Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

"It means conservatism is dull as dish waster."

No, it doesn't. Even if that were true, I would still prefer it to the economic despair which Socialism always brings.

 

OK. You make big joke. I don't know what you hope to gain by being so obviously wrong.

 

That is an outright fabrication on your part.

Why do you think anyone wild be impressed by a made-up number you cannot possible demonstrate to be true, and is utterly irrelevant compared to - and does nothing to support - what you actually post?
Oh, and so, you know, son, I took the GRE back when the top verbal/quantitative score was 800.

 

Wrong again. Watch:

Churches don't have beliefs, they have doctrines; and a use "related to" the exercise of religion is not the same as an exercise of religion.

By that "logic," if a church owned shares in a company like Apple, all the incomes of Apple's employees would have to be tax-free, as well, which is self-evidently absurd.

A "use related to" exercise of religion is not the same as an exercise of religion.

A church that is only individuals joined by a common belief would owe no taxes. It is only when a church is more than that -- a property owner, an employer, a for-profit supplier of goods and services -- that it rightly owes taxes, same as any other business.

Already refuted. There is no tax on the exercise of beliefs, only on economic activities such as ownership of property, employment of labor, and sale of goods and services.

Refuted above. None of those taxable conditions is an exercise of religious belief.

Refuted above. At least now you are offering some arguments, however fallacious, and not just bald claims.

 

You know it is not.

I suppose I could find and post a pdf of my score; but that seems like a lot of trouble, and you would have no reason to credit that the score was mine rather than someone else's.

It refutes your cretinous claim that my English comprehension skills are somehow deficient -- which attentive readers will already have figured out on their own.

Yes, well, you didn't score 800, did you? I took the GRE just a few years after they changed the scoring system, and FYI, I was 56 at the time.

 

I suppose you qualify as laughable.

So, again, no arguments of any kind from you. Check.

 

"I suppose you qualify as laughable."

Even your attempt at a "put down" is devoid of logic.

"So, again, no arguments of any kind from you. Check."

I already pointed out that you failed to refute my contention. Then, with your attempt to invent new meanings for words, you dug yourself in deeper.

I don't understand why you are doing this. Is it debate practice?

If we use facts and logic, I'm in. Until then, I'm not interested.

 

Where did I propose that?

Wrong again. Unfortunately, your English skills are inadequate to the task of perceiving how far superior to them mine are.

Quote or retraction. Now.

I understand it's a variable. But rights are not all equally valid, so one cannot just put in any value for x and expect the claim to remain equally valid.

That would take a long time, and this probably isn't the thread.

So where did I say or imply, "provide the means to exercise"?

Rights cannot all be secured without conflict, so there is a need to reconcile them when they do conflict. That's what civil courts are for. E.g., we all have rights to free speech, but also have rights to privacy, to not be slandered or libeled, etc. Those rights have to be reconciled when they come into conflict.

 

To the extent that I could discern a meaningful contention of yours that I disagreed with, I either refuted it or dismissed it as unsupported.

I did no such thing, just assumed you would understand how the noun, "loss" relates to the adjectival, "worse off."

Joke, right?

 

Here's the thing. If your vid suggests that socialism is anything other than "if you don't work, you don't eat", then it's NOT about socialism. It's BS predicated on the posturing of die-hard capitalists pretending to care.

I'm not on the Right.

 

1) Only because they take you seriously when you call yourself 'socialist'. Obviously, very very few on the Left are socialists. Rare as hens teeth.

2) Who is y'all? I'm not a Republican, or even American.

3) Bernie is no kind of socialist. Never has been. Even got kicked off the commune for being a capitalist slacker.

4) Other way around. Progressive Leftists who call themselves socialists are the liars.

 

Actually that's the opposite to socialism/communism (aka, collectivism).

Collectivism does not allow for anyone to avoid labour. Remember the foundation premise: You don't work - you don't eat.

 

As someone generally considered far Left, I'm asserting that there is zero socialism in Europe. Absolutely none.

 

All this talk of calling people socialists reminds of a political as that appeared in Missouri during Harry Truman's time the ad claimed that an opponent's sister was a well known pedestrian. To the uneducated masses that sounds pretty bad and there is no way the opponent can deny the truth of the charge. For the record not every Democrat is a socialist.

 

You're neglecting the bureaucrats and enforcers.

 

Let's go back; shall we?

OK. At that point, I thought that I was still exchanging with the other poster.

It was really your complete and total fabrication. I stand corrected, and offer my apologies to @Reiver.

And then:

""Pareto optimality is a situation where no individual or preference criterion can be better off without making at least one individual or preference criterion worse off"

That means losses are accounted more important than gains."

Umm... No, it doesn't.

 

Sure it does. If 1M people are each made $1M better off, but one person is made $1 worse off, that's not Pareto optimal. So the $1 loss is accounted more important than the $1T gain.

 

Decades ago, Mad magazine's political smear speech had a dozen such examples, like, "Believe it or not, my opponent's wife is a thespian, and has even performed such acts in front of paying audiences." Pretty funny.

 

Umm... No.

 

Socialism definitions:

In Marxism it is transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

However, the modern use is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

.....

With the advocacy of "public owned" services such as single payer healthcare, social security, Medicare and Medicaid, the military and the hundreds of other "services" and not to mention the fact that between 48-52% on my income is either directly or indirectly taxed, I don't see how any Democrat or Republican can claim that they are not a socialist.

 

Um, yes, indisputably. When any loss, no matter how small, outweighs any gain, no matter how large, that's self-evidently losses counting more than gains.

 

In imaginary world, that happens.

 

I gotta admit I love playing with words, but this made me laugh. It's a perfect example of the abuse of language that takes place in political discussion about a fantasy of utopian society.

Psst... Go on and look up the definition of doctrine before you come back and tell me that words don't mean what they mean.

Socialists have doctrines too. They just can't agree what they are or how to implement them.

 

Product of labor is not the same as value of labor. The product of labor is a curve associated with the marginal increase in production due to adding more labor. You stop hiring workers when adding more workers will produce less per worker.

The value of labor is modified by the demand for labor and supply of labor. Those two factors are controlled by local knowledge. The most local of knowledge is at the individual level. So ultimately each individual worker on his own decides the value of his own labor. When his wages drop below his own acceptable level he stops working. Conversely, when the wage increases above an employers acceptable level he stops employing.

It's opportunity cost, man. It happens on both sides to set the value. You can't force someone to re calculate their own personal opportunity cost.

 

Don't worry, they're not socialists either. Socialism is fundamentally the opposite of a welfare state.