So socialism

[Farm Boy]

Thinking the Amish are frozen is a misunderstanding of the splay of Amish communities.

 

[Angst]

I should have said: actual government control of providing health care. which, amazingly, few countries actually have despite the political talk in the US about the need to get on the "bandwagon" of single-payer care.
I think Canada and the UK do, and...that might be it...?
many other places, like yours, seem to have a hybrid.
and in the Nordic countries, I thought, most of it is not centrally-controlled but controlled by each municipality

afaik in denmark, regions (capital, zealand, south denmark, mid jutland and north jutland) each administrate healthcare in their regions, but it's also somewhat similar to canada structurally (states administering their own healthcare), although overseen by a required state standard, basically. we also have private hospitals, but if you have something that requires eg an ICU you're sent to the public option regardless of your wishes.

i'm kinda uncertain as to what you define as government contorl of healthcare providal etc. what exactly your understanding or definition is here. uk in particular has severely privatized elements of the nhs, which is part of why it has become so barf

like, i'm honestly just very confused by your post. if you're making a distinction between regionally public control and state public control, i don't think that's the case in canada?

like the thing is that even single payer differs vastly in concrete organization. like, yea. but that doesn't mean only a few single payer countries exist, just that it's a complicated and varied way of doing things; there are different ways to do single payer.

 

[Arwon]

I should have said: actual government control of providing health care. which, amazingly, few countries actually have despite the political talk in the US about the need to get on the "bandwagon" of single-payer care.
I think Canada and the UK do, and...that might be it...?
many other places, like yours, seem to have a hybrid.
and in the Nordic countries, I thought, most of it is not centrally-controlled but controlled by each municipality

are you... are you under the impression most countries don't have state hospital systems, publicly funded doctors, and universal public health insurance

 

[Hygro]

When unemployment tried this for a year it paid people more than I got paid to work, and inflation nailed my gas, my heat, my groceries, and my taxes. Now, apparently, they're finding unprecedented fraud.

Godawful stunts when applied without regards to the recipients. Let Them Eat Cake. The idle are still too heavy, whatever whingeing about technology they rationalize with. The working poor, fine, this might equalize some of the BS political fiat rewards douchebags give thier spewspawns.

It’s not really what caused the inflation. The fraud is even smaller. Most of the money went to a few, only a quarter (a trillion) to the rest of us. I made great use of it, can’t speak for others. Worldwide inflation was to the tune of like $10+ trillion worth, mostly the stimulus closed the previous era’s demand gap and didn’t push prices. The price push is only partially the stimulus and also waaaay bigger than the stimulus even if it had been 100% inflationary. Which it wasn’t.

What did happen is billions of people stopped producing to the same level whether they were paid or not. And then diet WW3 started.

So shift that blame.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's multifaceted blame. And, no. I won't.

The work didn't change much any for some industries no matter where one was. We just got sick, we died at higher rates than the rest of the country, and then we "were stupid" for it. Which, considering I worked when I could have made more shoving my thumbs up my rear, I'm starting to agree with.

 

[Arwon]

It’s not really what caused the inflation. The fraud is even smaller. Most of the money went to a few, only a quarter (a trillion) to the rest of us. I made great use of it, can’t speak for others. Worldwide inflation was to the tune of like $10+ trillion worth, mostly the stimulus closed the previous era’s demand gap and didn’t push prices. The price push is only partially the stimulus and also waaaay bigger than the stimulus even if it had been 100% inflationary. Which it wasn’t.

What did happen is billions of people stopped producing to the same level whether they were paid or not. And then diet WW3 started.

So shift that blame.

Yeah inflation is basically being driven by very international factors in the current era, most especially the war's impact on energy and food.

 

[Farm Boy]

Unless you were getting rocked by it before that happened.

 

[Narz]

New technology always comes around, and it's inevitable that this will be something we need to deal with. Might as well try to get a handle on it rather than wing it as we go or try to be like the Amish and freeze ourselves on the tech tree

The Amish aren't necessarily anti new tech, iirc they have meetings to discuss the sociological impacts of adopting each new tech which imo is pretty smart (and every family should have before they get their kid the latest gadget)

 

[Gorbles]

The Berlin Wall was already shoot on sight both directions. Yes it’s worse. That’s the point.

No, I’m not arguing for the USA wall, and nowhere outside your hopes that I am can you find that.

None of this about me ranking things in good or not good binary. I have zero idea why you think this, but nothing I’m saying should be unclear.

Like here you are saying “now you say evil….” I said evil already where, in one third of a sentence, articulated the entire point expanded later in a certain later post about assassinating Central American land reformers.

It’s already there, read it twice.

Me too until now. Just saw this. Yes the USA wall is bad, not even good for us inside. But fundamentally less bad than the Berlin wall, as the USA wall doesn't exactly exist, and the fascists don't have total control of the border policy, nor enforcement, even if they are very over represented.

I'm not hoping for anything. "nowhere outside of your hopes that I am can you find that"

Dial it back a bit. We got here from a generic "wall that keeps people out" vs. "wall that keeps people in". You're focusing on a specific example of "keeping people in" that you can then assign excessive moral weight to. Why? We're talking about the general principle.

The "good" vs. "bad" is because you still haven't acknowledged (or maybe I missed it) that people are assigning winners and losers here. Look at the likes on your first post vs. the follow-up where you explicitly call out the fascists (and point out that the wall isn't good for those inside). I know, it's a risk, guessing at why people like posts, but are reasons why that second one was skipped by people reading the thread, vs. the previous one. Maybe it's because it's taking me down a peg, vs. the more agreeable nature of the second. Or maybe it's because of what you explicitly concede vs. what you didn't previously. Maybe it's both! Maybe folks just missed the follow-up. These are all plausible theories. There's a bunch of possible reasons, but I'm trying to get you thinking here.

People are framing this as "good" over "bad" whether you want them to or not. We can't control what others do, but we can introspect on our own arguments and how they're presented, right?

Like I said way back in the original point (and the same went for Lexi): I don't think I can agree that one wall is better or worse than the other wall. I think you can find examples where specific, named, walls are worse, much like anyone can find historical atrocities that are more atrocious than other atrocities. But they're all atrocities. Playing "who's worse" is kinda a zero-sum game (at best), and that's what I'm trying to argue. Does that follow?

And this is before we get anywhere near the nuclear topic of "immigration is good, actually".

 

[Kyriakos]

Immigration is good, but up to some ratio. Can't expect by default a country with x million people to be ok if they accept (say) x million immigrants over a few years; they'll no longer be the same society.
In the case of the US, however, they are unlikely to get 400 million immigrants in a brief period of time.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not trying to go nuclear in you, Hygs, but agriculture was exempt from non gathering regulations. You can't remote in. So were emergency services. Every day we worked in 2020, we didn't spend together. And we liked spending days together. Add in the payment discrepancies for not working, and the price of those missed minutes in hindsight, I'm not actually exaggerating when it hits as a "more equal than others" situation.

Everything that gets done, somebody has to do. It is not free.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm not going to debate the border wall with you in this thread, no. The fact that you evidently see no problem with it only makes your criticisms of the USSR that much funnier to me.

Well, you asked what makes a difference between USSR and US and I pointed out that one was struggling to keep people from leaving, another to keep people from getting in.

It seems to be your position that it is also evil to keep people from getting in. I disagree in principle - I think that each society is entitled to decide, who and under which conditions can join them. (Maybe I misunderstood and you had issues with US wall in particular and not the idea of guarded borders in general - in this case I apologize).

This does not mean that "I see no problem with the border wall of US". I am simply not sufficiently familiar with the situation there. It is entirely possible that the policy adopted there is indeed stupid and harmful to people both within and without, but I'd have to know a lot more to have a firm opinion here.
All I'm saying is, restricting entry is not evil a priori. Keeping your kids locked in your basement is not the same as keeping neighbors' kids locked out.

 

[Gorbles]

I think that each society is entitled to decide

This would, ironically, only be accurate with a socialist or otherwise collectivist approach to deciding.

This doesn't happen. Which is also why the family comparisons fall flat, because it's not a couple of parents deciding on something to do with their kids (who, it bears mentioning, can absolutely make bad value judgements and overly restrict who their kids interact with for a number of reasons).

Once again we have you changing the context, this time from "border policy" to "who a parent's kids get to play with". The conclusions drawn in either case don't map to the other.

(updated for grammar)

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't think you need socialism to have borders be a manifestation of the society's desire. Ideally, it would be democracy. But even if that component wasn't under direct democratic control, you could also just have tacit acceptance without real complaint. Of course, that's harder to measure.

One of capitalism's strengths is that people have an instinctive understanding of property, which means that enough people just tacitly accept that someone owns something. Of course, getting it into people's minds that you own something legitimately is a task. But sometimes it's easier than others.

The covid rescue programs caused massive asset inflation. I guess some people are happy to pull that out of inflation involving goods and services, but I think that's an artificial divide. I think a nifty analysis would be looking at total acid inflation compared to total household debt reduction.

But you know there's a problem with the setup when the economy grinds to a halt, and the people who own the economy end up feeling richer as a result.

 

[Gorbles]

Of course, that's harder to measure.

Yes, exactly. And thus, harder to claim.

 

[Plains-Cow]

The Amish aren't necessarily anti new tech, iirc they have meetings to discuss the sociological impacts of adopting each new tech which imo is pretty smart (and every family should have before they get their kid the latest gadget)

I have never heard nor seen this happening within Amish circles. Are they Mennonites or some other offshoot?

Mostly I just see Amish try to formulate work-arounds (see: excuses) to get new tech into their life, like hiring non-Amish to use them. A classic example is that Amish won't drive, but some will hire non-Amish to drive them around.

 

[Yeekim]

This would, ironically, only be accurate with a socialist or otherwise collectivist approach to deciding.

You lost me here. Why is simple representative democracy not good enough?

(who, it bears mentioning, can absolutely make bad value judgements and overly restrict who their kids interact with for a number of reasons).

Sure they can. Just like you can have an overly restrictive immigration policy. Or overly permissive one.

 

[Gorbles]

You lost me here. Why is simple representative democracy not good enough?

Because society doesn't decide. We (arguably) elect representatives who decide, nominally in our interests but often mostly in theirs. The flaws of a lot of Western democracies - while still called democracies - are well-known, I don't really need to bang on about them.

If representatives truly represented their constituents, and knowledge and information was far less partisan than it is, maybe we could say the system is working as well as we can reasonably intend it to be. I'm not aiming for perfection, but the bar is currently so low to the ground in a lot of Western nations with regards to feeling represented by our political parties that it's become a running joke. The US (being the running example here) and the UK are two obvious and easy examples of this.

Sure they can. Just like you can have an overly restrictive immigration policy.

So why are you attempting to phrase it as situations where one is acceptable and one is not? If we're talking about shades of grey, I wouldn't use parenting examples where one is flat-out abusive and one is "okay if done right", because (like I keep trying to demonstrate to Hygro) that's effectively reducing it to "good" vs. "bad". "acceptable (shade of grey)" vs. "unacceptable (shade of grey)". Which discounts the perspective of those on the outside of the wall (but again, repeating myself here r.e. what I've also said to Hygro).

Notably, in terms of Western intervention, we have a good history of bombing the living crud out of the areas we also don't want to accept immigrants from, so the "wall to stop getting people in" really doesn't deserve to be as devoid of context as it's being presented as (in terms of being "more good" / "less evil").

 

[Narz]

I have never heard nor seen this happening within Amish circles. Are they Mennonites or some other offshoot?

Not sure I saw this in a youtube documentary about the Amish maybe 10-15 years ago

Mostly I just see Amish try to formulate work-arounds (see: excuses) to get new tech into their life, like hiring non-Amish to use them. A classic example is that Amish won't drive, but some will hire non-Amish to drive them around.

Lol Jews are good @ this too. Not allowed to turn on lights on the sabbath but you have pay a goy shabbas boy to do it for you

 

[Plains-Cow]

Not sure I saw this in a youtube documentary about the Amish maybe 10-15 years ago

Lol Jews are good @ this too. Not allowed to turn on lights on the sabbath but you have pay a goy shabbas boy to do it for you

Weird how they think that using/doing these things risks them going to hell, but are totally cool with just hiring someone else to...I guess, go to hell for them so they can get driven around/turn on lights?