Socialists?

[CamelCursive]

You think a mod would delete both of our posts because I reported? It was the OP of the thread.

I'm not even disagreeing with you in principle ITT but you are unbearably autistic and a smug cunt, as evidenced by your ridiculous conspiracy theory about the post deletion and the fact that you thought my last post wasn't calling both of you exceptional.

I'm smug as fuck, and not even ashamed of it.

But hey, I forgive you. I at least admire you sticking to your story.

 

[Foxxo]

Awww, I missed the tone-deaf furry.

 

[Clop]

I'm fine with socialist policies in a capitalist system as long as there are methods of making sure people do not abuse the system and do their best to get their life in order. Capitalism is for people to have every right to succeed, socialist policy is for people to get back up and have another chance at it. Anyone who'd rather stay in the gutter and gain from that system is a scumbag ruining the good help and intentions for everyone.

 

[JektheDumbass]

By American standards, I'm a socialist. By European standards, I'm ultra-capitalist. Basically, I feel the government's purpose is to keep the weak from being crushed by the strong, otherwise stay the fuck out of the way (the US government does neither, somehow manages to be too big where it's not needed and too small for the stuff it should do).

By Asian standards, I don't give a fuck what Asians think unless they're ladies looking to get knocked up with beautiful half-white babies. Then we can talk.

 

[Terminus Est]

I don't mean in the way of "ben shapiro owns the libs, trigger the feminists" type of socialism, because we all know any of those types get laughed out of here, but I was actually curious if there were any Kiwis here who support redistributing the wealth? We talk so much about capitalism and it's wonders, I'd figure I'd see if there's any in here.

Listen up cunt. Want to go for a free complimentary helicopter ride?

 

[Smug Chuckler]

Can't spell socialism without spelling scam.

 

[Voltaire]

I think billionaires should be taxed since they exploited so many people to make that money and regular people have to pay taxes. I guess I'm a socialist for not wanting to suck multi-national corporate cock. If so I accept it.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think billionaires should be taxed since they exploited so many people to make that money and regular people have to pay taxes. I guess I'm a socialist for not wanting to suck multi-national corporate cock. If so I accept it.

Doesn't really help to tax billionaires so that it's put into the state, which is controlled by billionaires.

 

[Bum Driller]

I've already elaborated in the Venezuelan Megathread in A&H about the socialist aspects of Scandinavian social democracies, which happen to be quite familiar to me. All in all, I must say that while this system is nowhere near perfect, and in some ways it's too regulated, it's still the best form of government that has probably ever been created, as it ensures that no-one dies of hunger, lack of housing or easily-curable diseases, and it provides equal opportunities in education for all, regardless of their economic background. Of course, this comes with somewhat heavy taxation, strong social conformity and some very questionable practices like state monopoly in alcohol, which I don't necessarily endorse.

If something, the worst aspect of this kind of society is that it is boring as fuck, as you can practically go to the worst part of the worst "ghetto" we have and be quite sure that you walk away undisturbed(this statement is not applicable to Sweden, though), which in essence means that most of the citizens become somewhat distanced from the reality that the world in general can be quite dangerous and unforgiving place. Other very large negative aspect of this is that it makes the society at large quite stagnant and static, as most people will rather take the easy way provided for them by the state, and are averse to risk-taking or any kind of change, which is after all necessary for any kind of cultural evolution to happen.

So, in essence I currently think that full-on socialism is just as shitty option as most of the people in these forums, but combining certain elements of socialism with regulated free market seems to yield better outcomes than pure, unregulated capitalism does. That is, if we measure those outcomes in the practical material well-being of the average citizens.

 

[CamelCursive]

I can tell that I struck a nerve...

Quiet now, the men are talking.

 

[Voltaire]

Doesn't really help to tax billionaires so that it's put into the state, which is controlled by billionaires.

The way to fix a corrupt system is not to sit idly by and accept it.

 

[CamelCursive]

I think billionaires should be taxed since they exploited so many people to make that money and regular people have to pay taxes. I guess I'm a socialist for not wanting to suck multi-national corporate cock. If so I accept it.

So just out of curiosity, how will you specifically narrow down which billionaires "exploited" people? We already have a legal system that punishes criminal activities, so I'm not sure what you are demanding.

Not everyone who does well got there by fucking people in the ass. One millionaire I know got his wealth by simply making wise investments and being conservative in his luxuries until later in life. The other was a guy the retired from the military and actually started programs to help disabled veterans' families. None of them exploited anyone to get rich.

Your post comes off poorly, I think you need to clarify.

Just because someone uses their money, assets, and influence to succeed doesn't mean it was stolen from others.

 

[The best and greatest]

I don't mean in the way of "ben shapiro owns the libs, trigger the feminists" type of socialism, because we all know any of those types get laughed out of here, but I was actually curious if there were any Kiwis here who support redistributing the wealth? We talk so much about capitalism and it's wonders, I'd figure I'd see if there's any in here.

"Redistributing wealth" is sort of a bullshit buzzword. We "redistributed wealth" when we recently adjusted our tax rates last year or whatever. Hell our entire market system is one long continuous flow of wealth from person to person. This is funny because you speak of the "Redistributing wealth" Mantra as if it wasn't something used in excess by the likes of Shapiro or Limbaugh to drum up fear of radical leftists in America. Don't you think its convenient how this phrase is only ever brought up when leftists talk of social investment on the tax payer dime and not at all when we speak of cutting current investments to reduce the tax burden?

Really stop and think about this: to suggest that the redistribution of wealth is inherently bad is to suggest that the wealth starts of distributed and that any following redistribution afterward is wrong. So the entire global market system that takes material resources from one part of the world to be redistributed here in America? Is that wrong too?

 

[Voltaire]

So just out of curiosity, how will you specifically narrow down which billionaires "exploited" people? We already have a legal system that punishes criminal activities, so I'm not sure what you are demanding.

Not everyone who does well got there by fucking people in the ass. One millionaire I know got his wealth by simply making wise investments and being conservative in his luxuries until later in life. The other was a guy the retired from the military and actually started programs to help disabled veterans' families. None of them exploited anyone to get rich.

Your post comes off poorly, I think you need to clarify.

Just because someone uses their money, assets, and influence to succeed doesn't mean it was stolen from others.

Every billionaire exploited people to get their wealth. They should pay tax just like regular people do. Fiscal policy is not exactly radical idea.

 

[Chichan]

A telling response from a lowly troll who has never read a history book and unironically believes the dumb leftist myth of the Soviet Union winning World War II all by themselves. That is every bit as stupid as the old Republican myth of America winning the war all by themselves.

The Soviets could not have quickly beat the Nazis (if at all) if it weren't for the United States helping them out. The USA was keeping Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan busy, allowing the Soviets to focus more on fighting Germany while also keeping Germany tied up in North Africa, Italy, and later on in France and Belgium.

Stalin knew he could not take on the Axis Powers all at once which is why he signed a neutrality pact with Nazi Germany in 1939, and the Soviets did not enter the war until the summer of 1941 when the Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union and forced the USSR's hand. The USA joined in the war later that year.

You go on about how great Marx and Engels were, but I bet you've never read any of their books.

Hell, if you are a true and honest commie and not some shitposter troll, then you're likely a dumbass SJW Anarcho-Communist college kid who unironically wears Che Guevara shirts and thinks anything slightly to the right of Lenin is fascist.

The only book you ever read was Harry Potter. Maybe you should read Animal Farm and 1984 instead.

(PROTIP: Neither of those books are instruction manuals and George Orwell was a Social Democrat, not a commie)

At the rate we are going I am going to say a mixture of Huxley and Orwell.

 

[CamelCursive]

Every billionaire exploited people to get their wealth. They should pay tax just like regular people do. Fiscal policy is not exactly radical idea.

Show me specifically how they exploited people. Like, direct me to the method. All this sounds like is "Gibsmedat".

Just because you didn't get half of your boss' income doesn't mean you were exploited.

We're reaching levels of smugness that shouldn't even be possible

Your appropriate response is supposed to be "yes, sir". I believe we are done entertaining your meltdowns.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

ITT: people get frothingly mad over something as mundane as an economic policy debate

 

[CamelCursive]

It's always fun to be lectured about "meltdowns" from an internet tough guy that spergs about how he wants to murder people he doesn't like. I'm not bothering with you anymore, have fun.

"You can't be done with me, I'm done with you!"

You are, quite honestly, the most sad case I've ever seen.

Again, socialists aren't people. Stop trying to insinuate that your life has the same value as mine, vermin. That is offensive to humans.

 

[Voltaire]

Show me specifically how they exploited people. Like, direct me to the method. All this sounds like is "Gibsmedat".

Just because you didn't get half of your boss' income doesn't mean you were exploited.


Your appropriate response is supposed to be "yes, sir". I believe we are done entertaining your meltdowns.

You pay taxes and they don't. You haven't addressed that because it doesn't fit your narrative. You aren't interested in geuine conversation.

 

[CamelCursive]

You pay taxes and they don't. You haven't addressed that because it doesn't fit your narrative. You aren't interested in geuine conversation.

Can you show me specifically that billionaires do not pay taxes? Because I'm pretty sure they do. Their income tax is about a quarter of their earnings. And Bill Gates went on record saying he paid somewhere around 10 Billion. That is, demonstrably, "paying taxes". So you're either a liar or stupid. I don't care which one, just as long as you pick one and stick to it to make it easier to shred your arguments.

You say I'm not interested in genuine conversation, but when some pretentious slob on the internet has demonstrably failed to support his idiotic assertion that "all billionaires exploit people" and "billionaires don't pay taxes"- well, that's not going to be genuine. That's someone whining and making objectively baseless statements, like a child with a sense of entitlement- and one that is not entitled to a grown man speaking to it 'genuinely'.

Sit up straight and bring something to the discussion other than umbrage, bitterness, and entitlement and a man may indulge you with a conversation.