Wedded to a Welfare State

[Flame Of Liberty]

Some statistics from September 2005:

To this day, the East is still unable to survive without government subsidies amounting to some €70 to €80 billion a year.

only about 60 percent of eastern Germans capable of gainful employment are in fact employed. The average unemployment rate in the region tops 18 percent. According to the Institute for Economic Research in Halle, eastern Germany is short of about 2 million jobs;

migration away from the East continues unabated, especially among young people. According to the Dohnanyi report, "eastern Germany is threatened by a dramatic aging of the population and a dangerous loss of especially well-trained workers and its creative force";

the economy in the new German states has been growing more slowly than in the West for years. The catch-up process has stalled, leading to an ever-widening gap between East and West;

the East lacks medium-sized businesses when compared with the western standard. Companies in the East are generally too small and short on capital;

the costs of reunification consume four percent of the gross domestic product annually. But because economic growth falls short of this figure, aid to the East is eroding the West's economic base;

billions in aid and subsidization policies are no longer effective. Without a "change in course," according to the report, the "need for West-East transfers of funds can even be expected to increase in the future.

Spiegel Online

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Oct 7 2005, 09:23 AM
Yeah, two things. First, it doesn’t matter how many pictures of Germany are being painted. What matters is – which one is correct? You tell me how 30 per cent and still rising unemployment rate (in some parts of eastern states) is not a gloomy picture of German economy. Germany might be the largest exporter in the world right now, but with the way things are going, it won’t last for long. You may want to take notes of all those companies shifting their production to East. Prime examples are the car manufacturers. They are closing down factories in Germany, and opening new ones in different countries. You tell me how is Germany going to remain the largest exporter in the world when things are going this way?

And second, what is up with this obsession of yours, where you bring my alleged "utopianism" into every single discussion? It has got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Actually your alleged Utopia helps give us perspective on what you are actually saying FoL, because a lot of what you say seems to us anyways that it is completely out of left field.

Should we take your spin on things as pure fact? Or should we look at where you've previously been to decide that?

Just an FYI, there aren't a lot of former Eastern block Countries doing great, and without a doubt the welfare state trying to prop up its former half is going to cost a lot of money. But what should they do?

Just segregate East Germany back off and say they don't want it? Sure, they'd have a great looking pocket book then.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Oct 7 2005, 09:23 AM
And second, what is up with this obsession of yours, where you bring my alleged "utopianism" into every single discussion? It has got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Er... I thought it was obvious. Your 'cheap shot' at Socialism deserved a 'cheap shot' at your Utopian Anarcho-Capitalism. I'm surprised you didn't put that together. If you're going to make comments on other ideologies, you'd better be prepared to defend your own.

I bring up your ideology consistently because you bring it up consistently, as well as your 'hatred' for all things 'government'. Most of your participation in the OT Forum (look it up) revolves around your philosophical beliefs.

Also, if I can find a place in Canada during the mid-late 1990's that had 30% unemployment, much like your 'parts of states in East Germany', does that mean Canada was in the same place Germany is now in this regard? Spiralling downward in an economic tail-spin?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 7 2005, 11:36 AM
Ahhh..I didnt know bleeding heart was an insult. Since its broadly defined as meaning sympathetic.

Is that what YOU define 'Bleeding Heart Liberal' as? Being 'sympathetic'?

If you've never heard the term 'Bleeding Heart' used as an insult to emasculate the Left, you're living under a rock.

As far as I know, 'bleeding heart' carries negative connotations just like 'redneck', meant to pigeon-hole someone in a derogatory way.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 7 2005, 04:22 PM
Is that what YOU define 'Bleeding Heart Liberal' as? Being 'sympathetic'?

If you've never heard the term 'Bleeding Heart' used as an insult to emasculate the Left, you're living under a rock.

As far as I know, 'bleeding heart' carries negative connotations just like 'redneck', meant to pigeon-hole someone in a derogatory way.

Yes that's what IVE always defined it as...and apparently so do dictionaries.

bleeding heart
n.
Any of various perennial herbs of the genus Dicentra, especially the Old World D. spectabilis, having arching clusters of pink to red or sometimes white, heart-shaped flowers.
A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited.

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...eeding%20heart


Quite a bit like calling someone a bigot and "pigeon-holing" them in a negative way....no question.

Hilarious...in a sad way.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by CaramonLS+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Actually your alleged Utopia helps give us perspective on what you are actually saying FoL, because a lot of what you say seems to us anyways that it is completely out of left field.[/b]

That’s fair enough, if Ag feels like he needs to bring it up every single time, be my guest. However, he hasn’t proved that my views are utopian, but let’s just forget that and keep pigeon holing me as a utopian. That’s the left wing way – don’t prove anything, but keep repeating it, because we all know that 100 times repeated lie becomes a truth.

Originally posted by CaramonLS+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaramonLS)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Should we take your spin on things as pure fact? Or should we look at where you've previously been to decide that?[/b]

That is up to you. But maybe you should prove where I am spinning things.

<!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS@
Just an FYI, there aren't a lot of former Eastern block Countries doing great[/quote]
Well, I don’t know about former Eastern block countries like Moldova, but I know how so called V4 countries (Poland, Slovakia, Czech rep. and Hungary) are doing, and while they aren’t doing exactly great (which country is?), they are certainly progressing, while countries like Germany, France, Italy or Greece are stagnating. You have countries, more or less willing to do what is necessary (reforms) and you have “old” countries pushing that proverbial snowball of trouble in front of them.

<!--QuoteBegin-CaramonLS
…and without a doubt the welfare state trying to prop up its former half is going to cost a lot of money. But what should they do? Just segregate East Germany back off and say they don't want it? Sure, they'd have a great looking pocket book then.[/quote]
They should realize that subsidies and gov interventions are not the way to go. How about economic reforms instead? But no, German voters prefer Schroder and post-communist parties. Way to go there…

[Agamemnon]

Yes that's what IVE always defined it as...and apparently so do dictionaries.

BS. If you truly believe the term 'Bleeding-Heart Liberal' means nothing more that 'sympathetic', then you're an idiot, a liar, and wrong. Your own dictionary definition uses the term 'excessive'.

A person who is considered excessively sympathetic toward those who claim to be underprivileged or exploited.

Right. Excessive. ie. Wrong. A word used to 'pigeon-hole' your opposition, used for personal, subjective reasons. This is a 'name' that you call people 'on the other side'. It is not an objective term that you're using in the Dictionary sense.

And the thought that you'd even imply that you don't associate _very_ negative connotations with 'Bleeding-Heart Liberal' is both laughable and patently untrue. You used it in a derogatory fashion. Your attempt to back down from YOUR true definition of the word by quoting the Dictionary is laughable.

You're transparent, Tranny.

[Agamemnon]

That’s fair enough, if Ag feels like he needs to bring it up every single time, be my guest. However, he hasn’t proved that my views are utopian, but let’s just forget that and keep pigeon holing me as a utopian. That’s the left wing way – don’t prove anything, but keep repeating it, because we all know that 100 times repeated lie becomes a truth.

Implying that I'm the only one you hammers you for your completely unrealistic 'political theories' is way off base. A dozen people from this site have voiced the exact same issues I have with your Anarcho-Capitalism.

I feel like I've told you this dozens of times, but I guess I have to keep saying it. Your 'political theories' much more resemble Philosophy than 'Reality'. You can't take the Real World, which works by Real Rules, and then take single cases and apply your Anarcho-Capitalism as the way to go.

You think all governments are thieves who steal from us? Totally acceptable, I don't have a problem with that. But in a thread that deals with 'reality', your completely philosophical rules are inapplicable. Plain and Simple.

To have a discussion about international politics, one first has to accept the Right of Nation-States to exist. If you believe that Governments are thieves who steal form the populations of the earth, then you're not likely to contribue anything of merit to a 'reality' based discussion.

That's the problem I have with your Anarcho-Capitalist 'Utopianism', and obviously the reason I keep using the term 'Utopian'. I think everyone could think of their 'dream-state' (or lack thereof), but they don't then take their fantasy theory and then apply it to real international events. Oil and Water.

And you've been told that by MANY more people here than I, so don't make it out like I'm the only one who disagrees with you. Start a thread espousing your theories and fleshing them out. See if you're right and I'm just an *******.

[transplant99]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 8 2005, 01:00 PM
BS. If you truly believe the term 'Bleeding-Heart Liberal' means nothing more that 'sympathetic', then you're an idiot, a liar, and wrong. Your own dictionary definition uses the term 'excessive'.

Right. Excessive. ie. Wrong. A word used to 'pigeon-hole' your opposition, used for personal, subjective reasons. This is a 'name' that you call people 'on the other side'. It is not an objective term that you're using in the Dictionary sense.

And the thought that you'd even imply that you don't associate _very_ negative connotations with 'Bleeding-Heart Liberal' is both laughable and patently untrue. You used it in a derogatory fashion. Your attempt to back down from YOUR true definition of the word by quoting the Dictionary is laughable.

You're transparent, Tranny.

Well since you know me so well...NOT....please tell me what I mean when I use the term?

Its always meant exactly what it says....overly sympathetic. Period.

You are a sad individual when confronted with truths...and resort to name calling.

Pathetic and petty. As usual.

[Moderator]

Please stay on topic and leave the personal attack comments out. Thanks.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Oct 9 2005, 02:09 AM
Implying that I'm the only one you hammers you for your completely unrealistic 'political theories' is way off base. A dozen people from this site have voiced the exact same issues I have with your Anarcho-Capitalism.

I feel like I've told you this dozens of times, but I guess I have to keep saying it. Your 'political theories' much more resemble Philosophy than 'Reality'. You can't take the Real World, which works by Real Rules, and then take single cases and apply your Anarcho-Capitalism as the way to go.

You think all governments are thieves who steal from us? Totally acceptable, I don't have a problem with that. But in a thread that deals with 'reality', your completely philosophical rules are inapplicable. Plain and Simple.

To have a discussion about international politics, one first has to accept the Right of Nation-States to exist. If you believe that Governments are thieves who steal form the populations of the earth, then you're not likely to contribue anything of merit to a 'reality' based discussion.

That's the problem I have with your Anarcho-Capitalist 'Utopianism', and obviously the reason I keep using the term 'Utopian'. I think everyone could think of their 'dream-state' (or lack thereof), but they don't then take their fantasy theory and then apply it to real international events. Oil and Water.

And you've been told that by MANY more people here than I, so don't make it out like I'm the only one who disagrees with you. Start a thread espousing your theories and fleshing them out. See if you're right and I'm just an *******.

I'm one of those on Ag's side. A part of the "Dirty Dozen". I just don't have time to get into it recently, and no matter what logic and facts you are presented with that reflect a contrarian view to your politics you dimiss it as "leftist dogma".

I prefer to snicker at your assertions as a lurker in these politico threads. If you actually start addressing the counter arguements to your worldview, I may think of joining in.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Implying that I'm the only one you hammers you for your completely unrealistic 'political theories' is way off base. A dozen people from this site have voiced the exact same issues I have with your Anarcho-Capitalism.[/b]

Yes, but you are the one who constantly sneaks this utopian remark into every single post you make. I don’t call you Fidel in every reply to you.

Originally posted by Agamemnon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I feel like I've told you this dozens of times, but I guess I have to keep saying it. Your 'political theories' much more resemble Philosophy than 'Reality'. You can't take the Real World, which works by Real Rules, and then take single cases and apply your Anarcho-Capitalism as the way to go.[/b]

My "political theories" are not full blown reality because demand for them is not big enough. That’s all. Soccer is not big in the US, because there is little demand for it. However, does that mean that popularity of soccer is utopian? Certainly not. Who knows, thanks to soccer moms, maybe after generation or two soccer will be big in America too.

However, natural law (my utopian political theory, as you call it) is more or less present in every legislative system today. Thanks to this element they work. As long as the society starts drifting away too strongly, conflicts will unavoidably result. What matters is degree of deviation, as long as it is too strong, society ends up in chaos (communist, fascist societies) and they ultimately fail. Therefore, current liberal democracies tend to keep at least "some amount" of natural law present in their legal systems. As long as demand for natural law goes, if people prefer fewer conflicts, they have no choice, really.

Originally posted by Agamemnon
You think all governments are thieves who steal from us? Totally acceptable, I don't have a problem with that. But in a thread that deals with 'reality', your completely philosophical rules are inapplicable. Plain and Simple.

German government steals money from its citizens and proceeds to waste it. German government, through economic interventions, cripples economy and makes its citizens poorer than they otherwise would be. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Agamemnon
To have a discussion about international politics, one first has to accept the Right of Nation-States to exist.# If you believe that Governments are thieves who steal form the populations of the earth, then you're not likely to contribue anything of merit to a 'reality' based discussion.

I don’t follow. Why not? Because you say so?

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@
That's the problem I have with your Anarcho-Capitalist 'Utopianism', and obviously the reason I keep using the term 'Utopian'.# I think everyone could think of their 'dream-state' (or lack thereof), but they don't then take their fantasy theory and then apply it to real international events.# Oil and Water.[/quote]
Again, I don`t know what are you talking about? Don`t you strive to make things better? Just because stateless society is not going to happen overnight, I should just pack my bags and accept everything as it is? Every little bit of gained freedom counts, every new person believing in liberty counts. Status quo is not the answer. Progress towards liberty is.

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon
And you've been told that by MANY more people here than I, so don't make it out like I'm the only one who disagrees with you. Start a thread espousing your theories and fleshing them out. See if you're right and I'm just an *******.[/quote]
One question, you seem to be so sure my views are utopian. Have you ever read a single book about this topic? Just one. If you haven’t, you really don’t know what you are talking about. I have read plenty of books on democracy. Have you read one book on anarchocapitalism?

[Agamemnon]

Yes, but you are the one who constantly sneaks this utopian remark into every single post you make. I don’t call you Fidel in every reply to you.

If you can find a post where you can get away with calling me 'Fidel', fire away. I don't exactly consider myself a 'Communist' though, not even close.

But if every person who believes in the practicality of Government is Commie, then I guess Tranny, Dis, and the gang are as raving Communist as I am, because I'm pretty sure that despite our differences, we all believe in the theory of Political Government, regardless of it's specific application.

My "political theories" are not full blown reality because demand for them is not big enough. That’s all. Soccer is not big in the US, because there is little demand for it. However, does that mean that popularity of soccer is utopian? Certainly not. Who knows, thanks to soccer moms, maybe after generation or two soccer will be big in America too.

Soccer is the biggest sport in the world. Anarcho-Capitalism is not the most prevalent Political System in the world. The comparison isn't that great. Soccer has 'proved' it's value outside North America. As far as I can tell, Anarcho-Capitalism does not exist anywhere.

However, natural law (my utopian political theory, as you call it) is more or less present in every legislative system today. Thanks to this element they work. As long as the society starts drifting away too strongly, conflicts will unavoidably result. What matters is degree of deviation, as long as it is too strong, society ends up in chaos (communist, fascist societies) and they ultimately fail. Therefore, current liberal democracies tend to keep at least "some amount" of natural law present in their legal systems. As long as demand for natural law goes, if people prefer fewer conflicts, they have no choice, really.

This is a theory that I can't prove or disprove, as it has no real applicable examples to work with. I'd like more explanation though on how 'every legislative system today' contains elements of 'natural law'. If you mean 'don't hurt other people; don't steal;', etc., then Natural Law is pretty much what I call Common Sense. It's in the application. I believe Common Sense needs, occasionally, to be enforced by an organized body. What I get from you is that it's up to each of us to apply Common Sense correctly, without no outside interference. I think there's an example or two out there that shows that humans will probably tend to 'deviate' from Common Sense with no organization or guidance... even with it.

But we'll never know, because there is no Anarcho-Capitalist 'state-that-is-not-a-state' on this planet. Does Somalia come close?

German government steals money from its citizens and proceeds to waste it. German government, through economic interventions, cripples economy and makes its citizens poorer than they otherwise would be. Plain and simple.

No. What YOU say is that 'All governments steal money from its citizens and proceeds to waste it. All governments, through economic interventions, cripples economy and makes its citizens poorer than they otherwise would be.

This isn't about Germany. You feel the same about every country out there, no?

One question, you seem to be so sure my views are utopian. Have you ever read a single book about this topic? Just one. If you haven’t, you really don’t know what you are talking about. I have read plenty of books on democracy. Have you read one book on anarchocapitalism?

What are you saying? That you're not capable of representing your ideology, and that instead I should read a book about it? Are you being constantly misinterpreted?

You've got me there, I haven't spent any time your political theory. In fact, in my 5 years at University, I can't once recall it being brought up as a Political Theory worth taking any note of. Of course, I was doing Applied Political Science classes, and didn't take a lot of stuff that didn't involve 'Realism'. Idealism is fantastic, and has it's place.

But there are Idealistic arguments, and Realistic arguments, in the Political Dictionary sense of the term. I find you often applying 'Idealism' to 'Realism', ie. in a thread about the Liberals, you'll come out with 'Taxes are the representation of organized theft by illegitimate authoritarian regimes all over the world called Governments'. I don't really have an issue with you believing that, but applying it where it just doesn't fit (ask anyone else in the thread) is irritating. By all means, keep doing it, but you're likely to find the same argument I put forward submitted by others, and I think that's already happened... a lot.

The fact that Anarcho-Capitalism has books written about it does not make it any less Utopian than Communism.

[transplant99]

Way to ignore what has been said to you. Mods will notice.

I can only assume that you are a young 20 somethingoranother who is upset at the world, and REALLY mad that you were proven wrong once AGAIN.

I had a discussion with the blond today, a woman who is a card carrying ACLU member, devoted her entire professional career working for the underpriveleged in legal assistance, worked with 4 different Democratic presidential nominees, and is fairly proud about the term that you take such offense too.

She believes in what she does, says, and what she stands for....what others say be damned. Loves her lot in life and is more than happy to be called a bleeding heart liberal...for her, as the dictionary clearly explains, it means she is sympathetic to the underpriveleged and under-represented.

You are completely opposite. You get thrown off course by a term that LITERALLY should be embraced by you and your kind. Its quite funny actually. She has read this whole thread...something I do NOT encourage her to take part in and her response was what I expected.

Disingenuous and outclassed were two words she mentioned...but I will leave it to you to figure out whom she was reffering too.

Of course i could just be lying and transparent and an idiot and a redneck and wrong. Afterall, you have all the answers for everyone else....clearly.

I refer to the 9/11 thread of a year and a month ago for proof and every word written by your nonsensical/Bush hatin/conservative slappin person since.... and your ability to know everyone inside and out.

Credibility....zero.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 9 2005, 07:17 PM
Way to ignore what has been said to you. Mods will notice.

I can only assume that you are a young 20 somethingoranother who is upset at the world, and REALLY mad that you were proven wrong once AGAIN.

I had a discussion with the blond today, a woman who is a card carrying ACLU member, devoted her entire professional career working for the underpriveleged in legal assistance, worked with 4 different Democratic presidential nominees, and is fairly proud about the term that you take such offense too.

She believes in what she does, says, and what she stands for....what others say be damned. Loves her lot in life and is more than happy to be called a bleeding heart liberal...for her, as the dictionary clearly explains, it means she is sympathetic to the underpriveleged and under-represented.

You are completely opposite. You get thrown off course by a term that LITERALLY should be embraced by you and your kind. Its quite funny actually. She has read this whole thread...something I do NOT encourage her to take part in and her response was what I expected.

Disingenuous and outclassed were two words she mentioned...but I will leave it to you to figure out whom she was reffering too.

Of course i could just be lying and transparent and an idiot and a redneck and wrong. Afterall, you have all the answers for everyone else....clearly.

I refer to the 9/11 thread of a year and a month ago for proof and every word written by your nonsensical/Bush hatin/conservative slappin person since.... and your ability to know everyone inside and out.

Credibility....zero.

Some people don't mind being called a redneck either, so I guess it's okay if I call you that?

It sort of depends on the context, don't it?

Do you really think that anyone believes it's a compliment when you call me a "bleeding heart liberal"?

Anyhow, here's a random selection of words I've come across in this thread:

sad
pathetic
sad
disingenous
sad
credibility....zero
outclassed
petty
you
are
a
sad
individual
when
confronted
with
truths...
and
resort
to
name
calling