T Nation

/b/ Makes a Point


#1


#2

I saw this a while ago. I fail to see the point, short of the fact that we're already a quasi-socialist nation. There's no surprise. I've been referring to us as the USSA since '05. The fact that the Leviathon has its fingers in every aspect of our lives hardly justifies its existence. It's as if you came home to find out the mailman was fucking your wife so you shouldn't complain later when he wants a crack at your teenage daughter.

Besides, all I see is a list of intrusive and failed government programs that should be abolished while we're tearing this health care debacle down.

mike


#3

The author has a point but it is not really meaningful because he doesn't ask the question are these "services" necessary?

Are there alternatives to leviathan -- to borrow Mikey's term -- intruding in on our lives?


#4

See once you let the fucking beast in, he won't leave. As much as we'd like to get rid of the over regulation of our lives, we cannot now. Much of that shit listed was set up by FDR, whom I loath for doing it.


#5

Sure we need these services, but do we need the government to provide them? Sounds like a great market for a lot of that stuff for private business. Except for the raods, not sure how we'd get around the government for that. Some basic infrastructure has to be ceded to the governement, if it be the will of the people.


#6

"...about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD."

Thats what matters, right? We are talking about socialism in medicine, not socialism in food regulation or socialism in energy.

and btw , the US postal service just doesnt feel like Socialism to me.
They dont force me to mail letters. :slightly_smiling:


#7

Don't forget LBJ's great society war on poverty which expanded the welfare roles.


#8

Here is the problem with this post: it tries to paint regulation with the same brush as socialism. I don't think anyone here would argue that some regulation is a good thing. Of course I want to eat clean food and drink clean water. We have laws designed to keep people safe and make sure no one is breaking the rules for just this reason, and the ONLY constitutional functions of government are to make, interpret, and enforce said laws. But where, exactly, does "regulation" end and socialism begin?

If regulation means minimal government intrusion, essentially just making sure no one is lying, cheating, or stealing when they generate power, build a car, or make our food - I'm all for it. But when the government itself is generating the power, building the car, or making the food - then we have a problem, and it's called socialism.

That is the difference - when the government makes sure that health insurance companies aren't lying, cheating, and stealing, but allows the consumer the CHOICE of with whom they want to be insured by, if any at all, that's regulation. When the government itself IS the insurer, and/or forces private citizens to spend money on insurance whether or not the want to - that's socialism. And this health-care socialism bill far exceeds the constitutional authority of the federal government.


#9

..i know we share the same planet 'n all, but we live in alternate realities...


#10

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#11

So easy even a teenager gets it.


#12

..don't mind the spelling errors: http://i.imgur.com/fPrTl.jpg


#13

^You are using rightist fallacy to defend leftist fallacy.

It's like saying theft is good when I do it but wrong when you do it.


#14

..it's just odd to me that the conservative right is in uproar about the HCR-bill when they were virtually silent about the issues put forth in the cartoon. Can you explain that to me? I honestly want to know, and i don't mean to imply that you're one of the silent ones...


#15

E, simple! Most rightists do not have philosophical consistency because there is no real rightist framework -- rather it is just a collection of people who all have different ideals though some ideas they may share. This is also true with leftists.

Libertarians differ precisely because their's is a complete ethical framework and it is simply put forth:

Commit no aggression.


#16

You're aware that conservatives absolutely hated the bail out, right? I don't mean the "conservatives" in congress, but real conservatives were staunchly against it. You can look up many posts on these very boards for evidence, if you'd like.

And you're also aware that when this country decided to go to war, Bush had the support of the left as well?

Are you aware of these things and just playing ignorant? Or are you just really uninformed?


#17

Because the issues compared to health care in the stupid little cartoon have nothing to do with socialism.

The Constitution dictates that defense and the maintaining of the military is a function of the federal government; the war in Iraq falls under that function. How is a war labeled socialist? It doesn't make sense; it's comparing apples and oranges. Anyway, the war in Iraq was authorized with bi-partisan support.

Homeland Security likewise falls under there, although admittedly loosely, and let me just state for the record that, as a consrvative, I was and still am OPPOSED to the Patriot Act and, in some aspects, the creation of HS. But again, creating another bloated federal bureaucracy isn't necessarily "socialist". I'm unsure where the majority of conservatives stand on this issue.

The Wall St bailout? Yeah, that's kind of socialist, wherein the federal government became temporary owners of private corporations. But virtually every conservative I know was 100% against the bailout.

Finally, health care - see what I wrote above. Government control of health care, along with government mandates to purchase said health care - yeah, I'd say that it qualifies as "controlling the means of production" in the most basic definition of socialism. The government will not only "produce" the commodity in question (health care), but they will force you to buy it! It is unprecedented in US history, and that is why conservatives are so opposed to it.


#18

Being against the bailout is like being against the viability of our economy in both the short and longterm. it's cute to say because it means you stay true to your values, but the amount of financial capital tied up in those firms is mind boggling.


#19

Your mind is boggled regardless.

You don't even consider how that capital got all "tied up" in the first place.

What organization provided them liquidity?


#20

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.