America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

While I haven't watched it and therefore can't be positive it's an issue, experience tells me that this is full of profanity and you should probably warn people of this (according to the AUP).

Thanks, but why would you think it is full with profanity?

 

[TexRex]

Thanks, but why would you think it is full with profanity?

Because the show tends to be. Is it not?

 

[Rallywagon]

Thanks, but why would you think it is full with profanity?

Really dude? I mean, I am contrarian as can be, but why on earth are you arguing that? he swears within the first minute. Put the warning up before you make a mod have to do it for you.

 

[DK]

A good episode of last week tonightexaining much better then me, what I have been worrying about concerning Trump. Without being accused of calling trump is hitler (which I never did)

Oh boy, it's strawman (strawflake, perhaps?) time!

 

[Johnnypenso]

Really dude? I mean, I am contrarian as can be, but why on earth are you arguing that? he swears within the first minute. Put the warning up before you make a mod have to do it for you.

Thanks, but why would you think it is full with profanity?

Did you watch the video before you put it up or just read the title?

 

[Danoff]

Remember that the US is profoundly anti-socialist.

...while being currently a socialist nation.

 

[Rallywagon]

...while being currently a socialist nation.

Are we? We have some socialist methodologies, but I don't know that id say america is socialist. If anything we are a corpotocracy or prehaps an oligarchy with some socialist constructs for added complacency.

 

[Danoff]

Are we? We have some socialist methodologies, but I don't know that id say america is socialist. If anything we are a corpotocracy or prehaps an oligarchy with some socialist constructs for added complacency.

I think that pretty much speaks for itself. I'll add that basically the bottom half in terms of income pays no federal income tax (they do pay a part of that social security number).

 

[Liquid]

Now I know there is no absolute definition of socialism or a socialist government/country but from that, you could pretty much say any government in history which uses taxation to fund anything is socialist, which is a bit of a dramatic exaggeration.

 

[Danoff]

Now I know there is no absolute definition of socialism or a socialist government/country but from that, you could pretty much say any government in history which uses taxation to fund anything is socialist, which is a bit of a dramatic exaggeration.

Only if you don't try to think about it. The US government spending (at all levels) is 36% of the GDP. Federal spending is approx. 22% of GDP, and over 60% of that is spent on social stipends, healthcare, welfare programs, subsidies, housing, and more that would fall into the category of socialism. All of it heavily disproportionately paid for by the top earners in the country. 40% of our tax revenue comes from 1% of the country. More than the bottom 90% of the country combined.

So... it's socialist. Maybe it's not the pure definition of a perfect socialist system, but nothing is. I can't think of any escape from classifying the US as socialist, and having been socialist for a very long time.

 

[UKMikey]

Now I know there is no absolute definition of socialism or a socialist government/country but from that, you could pretty much say any government in history which uses taxation to fund anything is socialist, which is a bit of a dramatic exaggeration.

Not just socialist - they all violate our human rights, apparently.

 

[Danoff]

Not just socialist - they all violate our human rights, apparently.

Give me an example of a country that doesn't.

 

[Liquid]

Only if you don't try to think about it.

No need to assume that I couldn't.

The US budget is 36% of the GDP, and over 60% of that is spent on social stipends, healthcare, welfare programs, subsidies, housing, and more that would fall into the category of socialism. All of it heavily disproportionately paid for by the top earners in the country. 40% of our tax revenue comes from 1% of the country. More than the bottom 90% of the country.

40% of tax revenue coming from 1% of the country is logical given that they earn more. Even if you had one singular tax bracket, the top earners would still pay a numerically higher figure than the lowest earners. I don't see the relevance of that unless your point is that it's unfair for higher earners to pay higher percentages of income tax, with which I would agree; to me, tax brackets are unfair and a flat tax rate is the way to do it, if income tax is to be levied at all.

It's a wonder why so many people appear to be unhappy with the United States' social and welfare programmes given that so much money is spent on them. Governments collecting tax money is one thing but it's quite another to know how to effectively and efficiently spend it. And yes, I appreciate that you do not believe that the US government should be spending in those areas anyway.

So... it's socialist. Maybe it's not the pure definition of a perfect socialist system, but nothing is.

Thus you agree with my post that there is no absolute definition. Some countries are more socialist than the United States, others are less socialist.

I can't think of any escape from classifying the US as socialist, and having been socialist for a very long time.

I don't want this to turn into another "The US isn't a democracy, it's a republic" eyeroll but like with most arguments that happen on this board, it always seems to lie somewhere between the two. There are definitely elements of socialism in the United States, that's irrefutable. But it's obviously capitalist in other areas too. It's both. At the same time. Partly socialist, party capitalist. And other -isms apply too, no doubt. Which parts and how much of each? That's not for me to say but surely you (not you specifically, general you) can avoid a binary argument. I really don't get the "It's this" versus "No, it's that" style of argument and debate. It's a complex issue; it can't be boiled down to a single -ism like that.

Give me an example of a country that doesn't.

I can't and it's not a point I would defend. There isn't a government in the world which doesn't violate the rights of its citizens in some way or another. It's simply a question of magnitude.

 

[Danoff]

40% of tax revenue coming from 1% of the country is logical given that they earn more. Even if you had one singular tax bracket, the top earners would still pay a numerically higher figure than the lowest earners. I don't see the relevance of that unless your point is that it's unfair for higher earners to pay higher percentages of income tax, with which I would agree; to me, tax brackets are unfair and a flat tax rate is the way to do it, if income tax is to be levied at all.

Logical if you assume a socialist goal.

Thus you agree with my post that there is no absolute definition. Some countries are more socialist than the United States, others are less socialist.

Absolutely.

There are definitely elements of socialism in the United States, that's irrefutable. But it's obviously capitalist in other areas too. It's both. At the same time. Partly socialist, party capitalist. And other -isms apply too, no doubt. Which parts and how much of each? That's not for me to say but surely you (not you specifically, general you) can avoid a binary argument. I really don't get the "It's this" versus "No, it's that" style of argument and debate. It's a complex issue; it can't be boiled down to a single -ism like that.

Yea it's a blend, so is every country on Earth that is thought of as socialist. Americans tend to think that the US is not socialist, but Europe (and all countries therein) is (for example). And don't realize that the difference between the US brand of socialism and the European brand of socialism is actually not all that significant.

Given the way the term socialist is used to apply to lots of nations of the world with blends of socialist theory and capitalist theory, the US is socialist. I don't see any reason to apply selective rigor to the word when discussing the US but not when discussing various European nations.

 

[UKMikey]

Give me an example of a country that doesn't.

I asked you in the referenced post and you couldn't. Why would I even try?

I wonder why they buy into it though given that the fair option would presumably be to let non tax payers starve and die.

 

[Danoff]

I asked you in the referenced post and you couldn't. Why would I even try?

Your "apparently" made it seem like you disagree with that sentiment. I figured if you disagreed that you'd have a counterexample to demonstrate that it's wrong.

 

[Liquid]

Given the way the term socialist is used to apply to lots of nations of the world with blends of socialist theory and capitalist theory, this US is socialist. I don't see any reason to apply selective rigor to the word when discussing the US but not when discussing various European nations.

That's fair. I guess it's down to personal interpretation; even with that whole US vs Europe socialism divide, I wouldn't describe a lot of European countries as socialist.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the Wikipedia "List of socialist states" and found it quite interesting. Of all the countries to have ever explicitly described themselves as socialist at any point in their history, the only non-Iron Curtain one in Europe is Portugal; it declared itself as such under its 1976 constitution and continues to do so today. The only American countries on that list are Cuba and Guyana, both of which also continue to do so today.

Just thought it makes for an interesting thought; countries that describe themselves as socialist and countries which have had socialist rule or socialist policies. de jure vs de facto.

 

[UKMikey]

Your "apparently" made it seem like you disagree with that sentiment. I figured if you disagreed that you'd have a counterexample to demonstrate that it's wrong.

What sentiment? I'm trying hard not to make a value judgment on whether wealth distribution should be a thing or not. Just wondering whether a human right is meaningful if no country in the world acts to enforce it. Whether it's something towards which we as a species should be working.

 

[Danoff]

What sentiment? I'm trying hard not to make a value judgment on whether wealth distribution should be a thing or not. Just wondering whether a human right is meaningful if no country in the world acts to enforce it.

Almost every country in the world enforces human rights to varying degrees (I know of no exceptions, although it's possible North Korea pulls it off). And every country in the world violates human rights to varying degrees (I know of no exceptions). They're meaningful only when not protected. When human rights are perfectly protected, they're just a philosophical discussion. When they're not protected, they're a motive for change.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Thanks, but why would you think it is full with profanity?

Because he said "Experience tells me" which means he's seen the show before or he's seen Oliver's work. Not that hard to figure out, also it's HBO and they curse on nearly everything that isn't for kids. So why you constantly ask questions to very arbitrary and obvious or already given conclusions is hard to understand, even after all this time and still seeing you do such.

 

[Danoff]

That's fair. I guess it's down to personal interpretation; even with that whole US vs Europe socialism divide, I wouldn't describe a lot of European countries as socialist.

Out of curiosity, I looked up the Wikipedia "List of socialist states" and found it quite interesting. Of all the countries to have ever explicitly described themselves as socialist at any point in their history, the only non-Iron Curtain one in Europe is Portugal; it declared itself as such under its 1976 constitution and continues to do so today. The only American countries on that list are Cuba and Guyana, both of which also continue to do so today.

Just thought it makes for an interesting thought; countries that describe themselves as socialist and countries which have had socialist rule or socialist policies. de jure vs de facto.

I was trying to point out the dichotomy of actually being socialist vs. admitting to yourself (as a nation) that you're socialist. I had thought it was a uniquely American thing. Apparently it's more of a phenomenon than I realized. Socialism is something you get called, apparently, but rarely call yourself.

 

[ryzno]

It's a wonder why so many people appear to be unhappy with the United States' social and welfare programmes given that so much money is spent on them.

Cause the money is poorly used. All the money they spend, nothing changes.

 

[UKMikey]

Almost every country in the world enforces human rights to varying degrees (I know of no exceptions, although it's possible North Korea pulls it off). And every country in the world violates human rights to varying degrees (I know of no exceptions). They're meaningful only when not protected. When human rights are perfectly protected, they're just a philosophical discussion. When they're not protected, they're a motive for change.

If this is the case then I wonder why there isn't an more of an international movement towards enforcing this universally ignored right and which country or countries are closest to doing so.

 

[Danoff]

If this is the case then I wonder why there isn't an more of an international movement towards enforcing this universally ignored right and which country or countries are closest to doing so.

What universally ignored right are you talking about? In the US, for example, marijuana is illegal (and that's a rights violation). But that's not the case in other countries. There's also a minimum wage, and that one is probably closer to being a universal violation. Also the US tax code violates equal protection, that's probably close to being universally violated.

Why isn't there more of a movement toward enforcing the right to hire someone at any agreed upon price? Or to enforce the law equally among the citizens of the nation? Probably because democracy. The majority consistently and independently favors trampling the minority in these instances, and democratic nations allow majorities to determine rights (improperly). See my signature below.

 

[Exorcet]

If this is the case then I wonder why there isn't an more of an international movement towards enforcing this universally ignored right and which country or countries are closest to doing so.

I'd think security would have something to do with it, generally the harsher life is, the more people are willing to take from others to protect themselves. Modern legal rights have not always existed of course. For taxes to be done away with might require significant technological and economic progress to make people comfortable with the idea.

 

[UKMikey]

What universally ignored right are you talking about?

I think @Exorcet gets what I was trying to say. The post I quoted from you appeared to me to equate any form of wealth redistribution with human rights violation, yet you couldn't give me any examples of western democracies which didn't have some kind of wealth redistribution to try and ensure their poorest citizens didn't starve to death.

Now that you've clarified that you think democracies are some kind of human rights violation, I think I understand your position a lot more clearly.

 

[Danoff]

Now that you've clarified that you think democracies are some kind of human rights violation, I think I understand your position a lot more clearly.

Democracies are not a human rights violation. Allowing legal protection of rights to be determined via democracy (which is what all examples of democracies on Earth that I know of do) can result in human rights violations. I explained why wealth redistribution is popular in democracies. The majority is often willing to trample the rights of the minority. Wealth redistribution is a violation of property rights.

 

[UKMikey]

Democracies are not a human rights violation. Allowing legal protection of rights to be determined via democracy (which is what all examples of democracies on Earth that I know of do) can result in human rights violations. I explained why wealth redistribution is popular in democracies. The majority is often willing to trample the rights of the minority. Wealth redistribution is a violation of property rights.

What I fail to understand is why more of these oppressed minorities don't exercise their rights to move somewhere which doesn't infringe upon their property rights via wealth redistribution.

 

[Danoff]

What I fail to understand is why more of these oppressed minorities don't exercise their rights to move somewhere which doesn't infringe upon their rights via wealth redistribution.

First of all, as we're all so painfully reminded of, it's not always your prerogative to immigrate wherever you choose. People and companies do relocate to the nations which treat them the best, that part is pretty well known. But I don't know of any examples where equal protection under the law is not violated in the form of an unequally applied tax code. And I don't know of any place that doesn't trample property rights in one fashion or another.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, France is still violating the rights of their citizens by outlawing the Burka right? I suppose you think those people should just get the hell out?

 

[UKMikey]

First of all, as we're all so painfully reminded of, it's not always your prerogative to immigrate wherever you choose. People and companies do relocate to the nations which treat them the best, that part is pretty well known. But I don't know of any examples where equal protection under the law is not violated in the form of an unequally applied tax code. And I don't know of any place that doesn't trample property rights in one fashion or another.

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, France is still violating the rights of their citizens by outlawing the Burka right? I suppose you think those people should just get the hell out?

It's not up to me what they do as I'm not suggesting people should or shouldn't do anything. But if every country tramples property rights I was trying to determine why there isn't more of a popular protest movement against this universally trampled right.