Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:32pm:
Rubbish. The Howard Govt provided the biggest personal income tax cuts in Australian history whilst paying off a $90 odd billion debt residual from Keating.
A boom economy with record company profitability and low unemployemt will naturally collect more tax revenues than a basket case Govt like we have now.
I was referring to Dnarever's comment about the Howard Government being a socialist one.
Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:57pm:
Socialism needs everyone to be the same to exist.
Everyone is different. We are all individuals. Therefore socialism is impossible.
I disagree. I think you're talking about "pure socialism." In a pure socialist system, everyone owns everything collectively and nobody owns anything individually. Resources are not concentrated where they are needed. There is no leadership and therefore no sense of direction because people can't figure out what to do and who should have the authority.
On the opposite extreme, you have "pure capitalism," where there are no "collectives." That means that there is no community and no company. It's every man for himself. There is no co-operation. There is only competition. Without co-operation, however, people can't organise and coordinate toward common goals (because this would violate the condition of there being no collectives and no common interests).
Socialism doesn't require that everybody is equal. No, that's pure socialism. Socialism can exist without the absolute ideal of absolute equality because there are different degrees of socialism. It's a matter of finding the right balance. Companies, corporations, firms and organisations are themselves a form of socialism (a subtle one). Anywhere where you have co-operation and common goals, you have socialism. Ever heard of "corporate values?" That's a form of socialism within a company.
Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:25pm:
No socialism is un-natural.
Of course it's unnatural. Anything man-made is unnatural. Socialism is man-made. Socialism is human. Socialism is contrary to nature because in nature, in the wild, animals kill and eat each other out of selfishness and self-preservation.
Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:25pm:
If you look at the natural world competition, innovation, diversity and survival of the fittest is the law of the jungle.
"Survival of the fittest" and the "law of the jungle" is barbaric and contrary to civilisation. Do you want to reduce us to wild animals?
Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:25pm:
Socialism attempts to control these things and once you start messing with any one of them things stuff up.
The world didn't stuff up with socialism. It stuffed up without it. This is why the society and culture of wild animals hasn't advanced much in the last few million years. They haven't changed. Socialism, the collective interest, is the reason why modern civilisation was possible. Socialism is what gave us the advantage we have over other animals. If the rest of the Animal Kingdom ever started a war with us, we'd win.
Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:25pm:
In the wild socialists become extinct because they fail to innovate and adapt.
Of course a human baby left in the wild would starve because it didn't know how to fend for itself. This is what community is for, it is for an interdependent species. That's what the human race is. It's an interdependent species. We can't survive on our own. We have to co-operate and share resources.
Swagman wrote on Apr 9
th, 2013 at 9:25pm:
Socialist Governments try to redistribute wealth away from the innovators and give it to the unachievers. This due to lack of reward or incentive for effort will eventually retard innovation to the extent where nobody gives a schitt and you get colonised or wiped out.
Of course if you had a pure socialist system you would be wasting resources by not directing them to areas that would be useful, but if socialism can be applied in degrees, then like I said before, it's a matter of finding the right balance.
Forum
Pages: 
