to a) create new markets for our "free market capitalism," b) extend our culture and way of life, imperialistically, and c) protect oil resources.
"When Iraq attacked Kuwait it was largely the USA that had to bail them out, just like in WWI and WWII."
See c) above. Again, this was a choice, it was not required by anyone. Please be careful with your analysis and logical premises.
"I've lived in countries like Finland and the cost of living is astronomical....etc."
The underlying assumption is that somehow they're less happy. They are not less happy. One of the places with the highest "happiness index" happens to be Finland (source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4060237,00.html). I didn't know this, but it was an, erm, "happy" coincidence. I admit that some consumer goods are more expensive, but if people are happier overall, that's a tradeoff that would definitely be worth it, IMO.
Canada also has socialized healthcare, which kind of undermines your main point, to wit, people won't be motivated to take care of themselves if the government does it for them.
"One of the reasons the USA has less longevity is the sheer number of murders that occur every year, has nothing to do with our health care system."
I like this one a lot. This goes to the very heart of our difference: government don't regulates guns very well, and people are "free" to knock each other off, many thousands of times a year. Great.
"What you neglect to mention is that when a country builds bike trails it does so by taking money away from its citizens."
Wrong. Money isn't "taken away from people," as you posit, it's looking beyond the surface, which you failed to understand when I said it was part of the healthcare system. When a country builds bike trails, it does so as part of it's preventive healthcare system. Fewer people are obese. Fewer people need healthcare for obesity--unlike Big Fat America. That's where the "hidden" cost of not doing something like this lies--in taking care of diabetic, unhealthy people. We're the fattest country on the planet, but what if the government decided to incorporate healthy choices in distribution of its resources?
"If that were the case all the efforts of the US government in that arena would have diminished obesity in this country (food laws, taxes on "bad" food, parks, etc.)."
No, because it's not just bike trails. Our society lives on fast food--the most restaurants on the planet--and when countries adopt these lifestyles, like the French, they start to get fat. It's not just about bike trails; it was an example of preventive medicine. Your logic is flawed.
Maybe it would be easier if we stay on one message otherwise these posts get very long. How about obesity?
I have a very simple solution. Stop universal health care and stop regulating insurance companies. Why?
I called my insurance company and told them I was going to lose 60 lbs. , eat better and exercise daily. In fact I was to become fitter than 99.99% of people my age.
I asked them "can you drastically cut my premiums?". Note...I spend about $15,000 a year on health insurance and only use about $150, this over a period of 35 years.
The insurance company said "we are limited by law in the incentives we can give you". Translate: The government doesn't allow significant reductions in premiums for being healthy.
Why? This is almost perverse and evil. The government actually puts out a huge disincentive to live well.
Answer: It "discriminates" against the not so healthy.
So in the name of helping people they are actually making a lot more people sick.
Imagine if the company you worked at said "Ralph, if you stop smoking and lose 50 lbs. + exercise we will reduce your yearly premiums from 15,000 to 6,000". Doesn't take a genius to imagine how many people would jump on this opportunity.