• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Extreme example of why socialism isn't good

What are you saying here by posting this, better that people starve than "risk" providing food?
You want to call out their mistake in providing for him the way that they did? Sure... we can do that.
His death is on the UK to explain, but a good policy (feeding the poor) should not be defined by its exceptions.

And news flash... better decisions can always be made, and new policy defined that'd prevent any "state" complacency in the future.
 
Sinsear said:
probably never shot up a Hooters parking lot
Click to expand...
aap.gif



aab.gif
 
JSt0rm said:
Extreme capitalism and extreme socialism are both bad. You dont live in a 100% capitalism. If you did I doubt you would make it.
Click to expand...

The point is that socialized distribution of food is not a necessity. America has never had anything resembling a famine. Socialist nations, on the other hand, frequently do.

ivwshane said:
Lol some times you say really stupid shit.
Click to expand...

Care to name an example? Basically no one starved during the Great Depression even before the New Deal, in the middle of the Dust Bowl. People had to go to food lines and accept charity, families had to leave their barren farms behind, but ultimately they found food.

Jhhnn said:
I figure that's only because of soft headed liberals...

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/
Click to expand...

"Food insecurity" is not starvation, and it has never been close to solved afaik, even if it increases with bad economic times. There will always be some families with parents that simply suck and fail to take care of their own.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
The point is that socialized distribution of food is not a necessity. America has never had anything resembling a famine. Socialist nations, on the other hand, frequently do.



Care to name an example? Basically no one starved during the Great Depression even before the New Deal, in the middle of the Dust Bowl. People had to go to food lines and accept charity, families had to leave their barren farms behind, but ultimately they found food.



"Food insecurity" is not starvation, and it has never been close to solved afaik, even if it increases with bad economic times. There will always be some families with parents that simply suck and fail to take care of their own.
Click to expand...
And you know what else? People who have their legs cut off get wheel chairs. I mean it's just incredible just how much shit people can live with. I mean, take the US with it's internet. Some poor soul with nothing important to do runs into a story about some other poor soul who ate himself to death on government food and I have to suffer him linking to the story and then endure some other poor emotional cripple mention how nobody dies of hunger in a capitalist nation. OK OK I get it. Some people have huge bodies, some love gorging on disgust, and some have hole in their personalities where their hearts should be. Just remember, some really big number of people die every day which so far makes you and me really lucky. Thank you, all of you, who shared your thoughts with me today.
 
You really think this anecdote proves or disproves anything about a particular system of government? It proves absolutely zero. That is all.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
The point is that socialized distribution of food is not a necessity. America has never had anything resembling a famine. Socialist nations, on the other hand, frequently do.



Care to name an example? Basically no one starved during the Great Depression even before the New Deal, in the middle of the Dust Bowl. People had to go to food lines and accept charity, families had to leave their barren farms behind, but ultimately they found food.



"Food insecurity" is not starvation, and it has never been close to solved afaik, even if it increases with bad economic times. There will always be some families with parents that simply suck and fail to take care of their own.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that the US is the only nation whose economic system is based on capitalism? Because there are some really, really poor countries who some would argue are not only capitalist but are also a more pure form of capitalism than what we practice.

Also no one starved in the US during the great depression because our government had relief programs and those programs have grown even bigger and better today.

Your point was invalid and stupid.
 
ivwshane said:
Are you under the impression that the US is the only nation whose economic system is based on capitalism? Because there are some really, really poor countries who some would argue are not only capitalist but are also a more pure form of capitalism than what we practice.

Also no one starved in the US during the great depression because our government had relief programs and those programs have grown even bigger and better today.

Your point was invalid and stupid.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't define Somalia as capitalist if that's one of the nations you're thinking of. Barely functional governments with thieving warlords preventing the establishment of private agriculture don't qualify as capitalist in my book. I'm not saying that socialism inherently causes poverty or starvation, obviously all first-world nations employ some form of socialism, I'm just saying capitalism is perfectly capable of handling the problem on its own. Even the least ethical/sympathetic capitalist nations like the UAE and Singapore don't want to starve their poorest; famished workers aren't productive, and food is extremely cheap when not regulated.

Our relief programs began in 1933, a few years after the markets tanked. People lost their jobs and savings, no one really starved.
 
HamburgerBoy said:
I wouldn't define Somalia as capitalist if that's one of the nations you're thinking of. Barely functional governments with thieving warlords preventing the establishment of private agriculture don't qualify as capitalist in my book. I'm not saying that socialism inherently causes poverty or starvation, obviously all first-world nations employ some form of socialism, I'm just saying capitalism is perfectly capable of handling the problem on its own. Even the least ethical/sympathetic capitalist nations like the UAE and Singapore don't want to starve their poorest; famished workers aren't productive, and food is extremely cheap when not regulated.

Our relief programs began in 1933, a few years after the markets tanked. People lost their jobs and savings, no one really starved.
Click to expand...

The federal programs began in 1933, state programs whose funds came from the federal government came earlier.

And no, Somalia wasn't one of the countries I was thinking about. Although to have an economic system of capitalism doesn't require much of a government so I don't know why a country would be discredited because it was ruled by a warlord.
 
ivwshane said:
The federal programs began in 1933, state programs whose funds came from the federal government came earlier.

And no, Somalia wasn't one of the countries I was thinking about. Although to have an economic system of capitalism doesn't require much of a government so I don't know why a country would be discredited because it was ruled by a warlord.
Click to expand...

I tried searching for examples of state programs and couldn't find anything. I'm sure there was state assistance in some cases, but the bulk was done via private charity, afaik.

Which countries then? One of my conditionals was that war/genocide does not count for the purpose of this discussion, something which warlords tend to engage in. WHAMPOM implied above that socialist food services are necessary to prevent mass starvation of the poor. I suppose I should admit that bad farming practices were responsible for a significant portion of the Dust Bowl to begin with, so federal government standards/education can certainly decrease the odds of famine if done correctly, much as fire safety codes and public fire officers are a better alternative to a totally free-market approach of no rules in construction. Privately-held means of food production and distribution are still very capable of feeding a population, however.
 
brycejones said:
England must have been filed with bomb throwing Reds during the Irish potato famine.
Click to expand...

Ireland was a property of England, and the Corn Laws worked against them. Tariffs and protectionism are not free trade, even if they are usually used to exploit market economies to favor the powers that be. The UK also starved several million Indians, but that is a consequence of colonialism and war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top