On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:42:02 -0500, Paul M Foster
<paulf@quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> > Now, I am not saying my research shows yours to be incorrect.
>
> I hope not, because it's pretty anecdotal.
Anything done by one person would be. I merely feel it is not my place
to argue the point, as I have no ground to argue it. I therefore asked
those that have ground on which to speak, to speak of it.
> > or that these people whom are my friends are a good sampling of the
> > average European. Nevertheless, I find having first hand sources of
> > information much better than inventing stuff to help my argument.
> > Not that you did that; I just have no proof you did not.
> >
>
> Some of your commenters made the point that their system is better
> because they don't have to work as hard and the government takes care of
> them (presumably better than here in their opinions). You can put
> anti-socialism (capitalism?) on one end of a line, and socialism on the
> other end.
You could, but you would probably be making a false dichotomy.
> These guys, from what they are saying, are trending in the
> direction of socialism; one even admits it.
The one that admits they're a socialist is also the one that says
it will never be completely socialist. It is a grave mistake to
classify opinions
on a line, or even a 2D plane.
> My original comment was meant to be somewhat sarcastic, but contained a
> large degree of truth nonetheless. I'm unconcerned about residents of
> these countries who may interpret my comments as insults, and thus
> defend their systems.
None of them were defending their system.
Actually I ended up having a long discussion about the things that *are* wrong
there, and they're not the things you're thinking about.
>Their comments are interesting, but nothing more.
Then your comments are also nothing more than interesting.
Actually they're not very interesting, and the sarcasm was quite weak.
> Is there full-on socialism in Europe? No. That would describe the Soviet
> Union. However, if you look at the laws which have been enacted and are
> being enacted there, it's clear they are trending toward socialism. Just
> because they may have a popularly elected parliament in a country
> doesn't mean they can't have socialism.
No, but it (in theory, not in practice) means the whim of the people is law.
> The truth is that it's also
> creeping in here in the United States.
>
> Just so we understand what I mean when I say "socialism", it's a system
> where the government has ultimate control over most aspects of one's
> life and the economy, along with a social safety net designed to cushion
> people one way or another. We can consider the Soviet Union as a good
> example of this. The government owned nearly every aspect of production.
> There was little in the way of private enterprise. Morality was framed
> in the context of what was good for the state. Religion was outlawed.
> Travel was severely curtailed, and emigration was nearly outlawed. I'm
> sure purists will argue with the definition. Call it what you like;
> that's the system I'm talking about.
>
> The other end of this scale is something whose name I don't know. But it
> would be a system where the government doesn't own the means of
> production. People are free to travel, associate, and own the means of
> production. There is no social safety net, and the government isn't
> really interested in anyone's lives or what they do with them. Religion
> is not a concern of the state either way.
>
> I think a check of the laws passed by European countries and by the
> European parliament will show there have been a great many regulations
> enacted to curtail freedom and _regulate_ what people do there. (Yes,
> that's also true here, but to a lesser degree.)
>
> >
> > > You used to be able to have a single bread-winner in a home and have a
> > > comfortable life. Those days are long gone, because our government(s)
> > > taxes us at a crushing rate.
> > My father is the sole "bread-winner" for my atomic family unit.
> > Taxes are the least of our concerns.
> >
>
> Really? Let's see. Your dad probably paid 6.2% of his salary in social
> security taxes, and 1.45% of his salary in medicare taxes. His employer
> paid (on your dad's behalf), those same amounts. He probably paid
> somewhere between 10% and 30% of his salary in federal withholding
> taxes. For every store purchase, he probably paid 4-6% sales tax. If he
> lived in most of the states in this country, he also paid state income
> tax. Every time he paid a utility bill of any kind, he paid a sizable
> chunk of taxes. He probably also paid property taxes every year. If he
> ever sold anything of significant value, he probably paid capital gains
> taxes. The list goes on. Your dad may not have been concerned about
> taxes, or he may not have been truly aware of how much he was really
> paying in taxes.
He's very aware of the taxes. but he's not concerned, he does not
begrude paying his fair share to what has been a very successful
society.
> My point here is that taxes are a burden levied on productive people,
> usually in such a way as to discourage their productivity (income
> taxes), which burden is excessive. I can't prove it, but I'm inclined to
> believe the withering of the one-bread-winner family so pronounced in
> the 1950s was due in large part to the extreme rise in all kinds of
> taxes.
I will not argue a point of a land I've never walked, and I will not argue one
from a time I've never lived through. However my father belives that
the loss of the single income family is a shift of manufacturing
overseas, with several other factors.
> > Note that the above people I quoted on average pay much, much, much
> > higher taxes than we in this country do, with a higher standard of living.
> >
>
> Higher standard of living? I doubt that. I'd bet that the average
> European:
>
> 1) has less individual living space than the average American,
Unaware of this. I'll ask sometime.
> 2) has fewer TVs per capita than the average American,
Yes, because more is better!!!
> 3) has fewer cars per capita than the average American,
Public transit is less painful, and in fact it's often easier to walk
to the store.
Good exercise, that.
Though I only know one person overseas that doesn't have a car, and
that's because he's never bothered getting a license. (Like myself.
:))
(ancedotal)
> 4) has fewer or less of most things that Americans would consider vital
> or important to a high standard of living.
I don't think I know anyone that doesn't have several computers, and
proper cookware (microwave, etc).
(ancedotal)
> 5) has more free time than the average American.
Given the choice of a very nice car and a very nice house, and very
little free time,
and a acceptable apartment and a bicycle, and lots of free time, I'd
choose the later any day.
> Does the average European consider that he's better off than the average
> American? Perhaps. He's welcome to his opinion. But I doubt I'd agree
> with him on what constitutes "better off".
Ding-ding! That's the point!
I would have this same type of discussion, say, if a Norwegian named
Pål, started saying things like "The capitalist paradise the American
leaders keep telling them about isn't working".
You're better off for you, most Europeans are better off for them. If
they're not, they'll have another bloody war or something.
I'm by no means a relativist, but what's good for me doesn't have to
what's good for you. And the way Pål wants to live his life might be
very different from the way you want to live yours.
> > In the Netherlands, 8mbps/1mbps ADSL with multiple static IPs, no
> > caps, and no transparent proxies can be had for less than a dial-up
> > connection here.
> >
>
> Have you asked why this is?
Yes, it's because there are so many DSL providers that they are each trying
to win the other's customers. It's also rather difficult to lay the
lines (I've heard).
> But back to the original point. Hard work is not the issue. People often
> die shortly after they retire if they have nothing else significant to
> do. Conversely, people who stay productive live longer. I own my own
> business and work a lot of hours. I don't mind it. I've worked for other
> people, and I'd rather work for myself, even if I do work more hours.
> It's not the work, it's the stress that kills you. If you're working 60
> hours a week at a job you hate, you wife's having an affair and your
> kids are strung out on drugs, you have the kind of stress that will kill
> you, even if you're working a 20 hour week. And if you're working in a
> job where you're afraid any careless action or remark will get you
> fired, it doesn't matter whether you're working 20 hours or 80 hours.
> The stress of that job will get to you regardless.
I have no problem with this. I just had issues with you invoking the
mythical european socialists. I dislike overly general statements, and
the sarcasm was lost on me.
If you're spending 80 hours a week
working on something you love, you're not going to die of a heart
attack, I think.
Though one should try to schedule time to talk to one's wife about the
relationship, perhaps seek marriage counseling, and set aside time to
drive the kids to drug rehab.
I think we're quite similiar, you and I, in making sarcastic comments
in which the sarcasm is lost for lots of other people. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:01:19 EDT