If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
How old are you?
15?
Just responding in the spirit in which it was posted.
No one else seems to have a problem understanding my posts. And (as I keep repeating), I'm hardly in the position to write a fucking thesis. If there is a link which backs up my position then I'll post it. That's debate.
But for the record - LabRat is not an anarchist because the anarchist tradition comes from a class analysis of society and from a position of being against the private ownership of the means of production ("Property is theft"). Any political history book will tell you this. Free market libertarians only started using the term "anarchist" in the 1950's, whereas traditional anarchism has a much longer history.
The US is not socialist because it does not have industry and services owned and operated by the state or by collectives. It is an economy based on capitalist enterprise. Again, any sixth form student should know this stuff.
Can someone translate this please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
The "spirit in which it was posted" was perfectly sound, if not sarcastic. You hate systems like the US. Someone saying that system you hate exhibits characteristics similar to which you base your beliefs on causes you to vehemantly deny this by researching other people's analyses and posting them here.
What drugs are you on?
The US has what exactly in common with socialism?
35% of the economy is controlled by the state through coercion,
Medicare is beginning to be socialised,
Welfare,
Explosion of government spending,
The federal reserve banking system,
Protectionist tarrifs,
School vouchers,
Farm subsidies,
Iraq (central planning, ridiculous no bid contracts such as halliburton, awarding contracts to american businesses only, cirfews on civilians, taxation, the INA etc),
Press censorship,
The FDA (bannign perfectly good Canadian drugs because they were *gasp* made in Canada)
One of your sources even says "market economies in the United States and other capitalist countries have integrated aspects of socialist economic planning. Democratic countries typically place legal limits on the centralization of capital through anti-trust laws and limits on monopolies"
So imagine yourself as an anarcho capitalist and you can see why they would think the US is socialist. Anything that isnt a total free market to them is socialist.
I can no more imagine myself as an free market-libertarian than I can as the queen of England....
None of that adds up to socialism.
"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. "
The US does not have any industry controlled by the government, so it is not socialist on that ground. However, most of the points shown in my above post show distrubution of resources by a central government. Hence the US exhibits socialist characteristics.
They are totally out of it if they think they are going be given any power by the US, they can't. Of course that leaves Bush and company in power and I don't like that either.
For everyone's own good, the EU and the US need to learn how to work better together. We can't rely on the UN and you shouldn't have to just follow Bush. I don't have an answer.
Great post Lab Rat.
and when they do its moskite time!
They will probably try to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is pointless. Israel can do nothing to end Iran as a nation.
Can bunker busters even penetrate the mountains and caves which they built thier facilities under? They didnt do much good in Afghanistan to those supposed alqaeda/taliban caves.
I’d like to explain my anti-UN position clearer. Bush is bombing Iraq without the UN’s approval that makes him a bad boy for many Europeans. But didn’t Bush Senior and Clinton do the same? The only difference is they were smart enough to get the UN sanction and in this way to create an illusion of legality of the war. But please answer a simple question, if a bomb that is dropped on your head had Koffin Anand’s signature on it would that make you happier?
To Blagsta. It seems you are so mad at me not because of my opinions but because I use the word Anarchist. I would be glad to hand you a present but sorry I don’t want to give this excellent word up to commies. It’s enough that the other nice word, Liberalism is stolen by you. I don’t intend to give you a monopoly on all good words, I’m afraid I will stay without any vocabulary at all.
So anyway Labrat - now you're an "anarchist" that supports the US but not the UN.
Thats nice.
"bag of fucking snakes" or what?
They are a corrupt mess. (I'm not pro war.)
I really think you need to go back to school. Or at least read some political history. As it is, you're making an utter fool of yourself.
You got a source for that figure? And which industries exactly are state owned in the US?
Its funny how you like to deny reality all the time. Are you well?
I guessed it was around 35% and i was wrong. The figure is much higher.
Growth in federal spending.
Public sector employment growth.
Quoted from an atimes.com article:
Transfer payments