Wednesday, December 28, 2011

On the Current Mess in North Korea 1

I'm still waiting for a Kim Jong Dung.

32 comments:

dmarks said...

The Kim dynasty is indeed maximum socialism: the ruling elites own all of the means of production, and there's no alternative media, no Fox News to challenge the ruling elites. The Fairness Doctrine is in full flower there: if Kim thinks it is fair, it gets said. Otherwise, no way.

No corporate personhood either. In fact, for good measure, not only do corporations have no rights as persons, but people have no rights as persons too. North Korea also has the single-payer healthcare that the Left is pushing for.

There's also no need for an "Occupy" movement in North Korea either. That movement's ideals are fully realized in that country, where weathly people in the private sector are outlaws/criminals.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Well, there's certainly a lot of "equality" in regards to outcome. A cautionary tale, indeed.

Rational Nation USA said...

dmrks - Well said.

As Will so aptly summarized... Equality within the masses ACHIEVED in North Korea.

Oh my! Utopia indeed.

w-dervish said...

dmarks - very poorly said. Everything you wrote is a ridiculous over-the-top lie.

Socialism involves seeing that all the citizens of your country are provided for. Clearly that is not happening in North Korea.

The "Fairness Doctrine" involves all sides having their say, not one side.

Single payer advocates believe all citizens are entitled to medical treatment... I don't think that is what is happening in North Korea.

The Left does not want to make wealthy people outlaws, we just think they should pay more in taxes and follow rules which prevent them from taking advantage of everyone else.

dmarks should be ashamed. With this comment he voices his desire to silence those he disagrees with. He wants to silence them by drowning out what they say with his lies.

w-dervish said...

FYI, the purpose of Fox Nooz is not to "challenge the ruling elites". Their purpose is to act as the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. I recall ZERO "challenging" when bush was president.

dmarks said...

WD, you were up to bat here a dozen times and struck out each time. None of your assertions was even close to true.

WD said: "dmarks - very poorly said. Everything you wrote is a ridiculous over-the-top lie."

You can't name one thing that was a lie.

WD said: "Socialism involves seeing that all the citizens of your country are provided for."

Especially a grisly death by starvation or execution. Socalists excel in providing for this "need".

"Clearly that is not happening in North Korea."

But the rulers there SAY it is. That is all that really counts with most aocialists.

"The "Fairness Doctrine" involves all sides having their say, not one side."

You are completely incorrect about this. This former doctrine in the US from the FCC involved the government stifling news and opinion in the media.

"Single payer advocates believe all citizens are entitled to medical treatment"

Not in the least. Single payer involves the government taking away health care options from the people and controlling them exclusively.

"I don't think that is what is happening in North Korea."

And that is exactly what happens there.

"The Left does not want to make wealthy people outlaws, we just think they should pay more in taxes and follow rules which prevent them from taking advantage of everyone else."

The vast majority follow the rules, just like the non rich. And the rich pay the lions's share in taxes. Yet you want the ruling elites to steal even more from them.

"dmarks should be ashamed."

No, I am well informed on all of these issues, and I am not ashamed to say it.

"With this comment he voices his desire to silence those he disagrees with."

Caught you in a whopper. Show me one line in what I said where I am trying to silence anyone.


You can't.

"He wants to silence them by drowning out what they say with his lies."

1) All of what I said is verifiably true.

2) You have no idea how blogger/blogspot works. There is absolutely nothing in the way of features where one commenter can "drown out" another. Nothing in my comments impinges in any way on your ability to comment.

Will: perhaps I am wrong? Is there a new setting in Blogspot where WD is prevented from commenting when others who are not him make comments? WD is convinced this is true. Well, he could be wrong. He almost always is.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: WD is convinced this is true.

How the hell could I be convinced of something you just made up? I suggested no such thing. dmarks is clearly delusional.

I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, and I most certainly do not want a government anything like North Korea's. dmarks suggesting otherwise is an ENORMOUS whopper. Every single claim he's made in his comments are verifiably false.

dmarks said...

"Every single claim he's made in his comments are verifiably false."

Name one.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Name one.

Not one - all of them.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

"I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, and I most certainly do not want a government anything like North Korea's."

Socialism (oppressive government controlling our private lives) chosen by democratic means is no different from non-democratic socialism. Except the ruling elites can do a better job of justifying their rule.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Socialism is great...until you run out of other peoples money.

w-dervish said...

dmarks, socialism is not "oppressive government controlling our private lives". Socialism is when the people mandate that their government provide for some of the necessities of life. Payment for the services is provided for by taxes, or the service can be provided on a not for profit basis.

This stands in stark contrast to what you desire, which is that a small group of elites get rich overcharging people. And some are forced to go without so those wealthy elites can rake in the profits.

The system you desire is the one that leads to people dying. If I remember correctly, 30 thousand people per year die due to a lack of healthcare alone.

Also, it's the Republicans who want to control our private lives. They want to monitor pregnant women to ensure all pregnancies are carried to term. They also want to monitor our bedrooms, to make sure no sodomy laws are broken.

Free market Laissez-faire faire capitalism is one of the more oppressive systems of governance there is. Under it the rich get richer by stealing from the workers and overcharging for services.

People who can't afford to pay are allowed to die. This is the kind of system dmarks has made it clear that he strongly supports. And he has the nerve to lie about how socialism leads to people dying.

Rusty: Socialism is great... until you run out of other people's money.

I am surprised to see Rusty endorse socialism. No need to worry about running out of money though, Rusty. When a country embraces more socialism ALL of it's citizens do better. The economy as a whole does better, thus the chances of "running out of money" is much less under socialism.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, the economies of Europe are mixed economies, just like we are. Yes, they may gravitate a little more toward the collectivist side (though it does appear that England and France are moving in our direction), but they're certainly closer to us than they are to the purer socialistic models of the old Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries. You remember them, right, the models that were thoroughly rebuked by most of the world (North Korea and Cuba being the obvious exceptions) and proven as abject failures?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And, really, wd, are you saying that free-market Capitalism, as it was espoused by Adam Smith, is MORE oppressive than Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, the Khmer Rouge, Minhism, etc? Seriously? And if America was and is such a disgraceful country, then why is it that immigrants BY THE MILLIONS have always wanted to come here, and why most of them succeed?

dmarks said...

WD said: Socialism is when the people mandate that their government provide for some of the necessities of life."

You are winging it here. Making up stuff on the spot. Check ANY definition of socialism. It's all about the government controlling the means of production; the economy. It's about control. Nothing about "providing for".

"This stands in stark contrast to what you desire, which is that a small group of elites get rich overcharging people."

I have never supported this, and you know it. In fact, on numerous, in fact plentiful, occasions, I have opposed it.

"The system you desire is the one that leads to people dying."

If you bother to do some research, and check the historic record, the opposite is true. Over the 20th The worst excesses of capitalism have a small death toll compared to the mass slaughter by the socialist leaders.

"If I remember correctly, 30 thousand people per year die due to a lack of healthcare alone."

You don't remember correctly. This is a made-up figure.

"Also, it's the Republicans who want to control our private lives."

Our economic decisions are a BIG part of our private lives. You want the ruling elites to have a big hand in these.

"They want to monitor pregnant women to ensure all pregnancies are carried to term."

This is an interesting claim. Show me one account of a proposal for such monitoring. and how many Republicans support it.

"They also want to monitor our bedrooms, to make sure no sodomy laws are broken."

Another interesting claim. "Show me one account of a proposal for such monitoring. and how many Republicans support it."

If you can't show this, you are disproven.

"Free market Laissez-faire faire capitalism is one of the more oppressive systems of governance there is."

It is actually the least.

"Under it the rich get richer by stealing from the workers and overcharging for services."

Actually, under free market capitalism. workers are paid a fair wage, and overcharging doesn't happen because monopolies are discouraged.

"People who can't afford to pay are allowed to die."

No, I allow for a safety net of welfare for the poor. This is in opposition to your idea of Stalinizing the entire health care system, which is not necessary and is very destructive.

"And he has the nerve to lie about how socialism leads to people dying.""

No, I am well informed about history.

When a country embraces more socialism ALL of it's citizens do better."

Which is why North Korea, the most socialist nation on the planet, is a paradise for its people.

------------

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your detailed accounts of these monitoring proposals, and how a large bloc of Republicans supports them. I'm sure it will be very interesting... he he he.

w-dervish said...

Will condescended: wd, the economies of Europe are mixed economies...

Really??????????? WOW, I guess you learn something new every day!

I reject your claim that the old Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries were "purer socialistic models". These countries combined socialism plus totalitarianism. It was much more the latter and significantly less the former that caused them to fail. And, for the record, I support a mixed economy.

England is trying austerity right now, and it isn't working out that well for them.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, show me one example of a pure socialistic model that WASN'T totalitarian.............Give England a little time, wd. Canada drastically cut their deficit a few years back and they are presently doing WAY better than we are.

dmarks said...

WD said: "These countries combined socialism plus totalitarianism."

It comes naturally. Socialism involves top-down control. The more socialism, the more totalitarianism.

Will: I strongly support austerity, but of a compassionate kind. The government should gut such waste as overpaying govenment employees (which the governor in Wisconsin is doing) and get rid of free healthcare for the wealthy, but do not cut services to the poor at all.

dmarks said...

Also, on an earlier point: "Single payer advocates believe all citizens are entitled to medical treatment..."

You are confusing two different things. The first, single payer, is advocacy of the ruling elites controlling all aspects of healthcare. Forcing decisions on everyone.

The "entitled" part is about making healthcare universial, and has nothing to do with whether or not the state controls healthcare.

In fact, it is possible, in fact easy, to ensure universal healthcare with little or no government control of the industry. Little or no socialism. Such as how is done with access to food. The government owns very few farms. But for poor people, money is provided so they can get food.

I oppose steps toward fascism (government control of healthcare). But that does not mean I also oppose improving healthcare and making it better available to all.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

That's an excellent point, dmarks. Cutting back on the size and scope of government need not necessarily involve increasing pain for the vulnerable. We currently have DOZENS of different programs designed to help the needy. Consolidating them and eliminating duplication could potentially save the tax-payers tens of billions a year.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You support a mixed economy, wd? That's funny because throughout this entire thread you were extolling the virtues of socialism and trashing free enterprise. It was only when I pointed out the idiocy of your ridiculous dichotomy that you, in an effort to save some face, came out with this "I support a mixed economy" lingo.

dmarks said...

Will said: "You support a mixed economy, wd?"

I guess to some, mixed means that the executive branch controls some, and the legislative branch controls the rest.

w-dervish said...

Will lied: You support a mixed economy, wd? That's funny because throughout this entire thread you were extolling the virtues of socialism and trashing free enterprise. It was only when I pointed out the idiocy of your ridiculous dichotomy that you, in an effort to save some face, came out with this "I support a mixed economy" lingo.

I've ALWAYS supported a mixed economy and regulated capitalism. I did not trash "free enterprise". I said I oppose "Free market Laissez-faire capitalism". They aren't the same thing. I said nothing to "save some face"... That is a bald faced lie.

PROOF: On 12/17/2010, on this blog (Contra O'Reilly -- YOUR blog), I said, "I don't believe in it [Socialism]. I'm not in favor of government controlling the means of production. I'm in favor of a mixed economy".

The real question is what percentage socialism the mixture should be... I say more and you say less. Even dmarks is for some socialism.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I was talking about this thread, wd. You were extolling the virtues of socialism and slamming pure capitalism. And you even said that it wasn't socialism that sunk the Soviet empire, even going as far as to defend their socialism! And, really, the fact that you had to go back 12 months to find something that was even remotely pro-market also says something.............And I ask you again, wd - are you actually saying that free-market Capitalism, as it was espoused by Adam Smith, is MORE oppressive than Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, the Khmer Rouge, Minhism, etc? Seriously? And, also, if America was and is such a disgraceful country, then why is it that immigrants BY THE MILLIONS have always wanted to come here, and why most of them actually succeed?

dmarks said...

WD said "Even dmarks is for some socialism."

Putting aside both our usual combativeness, I am not sure which "Sectors of industry" absolutely need government control. Meaning government-owned industry, as opposed to mere regulation.

I firmly believe that for the most part it is possible to provide for the needy/etc by subsidizing these people directly.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I firmly believe that for the most part it is possible to provide for the needy/etc by subsidizing these people directly.

You're talking about the government "subsidizing these people directly", right? That's the socialism I was talking about.

dmarks said...

That type of socialism sure doesn't require "single payer" does it?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that we're all in favor of an adequate social safety net. The real contention here is just how much authority are we willing to give an already behemoth federal government.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You know, the one that gave us the Alien and Sedition Act, the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Enlarged Homestead Act, Strategic Hamlet (not to mention the Vietnam War in general), Prohibition, Watergate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ethanol subsidies, the Shah of Iran, Amtrak, nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cash for Clunkers, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, etc., etc., etc.?

w-dervish said...

And of course corporations have never done anything bad. They only act in interest of the average American citizen. Give me a break.

Also, I notice several items at the end of your list that relate to the Obama administration. Why nothing objectional that the bush administration did? Gee, I wonder why (not really).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Cant read, dude? "nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan" - that was Bush. Watergate was Nixon. And the Shah of Iran was Eisenhower. I thought that it was a pretty bipartisan list.............Corporations? They're just like people, wd. You got some good ones and some bad ones. I try to do most of my business with the good ones. I can't avoid the FEDS at all.