Originally Posted by Midas

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programmes coming from government do not represent politicians reaching into their own pockets and handing out the money; it's always someone else's money they use, yours and mine. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way that it can give anyone any money for anything is to first - through intimidation, threat and coercion - take it from someone else.

Politician's don't pay tax? Regardless, consider that everything I "own" I do so at someone elses cost, I eat because someone else does not, I am clothed because someone somewhere is not, I have shelter at someone elses lack of, that just, fair, moral is it?

Some of you might retort that all of this is a result of a democratic process, that it’s right and it's legal, but legality alone is no guide for rightness or morality. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal, did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, the Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

True legality is not always the same as morality, but does that not imply the existence of a higher authority?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). I’d also add that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus at the ballot box!

Surely "evil" as a concept is Judeo Christian in origin and therefore inadmissable as logical argument?

For the Christians here, socialism and the welfare state must surely be seen as sinful. Think about it. When your god allegedly gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure he didn't mean “Thou shalt not steal unless it’s by majority vote”! And I'm sure that if you could ask your god if it's OK to be the recipient of stolen property, he would see that as sinful as well!

Not really because Christ said "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." according to Mathew19 v21!

Originally Posted by Midas

What is socialism?

The future. That or oblivion.

Although I personally disagree with the practice, as a materialistic human, I know that communion of the human race is inevitable and incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by Midas

But it's not just left-wingers who call for and admire socialism, it’s right-wingers too. Right-wingers support taking the earnings of one person and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Left-wingers support taking the earnings of one person and giving them to the poor and dispossessed, immigrants, minority groups and all those who hold out their hands with "a need". Both agree on taking one person's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of activity constitutes at least two-thirds of our government budget.

Absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by Midas

Regardless of the purpose, such behaviour is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery?

No socialism is mutual slavery. It is a system that ignore the critical individualism that makes us human. Humans will adapt in minds to this system, but don't expect it to happen overnight. We first need to raise average intelligence to the level of Karl Marx.

Originally Posted by Midas

Some of you might retort that all of this is a result of a democratic process, that it’s right and it's legal, but legality alone is no guide for rightness or morality. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal, did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, the Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

This is no moral argument. The purges were a racist attempt at rapidly cleansing the population of those without the communal mind. Nature is a racist and only the most intelligent survive.

All these dictators are doing is trying to make peace by using race as a scapegoat.

Originally Posted by Midas

Also see my latest blog entry, “The Sad Road to Socialism”.

I must say, this whole post has the whiff of republican evangelism about it. I'll comment on the blog later.

Originally Posted by Midas

What is socialism? We miss the point if we simply say it's the agenda of left-wingers. According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights, the term ‘property’ being used in its widest sense. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately we call it theft. When it's done collectively we use euphemisms: tax or national insurance or simply a redistribution of wealth.

But it's not just left-wingers who call for and admire socialism, it’s right-wingers too. Right-wingers support taking the earnings of one person and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Left-wingers support taking the earnings of one person and giving them to the poor and dispossessed, immigrants, minority groups and all those who hold out their hands with "a need". Both agree on taking one person's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of activity constitutes at least two-thirds of our government budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behaviour is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When government, through excessive tax, take the earnings of one person and turn around to give to another person in the forms of social healthcare, social security and other welfare payments, farm subsidies, bank bailouts......, it's forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another – where’s the difference.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programmes coming from government do not represent politicians reaching into their own pockets and handing out the money; it's always someone else's money they use, yours and mine. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way that it can give anyone any money for anything is to first - through intimidation, threat and coercion - take it from someone else.

Some of you might retort that all of this is a result of a democratic process, that it’s right and it's legal, but legality alone is no guide for rightness or morality. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal, did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, the Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). I’d also add that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus at the ballot box!

An argument against legalised theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity, humanity and the free choice to determine where your money goes is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist one’s fellow man is noble; reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians here, socialism and the welfare state must surely be seen as sinful. Think about it. When your god allegedly gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal", I'm sure he didn't mean “Thou shalt not steal unless it’s by majority vote”! And I'm sure that if you could ask your god if it's OK to be the recipient of stolen property, he would see that as sinful as well!

Also see my latest blog entry, “The Sad Road to Socialism”.

Seriously, you've been hanging around Flash too much.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Politician's don't pay tax? Regardless, consider that everything I "own" I do so at someone elses cost, I eat because someone else does not, I am clothed because someone somewhere is not, I have shelter at someone elses lack of, that just, fair, moral is it?

I didn't say politicians don't pay tax, I said "...politicians reaching into their own pockets and handing out the money", a very different thing.

True legality is not always the same as morality, but does that not imply the existence of a higher authority?

A higher authority than what, the government?

Surely "evil" as a concept is Judeo Christian in origin and therefore inadmissable as logical argument?

Used simply as a word to describe morally objectionable behaviour, nothing more. Its origin is irrelevant.

Not really because Christ said "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." according to Mathew19 v21!

In other words he was advocating personal charity, not government sanctioned theft and redistribution.

Originally Posted by JAMC

Seriously, you've been hanging around Flash too much.

Hardly! My thoughts for a long time actually.

Looking at socialism through the money-tinted glasses of capitalism will of course make it look silly, or even 'evil'. It's just incompatible with the way we're brought up to think. That's more a fundamental problem with the current system, as with the one before it, as it derides new ideas as foolish and evil in an effort to maintain it and it's beneficiaries' hold on society.

You people are just dying to be led by Big Brother aren't you? Will you actually call this new party Ingsoc?

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b.../obama1984.jpg

I've always thought socialism was dodgy, as it does operate on the principle of taking one person's earned wealth and giving to another because the latter is poor, however it never addresses the reasons why they're poor. Having said that I like the idea of the Government controlling major industry, not 'redistributing' it, merely controlling the way it's headed to best serve the needs of the nation as a whole, but operating it under a capitalist model with CEOs and bonuses and all that.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I've always thought socialism was dodgy, as it does operate on the principle of taking one person's earned wealth and giving to another because the latter is poor, however it never addresses the reasons why they're poor.

That's a very difficult one to answer because there are so many reasons, many of them additive. Lack of drive and initiative is one of them, being trapped in a vicious circle of circumstances is another, lack of opportunity though either local conditions of lack of education is another...... For a lot of people so trapped it's not their direct fault though, they're victims of circumstance, although in a good many of those cases (but with things like long term illness apart) if they were forced to go out and find work, I'd bet most could. But I do firmly believe that the spread of socialism has made far too many people far too dependent on the state for far too much, creating artificial reasons for some people not to go out and seek the best way of making money, or not going out at all.

Having said that I like the idea of the Government controlling major industry, not 'redistributing' it, merely controlling the way it's headed to best serve the needs of the nation as a whole, but operating it under a capitalist model with CEOs and bonuses and all that.

In what sense 'controlling'? As in being a major shareholder or as in having an over-ruling management say in the direction the company is heading? Either way it's yet another back door way to yet more government interference and control in our lives, and as such is both morally wrong and ultimately counter-productive as a look at virtually any socialist country in the world will tell you.

Originally Posted by Midas

In what sense 'controlling'? As in being a major shareholder or as in having an over-ruling management say in the direction the company is heading? Either way it's yet another back door way to yet more government interference and control in our lives, and as such is both morally wrong and ultimately counter-productive as a look at virtually any socialist country in the world will tell you.

I was think being a major shareholder or something along those lines, companies still run by the same people that run them now, but under at least some control by the Government. This sort of semi-socialism proved to be moderately effective in China's early Communist era (Prior to the GLF and Cultural Revolution). I merely propose a similar system to that of Nazi Germany, one of the most powerful economies (not to mention extremely self sufficient) of that era. My concern is that companies adhere to what will make them profit and not what will make the overall country prosper, companies still ride on resources and people provided by a country, and it seems illogical that the company should make such a small contribution to that country. Obviously there are many exceptions to the rule, but IMO state funded infrastructure programs are one of the best avenues for economic developement of a country, and so should be carried out by that country. Why is public transport no longer public? Why is there no public power supplier or telecom network? Companies of course should still make profits and behave just as companies do, but ultimately the nation's resources, whether physical, human or capital, should serve the interest of the nation, not a company.

But I think we're off topic.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I merely propose a similar system to that of Nazi Germany, one of the most powerful economies (not to mention extremely self sufficient) of that era.

The problem with your theory is that it requires a war to make it work. There were sacrifices made by the populations of every nation in WWII (longer work weeks, higher taxes, lower pay, rationing of materials deemed necessary for the war effort, etc.). It may work for a little while, but people aren't going to make the sacrifices forever and will eventually vote in a government that promises a sustainable economic model, which is capitalism.

The current financial crisis prove unregulated capitalism is unviable. Nazi Germany was able to function for 6 years against enormous economic difficulties under the Nazi's economic policies, that was before the war.

Furthermore I see no problem in pushing to make a country as self sufficient as possible, a challenge which substitutes war. War at an economic level is merely a challenge, it absorbs resources and as such an economy unequipped to deal with the absorption of resources suffers shortages. Now while war is a wonderful motivator in terms of propaganda and drive, it can easily be substituted by another 'challenge' say for example fixing the current housing crisis, or making Britain completely reliant on green energy.

What about forming a company under the government that builds green cars that are both affordable and good cars. Obviously this will take away from tax payer funds, but then this is repaid by the profits made by the comapny in selling the cars. And maybe the cars are so good they can be exported, bringing in more money not for the company alone but for the major shareholders (ie The Government) which will result in more funds going to teh treasury to spend on other programs. An example of this is Volkswagon, while designed to be easily transformed for war instead of being green, the principle is the same.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

The current financial crisis prove unregulated capitalism is unviable.

It wasn't a 'lack of regulation' that caused our current mess so much as unnecessary government interference and outright fraud on the part of a select few.

Now while war is a wonderful motivator in terms of propaganda and drive, it can easily be substituted by another 'challenge' say for example fixing the current housing crisis, or making Britain completely reliant on green energy.

It's easy to get people motivated when the survival of the nation is at stake. Not so much in solving the 'housing crisis'.

What about forming a company under the government that builds green cars that are both affordable and good cars.

Because the government rarely does anything right, since its goals are political and not economic. It serves only to perpetuate its own power and to keep the various representatives elected. It has no economic principles to follow because economics are not the point. Business should be left to business and governance left to government. Intermingling the two will put us squarely on the road to hell, both in terms of economic prosperity and civil liberties.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Not really because Christ said "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." according to Mathew19 v21!

Most Christians are generous people and will give willingly. Socialism is the willful taking of property by the state, which is legalized stealing.

I don't think the Bible condones stealing at all. Just because 51% of the people authorizes it to be done does not mean it is not stealing. All that means is the people with the most power is able to do it.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

What about forming a company under the government that builds green cars that are both affordable and good cars. Obviously this will take away from tax payer funds, but then this is repaid by the profits made by the comapny in selling the cars. And maybe the cars are so good they can be exported, bringing in more money not for the company alone but for the major shareholders (ie The Government) which will result in more funds going to teh treasury to spend on other programs. An example of this is Volkswagon, while designed to be easily transformed for war instead of being green, the principle is the same.

If the cars are in demand then why do they need government funds? They are not in demand because only the Left Wing environmental wackos want them. Most people don’t want them.

"Green cars" are a great example of a Left Winger's wet dream. However, if they were viable then the market place would produce the demand and they wouldn't need government funding.

Green cars are a great example of the government trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The demand is just not there so why force it by taking money out of the economy and putting into a business that couldn't survive on its own? That is stupid, isn't it?

Very few people really want green cars in a market where basic fuels are still cheap enough to power standard automobiles.

Maybe in the future when our population reaches 10 billion and the oil reserves get low then dumbass green cars will have a demand. When that time comes the market will decided without the government.

By the way, you do understand that when the government spends money it takes it from another part of the economy don't you? Either that or borrows the money, in which case the money has to be paid back at a later date with interest. You do know that, don't you?

If you know those things don't you think that the government should only spend funds for the absolute necessities instead of spending big bucks on some stupid Left Wingers idea of social justice?

There may be a time when the government invests in the economy and it is beneficial. Building roads is a great example. Maybe providing for a basic education. Starting businesses that couldn’t survive on their own doesn’t fit into that category, does it?

Originally Posted by Tantal

It wasn't a 'lack of regulation' that caused our current mess so much as unnecessary government interference and outright fraud on the part of a select few.

Yes it was. The reason Australia is in such a good position (relatively speaking) is that our banking system was much more regulated than yours, preventing banks from just lending money to everybody and anybody without a care in the world.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Because the government rarely does anything right, since its goals are political and not economic. It serves only to perpetuate its own power and to keep the various representatives elected. It has no economic principles to follow because economics are not the point. Business should be left to business and governance left to government. Intermingling the two will put us squarely on the road to hell, both in terms of economic prosperity and civil liberties.

Obviously the Government being a moron is a fair point, but irrelevant as I don't actually like democracy anyway. I would however say that the Government "serves only to perpetuate its own power and to keep the various representatives elected" is somewhat conspiracy theorist.

Flash, how does one create demand for a product in this capitalist, consumer driven age? Advertising. Any company can create the demand for its products, and how about doing good for once as well? The reason car companies haven't bothered to mass-market electric cars is because A: Lobbying from petroleum companies, B:Government fiddling in the area (ie not funding research or providing incentives) C: They can't be stuffed designing a new engine. I would have thought you right-wingers would have been all for energy independence. Besides, that was one example of many, building roads and infrastructure is another great example, unfortunately that's left up to companies that really can't give a dam about the nation, only profits and their bonuses.

As for understanding Government funding, I do actual understand the principle, now as I pointed out, setting up companies and the like, is, in the short term, unprofitable, but take the car company example, with more and more electric cars on the road, that means less reliance on foreign oil, so there's less money going to importing it. Building roads in the short term is unprofitable too, how is a road gonna make money unless you put a fare on it? It creates profit over the long term by providing transport which improves commercial trade across the nation. Providing basic education is unprofitable in the short term, how are a bunch of relatively smarter 8 year olds going to contribute to the Government or overall nation's wealth? They do that when they reach university and become doctors or businessmen instead of dropouts or tradesmen (no offence to tradesmen).

With this model you maintain incentive, therefore encouraging people to work harder and achieve higher qualifications (which is a flaw of socialism), but make sure that all that work and study goes towards helping the overall nation, not a company that doesn't care about the people of the country (which is a flaw of capitalism).

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Flash, how does one create demand for a product in this capitalist, consumer driven age?

Actually demand is not "created". Demand is there because people need or want the product. Advertisement is simply a tool to remind people that the product is available. Advertisement has a component in getting people to think they need a product but it doesn't create a physical need for a product.

For instance, a really good advertisement program could get people to believe that a lightweight plastic hammer is a good tool to have and buy millions of them. However, the actual demand for hammers is for a tool that that will hold up under strenuous use.

If people wanted green cars then they would buy them without the government getting involved.

Why should your tax money be used to manufacture a product that hardly anybody wants? A product that would fail in the marketplace?

The answer is that a few people have got control of the keys to your treasury and they make decisions on how the money is to be spent based by political pressure, not business sense.

The pressure may be that these politicians get campaign donations from the Environmental Wacko lobby or it could be that they are just plain stupid and really don't understand market economy.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

As for understanding Government funding, I do actual understand the principle, now as I pointed out, setting up companies and the like, is, in the short term, unprofitable, but take the car company example, with more and more electric cars on the road, that means less reliance on foreign oil, so there's less money going to importing it. Building roads in the short term is unprofitable too, how is a road gonna make money unless you put a fare on it? It creates profit over the long term by providing transport which improves commercial trade across the nation. Providing basic education is unprofitable in the short term, how are a bunch of relatively smarter 8 year olds going to contribute to the Government or overall nation's wealth? They do that when they reach university and become doctors or businessmen instead of dropouts or tradesmen (no offence to tradesmen).

I think most people would agree that road building and basic education (along with defense) is a good sound investment for a government. That falls into the no brainer category for the most part although there are a few Libertarians that would disagree.

The problem comes when you try to make that leap into other areas. There are a few other things the government should be doing that are in the common interest of everybody but the list is not endless and it doesn't mean the government should be in the business of doing what the people themselves can do.

You have to remember one basic flaw of government and that is the decisions of government most of the time is not based upon common good but upon political pressures. That throws a big monkey wrench into the equation that invariably produces bad decisions.

Let me give you an example. Obongo put a lot of stimulus money into green technology. The commie SOB would get up and tell everybody how this green technology was going to save the planet and stop dependence upon foreign oil and all that BS. However, he forgot to mention that he received tons of campaign funds from these green technology companies because they knew they couldn't make money without government help and they knew Obongo would take their campaign money and deliver. Also, most of these industries were in non right to work states meaning the goddamn unions would profit. The unions are the largest contributor to the Democrat party. The stimulus funds came attached with a rider that said any company getting the money must pay prevailing union wages.

Flash, you have to recognise, what Americans may consider seriously left wing or socialist, us British may not.

You Americans despise the idea of a Nationalised Health Service, whilst the majority of Brits; even the Conservatives, agree with the idea of the NHS.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Flash, you have to recognise, what Americans may consider seriously left wing or socialist, us British may not.

You Americans despise the idea of a Nationalised Health Service, whilst the majority of Brits; even the Conservatives, agree with the idea of the NHS.

American conservatives understand this. We could really care less whether y'all have the NHS or not. The point is that Americans don't want a National Health Service in the U.S. The only reason that the NHS is coming under scrutiny in the U.S. is that the liberals have held it up as a shining example of what we should strive to become. Americans ain't buying it.

Originally Posted by Tantal

American conservatives understand this. We could really care less whether y'all have the NHS or not. The point is that Americans don't want a National Health Service in the U.S. The only reason that the NHS is coming under scrutiny in the U.S. is that the liberals have held it up as a shining example of what we should strive to become. Americans ain't buying it.

I have looked at Obama's plans; though I confess to not being an expert, I see nothing resembling the NHS.

The Republicans; though I dislike to say it, seem to be making up facts or using statistics that are so out of date, Benjamin Disraeli himself could have criticised them

Many right wing supporters in America have openly criticised the NHS on the basis of false information or sheer stupidity.

Now, I wouldn't want the NHS in America either. It would not work in America. Your view of such things is so different from ours.

You say privatised health care in America and it is nothing but sun shine and lollipops. Say it in Britain, and you'll be on the next plane out of here

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I have looked at Obama's plans; though I confess to not being an expert, I see nothing resembling the NHS.

The Republicans; though I dislike to say it, seem to be making up facts or using statistics that are so out of date, Benjamin Disraeli himself could have criticised them

Many right wing supporters in America have openly criticised the NHS on the basis of false information or sheer stupidity.

Now, I wouldn't want the NHS in America either. It would not work in America. Your view of such things is so different from ours.

You say privatised health care in America and it is nothing but sun shine and lollipops. Say it in Britain, and you'll be on the next plane out of here

The Left has also made up a lot of "facts". For instance, the ten year old WHO report indicating the US is 37th in health care. How dumb can you be?

Tantal is right; Americans could care less about the NHS. What Americans are afraid of is the certainty that any kind of public health program in the US will destroy the best in the world.

The US government can't even run a pathetic Cash for Clunkers program, no less a nationalized health care system.

If we tried that we would be even worse than you with waiting times for operations and survival rates. The NHS is the third largest employer in the world. If the US government took over the business then we would probably out do you by a ton. It would be the largest employer in the world before the Liberals got through with it and they would all be dues paying union pukes channeling money to the Democrats.

Can we please get back to the wider topic of the evils of socialism (or not, depending on how you think). There's another thread to discuss the nationalisation of US healthcare.

Originally Posted by Midas

Can we please get back to the wider topic of the evils of socialism (or not, depending on how you think).

Yes.

Socialism in a capitalist society can seem evil.

However, once we unite as a species and drop our childish nationalist, racist and prejudiced tendencies then socialism is the only and wonderful way.

I am not in the mindset to accept it, but once there is a catastrophe, the mature will unite and the immature will ultimately suffer.

The deep social divides between the economies of countries and the social values (America is a prime example where prejudice has plunged the majority of Blacks and Hispanics into poverty crime, through no fault of their own) need to be healed through education, the elimination of religion (sorry Tantal and Op!) and the unification of the human race as a whole.

Capitalism is the stopgap between racial savagery and maturity. However, do not ever assume that it is sustainable. That is what the "lords of capital" want you to think.

Originally Posted by Syphro

Yes.

Socialism in a capitalist society can seem evil.

However, once we unite as a species and drop our childish nationalist, racist and prejudiced tendencies then socialism is the only and wonderful way.

First off, even with the best will in the world I can't see the world uniting. As a species we're too different in our national and racial outlooks, things subconsciously learned over millennia, for it to be otherwise. You've only to look at the attempts at uniting people even superficially, such as here in the EU, to see what the consequences are, and that's before there's even any thought of bringing down national boundaries and homogenising people. However even if that were to happen, I don't follow why you say "then socialism is the only and wonderful way". It's not, far from it. People, even within one national group, are innately too different for anything other than competitive activity, with those who can, leading, and those who can't, following. We're also competitive and acquisitive as a species and all attempts to artificially impose equality on us are doomed to failure by the very nature of humanity.

I am not in the mindset to accept it, but once there is a catastrophe, the mature will unite and the immature will ultimately suffer.

I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way, but I presume you mean that those people who can survive, either because of their particular skills, resources or innate nature, will survive and prosper, but in order to do so they'll have to either ignore the rest of the people who can't, or perhaps even treat them as enemies to be destroyed before they destroy those of ability. A major global catastrophe will bring out the dog eat dog nature of people, and only the strong will survive; socialism won't stand a chance other than in small-scale altruism, where to be so is of immediate benefit to one's own survival.

The deep social divides between the economies of countries and the social values (America is a prime example where prejudice has plunged the majority of Blacks and Hispanics into poverty crime, through no fault of their own) need to be healed through education, the elimination of religion (sorry Tantal and Op!) and the unification of the human race as a whole.

I certainly agree that religion, with its archaic beliefs and divisive nature, is one of the biggest restricting factors to international cooperation and development there is. However I'm almost 100% certain that even if it were to be removed from the equation, people are still too different, by way of mankind's genetic and evolutionary past, to accept the type of permanent equality that socialism demands.

Capitalism is the stopgap between racial savagery and maturity. However, do not ever assume that it is sustainable. That is what the "lords of capital" want you to think.

Capitalism as we have it today might well not survive, but we'll always have people who lead and people who follow; we'll always have people who are driven and ambitious and those who aren't; we'll always have people who are hard working and those who are lazy and would sponge off others. Society will always have a hierarchical structure in respect of power, authority and money by virtue of the way we are as a species, however I quite agree that there's room for far more humanity within that structure, but humanity is a very different thing to socialism.

Originally Posted by Syphro

Yes.

Socialism in a capitalist society can seem evil.

However, once we unite as a species and drop our childish nationalist, racist and prejudiced tendencies then socialism is the only and wonderful way.

I am not in the mindset to accept it, but once there is a catastrophe, the mature will unite and the immature will ultimately suffer.

The deep social divides between the economies of countries and the social values (America is a prime example where prejudice has plunged the majority of Blacks and Hispanics into poverty crime, through no fault of their own) need to be healed through education, the elimination of religion (sorry Tantal and Op!) and the unification of the human race as a whole.

Capitalism is the stopgap between racial savagery and maturity. However, do not ever assume that it is sustainable. That is what the "lords of capital" want you to think.

I bet you also like John Lennon's song "Imagine", don't you?

To me Socialism is a disease. It is a disease of laziness. It is counter intuitive to basic human nature and that is the reason it fails whenever implemented.

I love it when the Socialists ignore history and claim that if we give it just one more chance it will succeed.

Capitalism is the great uniter of races and culture. It is Socialism that creates a dependent subculture of people that are unable to assimilate themselves into productive society because the state provides for them.

My two doors down neighbors are a great example. The guy is a school principal and the wife is a manager of a bank. They do very well for themselves. They are Black and because they are not on welfare or dependent upon social programs they fit very well into a middle class, mostly white, neighborhood. Meanwhile the welfare Blacks are living in their little ghettos.

One of the ironies of Socialism is that the welfare state promotes class division and perpetrates racism because it creates a dependent class of people.

I am sure you see the same thing in the UK. You do have ghettos don’t you? I know you do because I saw them when I visited. They were just as racially divided as the American ghettos.

Originally Posted by flash

Capitalism is the great uniter of races and culture. It is Socialism that creates a dependent subculture of people that are unable to assimilate themselves into productive society because the state provides for them.

My two doors down neighbors are a great example. The guy is a school principal and the wife is a manager of a bank. They do very well for themselves. They are Black and because they are not on welfare or dependent upon social programs they fit very well into a middle class, mostly white, neighborhood. Meanwhile the welfare Blacks are living in their little ghettos.

That sounds very much like the situation with my immediate neighbours here. They're both Muslims, he's from Dubai and is an architect whilst she's from Syria and is an interior designer. Because they're very well off and run their own businesses and dress, speak and behave just like everyone else and are moderate in their beliefs - in other words they make a real effort to integrate and don't take, take, take - no-one takes a blind bit of notice that they're not British and that they have a different religion.

On the other hand, although not round here where we have very few immigrants, most places where there are plenty, Muslim or not, they concentrate in small and poor enclaves, often living on welfare and making little attempt to become part of British society. Very divisive in so many respects. Having said that, I will exclude a lot of Indians from my remarks; in general they're hard working and of all the immigrant communities I'd say make the most effort to be assimilated into our culture.

But I digress from the main topic of socialism and the way it tries to bring everyone down to the same level, destroying self respect and initiative as it does so.

Originally Posted by flash

Capitalism is the great uniter of races and culture. It is Socialism that creates a dependent subculture of people that are unable to assimilate themselves into productive society because the state provides for them.

Exactly. Under socialism they are given no incentive to achieve and succeed.

My two doors down neighbors are a great example. The guy is a school principal and the wife is a manager of a bank. They do very well for themselves. They are Black and because they are not on welfare or dependent upon social programs they fit very well into a middle class, mostly white, neighborhood. Meanwhile the welfare Blacks are living in their little ghettos.

That's because Democrats, the racist buggers that they are, realized long ago that they could no longer shackle the legs of blacks, so they have chosen to shackle their minds. They bribe them with just enough taxpayer money to keep them on the government's plantation and see to it that they maintain their victim mentality. Once minorities no longer identify themselves as victims, the Democrat Party is out of business and they know it. That's why we have the Race Pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton helping to keep the black man down. They know that once he rises up, they're going to be unemployed. Glad to see that your neighbors didn't fall into the victimhood trap and chose to make something of themselves.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Exactly. Under socialism they are given no incentive to achieve and succeed.

That's because Democrats, the racist buggers that they are, realized long ago that they could no longer shackle the legs of blacks, so they have chosen to shackle their minds. They bribe them with just enough taxpayer money to keep them on the government's plantation and see to it that they maintain their victim mentality. Once minorities no longer identify themselves as victims, the Democrat Party is out of business and they know it. That's why we have the Race Pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton helping to keep the black man down. They know that once he rises up, they're going to be unemployed. Glad to see that your neighbors didn't fall into the victimhood trap and chose to make something of themselves.

The Black guy is a good friend. He is a member of the NRA and we go shooting together quite often. I am working now to get him into reloading. He did not vote for Obama.

He was raised in a poor Black community but he had a good Dad and Mom that taught him good values. They scraped and got him through college and he succeeded quite well. His wife is a Branch Manger for Bank of America and is just as conservative as he is. Their son is a math wiz in High School and I swear he knows more Calculus than I do as an Engineer. The son also likes to shoot and I am building him an AR. He is trying to get into West Point.

I love to talk politics with my neighbor because he has such good Conservative values. He hates the welfare mentality of his fellow Blacks. He says, like you, that they are the slaves of the Democrat Party.

Socialism is a very destructive force. It is like a dangerous addictive drug like cocaine or heroin. It makes you happy for the moment when you are getting your entitlement check but it destroys your mind and soul over the long run.

Originally Posted by Midas

First off, even with the best will in the world I can't see the world uniting.

I think that if you look at religion it's done a pretty good job.

Originally Posted by Midas

A major global catastrophe will bring out the dog eat dog nature of people, and only the strong will survive; socialism won't stand a chance other than in small-scale altruism, where to be so is of immediate benefit to one's own survival.

Incorrect, man's existence or savagery to man will end in catastrophe, as will capitalism (if too much power is given to multinational corporations) if we let it spill out of control.

The first societies to rise will be the socialist ones because it will be the working classes in South America, Africa and Asia that will most likely survive a nuclear war.

Originally Posted by Midas

Capitalism as we have it today might well not survive, but we'll always have people who lead and people who follow; we'll always have people who are driven and ambitious and those who aren't; we'll always have people who are hard working and those who are lazy and would sponge off others.

Of course, and a genetically diverse society is a secret to success. Technology will alter our bodies to form more passive and peaceful species.

Socialism is an answer to the question of survival, but perfection lies in scoieties that are properly educated and economically sound. The Centre is the best of all of societies problems.

Originally Posted by Midas

Society will always have a hierarchical structure in respect of power, authority and money by virtue of the way we are as a species, however I quite agree that there's room for far more humanity within that structure, but humanity is a very different thing to socialism.

You're right.

Originally Posted by Syphro

I think that if you look at religion it's done a pretty good job.

Cough, cough!! A pretty good job at causing anger and hatred, splitting families and countries, starting wars, causing massive over-population and starvation, giving people false hopes......

Incorrect, man's existence or savagery to man will end in catastrophe, as will capitalism (if too much power is given to multinational corporations) if we let it spill out of control.

Man is a savage being. Our veneer of civilisation is very thin on top of our evolutionary heritage in which the survival of the fittest rules, and it takes very little to crack through it. You've only to look at the behaviour of what you'd think are quite normal people during periods of very high stress or war to see how nature takes over from nurture in the behavioural stakes. I can't see how multi-nationals (much as I agree that they have far too much power and influence in the political world, particularly in America) can cause catastrophe. Capitalism is a largely self-righting system, and although there can be big swings in the way it operates (often caused by government interference), ultimately it will control itself. Simply because a certain sector of society doesn't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

The first societies to rise will be the socialist ones because it will be the working classes in South America, Africa and Asia that will most likely survive a nuclear war.

Under those conditions they might well be the first to rise again, but I doubt if unscathed, and I very much doubt if political or class considerations will be foremost in people's minds after a major international catastrophe. They'll be interested in survival, and if that survival means being top dog, that's how it'll be. If you find a cache of food when you're starving, being a good little socialist and distributing it to those who are starving is hardly likely to be your first priority unless it's on a very localised basis in order to ensure your and your immediate group's survival; that will be your top priority.

Of course, and a genetically diverse society is a secret to success. Technology will alter our bodies to form more passive and peaceful species.

I don't follow the logic here.

Socialism is an answer to the question of survival, but perfection lies in scoieties that are properly educated and economically sound. The Centre is the best of all of societies problems.

It might be an answer, but it's not the answer. Mankind is a naturally selfish and acquisitive being full of individuals who easily fall into a hierarchical structure because of the innate abilities of some as leaders and doers and the same lack of abilities in the majority, who are content to follow. People are plainly not equal and ultimately the only way that there'll be stability in society is for everyone to recognise that fact and live within their particular band of capabilities without envy, which is at the root of a great deal of socialism.

Originally Posted by Midas

Cough, cough!! A pretty good job at causing anger and hatred, splitting families and countries, starting wars, causing massive over-population and starvation, giving people false hopes......

Yes, but not on the small scale. I know many church communities that are united.

Originally Posted by Midas

Man is a savage being. Our veneer of civilisation is very thin on top of our evolutionary heritage in which the survival of the fittest rules, and it takes very little to crack through it. You've only to look at the behaviour of what you'd think are quite normal people during periods of very high stress or war to see how nature takes over from nurture in the behavioural stakes.

I am an exception then...

Originally Posted by Midas

I can't see how multi-nationals (much as I agree that they have far too much power and influence in the political world, particularly in America) can cause catastrophe.

Once multi-nationals get a global monopoly then they can afflict political sanctions on groups or nations. They are not a country so they cannot be attacked easily and they have no opponents to their business. Therefore they have political immunity.

Originally Posted by Midas

Capitalism is a largely self-righting system, and although there can be big swings in the way it operates (often caused by government interference), ultimately it will control itself. Simply because a certain sector of society doesn't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

From the eye of a socialist (I have read many books on the topic), capitalism is incoherent because periphery countries and core countries will never ever be equal. People in poor countries will always suffer under capitalism because they cannot escape and equate profit and national prosperity.

Originally Posted by Midas

I don't follow the logic here.

I was referring to genetic engineering.

Originally Posted by Midas

It might be an answer, but it's not the answer. Mankind is a naturally selfish and acquisitive being full of individuals who easily fall into a hierarchical structure because of the innate abilities of some as leaders and doers and the same lack of abilities in the majority, who are content to follow. People are plainly not equal and ultimately the only way that there'll be stability in society is for everyone to recognise that fact and live within their particular band of capabilities without envy, which is at the root of a great deal of socialism.

Yes, but I will argue that a successful socialist revolution will occur and reign for as long as capitalism before falling in favour of a more compatible system.

Originally Posted by Syphro

From the eye of a socialist (I have read many books on the topic), capitalism is incoherent because periphery countries and core countries will never ever be equal.

So what? Equality amoung world counties is not very high on my priority list. For instance, I could care less if the people of Paraguay are "equal" to the people of the UK.

Commie governments don't produce equality between the countries either.

People in poor countries will always suffer under capitalism because they cannot escape and equate profit and national prosperity.

They will suffer more under Socialism because there will be no one around to make any money. Cuba and North Korea are great examples of this. China was in poverty under socialism and didn't start to prosper until they adopted capitalism.

Socialism destroys countries. Capitalism makes them weathy.

Originally Posted by flash

Socialism destroys countries. Capitalism makes them weathy.

...if they are core countries. Not one country has migrated from periphery to core ever. Brazil is semi-periphery but it is a sole example.

Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist. However, all of us are born in a genetic and geographic lottery.

I am very lucky to be born in a rich country to intelligent parents.

Originally Posted by Syphro

...if they are core countries. Not one country has migrated from periphery to core ever. Brazil is semi-periphery but it is a sole example.

Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist. However, all of us are born in a genetic and geographic lottery.

I am very lucky to be born in a rich country to intelligent parents.

Core, Periphery, semi-periphery????

Those are nothing but stupid words that hardly have a meaning in real life in the context you are using them.

A country will not have any wealth if the government is collecting the money from the citizens and then redistributing it. The only way a country is going to get wealthy is to do like they are doing in China and other countries and unbridle free enterprise.

India is getting wealthier every day. They are not getting wealthy because they are turning to socialism. They are getting wealthy through capitalism.

The reason most of Europe has been in a stagnation economy for the last 40 years has been because of your turn towards socialism. How can the people in the European countries do well when the government is collecting so much money and using it for dumbass things like a large inefficient NHS program?

Capitalism makes money. All Socialists do is redistribute money.

Besides, at the end of the day who really gives a crap about these third world countries being core, periphery or smei-periphery? I know I don’t.

Originally Posted by flash

Core, Periphery, semi-periphery????

Core: Countries where the national income is very profitable.
Semi-Periphery: Countries where the the national income is adequate to few.
Periphery: Countries where the national income is marginally profitable at the expense of child labor, sweatshops, education etc.

Originally Posted by flash

Capitalism makes money. All Socialists do is redistribute money.

Yes, I am a capitalist! How many times do I need to say this?

Originally Posted by flash

Besides, at the end of the day who really gives a crap about these third world countries being core, periphery or smei-periphery? I know I don’t.

I hope you re-consider. Otherwise your lack of humanity is disturbing.

Originally Posted by Syphro

I hope you re-consider. Otherwise your lack of humanity is disturbing.

I have lots of humanity. I just have a hard enough time taking care of myself and my family to worry a whole lot about somebody in Uganda.

Originally Posted by flash

I have lots of humanity. I just have a hard enough time taking care of myself and my family to worry a whole lot about somebody in Uganda.

I apologise, I had the assumption that you were well off.

Originally Posted by Syphro

I apologise, I had the assumption that you were well off.

I am just a poor little Cracker boy trying to get by in the world and trying to get the damn government off my back.

Nobody can really be well off in a country where the friggin government takes about a third of the GNP, can they?

It must even be worse for you because your government even takes more of your money.

Just thought I would add something.

Socialism is fantastic.... In theory and only in theory.
The idea that you can help everyone, bring total equality is brilliant, however, it is so unrealistic and so unachievable it's hardly worth discussing it as a serious alternative to capitalism... Actually I'll rephrase that. It is NOT worth discussing it as an alternative. Period.

However, some aspects of socialism can be incorporated into a capitalist society. For example, you can have free enterprise, businesses in every area of the economy and system, whilst still having some nationalised alternative.

The health care system is a great example. You can have a private health care system that is unrivalled, but for those that just cannot afford it, have a free health care system that will aid them. Comprehensive Education is another example.

It is all about balance. Obviously, this balance is hugely variant depending on what country you try and apply it to. A clear example is America is and will always be more capitalist than the United Kingdom.

Originally Posted by Syphro

Yes, but not on the small scale. I know many church communities that are united.

The small scale is really irrelevant though; church communities are also rather irrelevant to the wider world of politics and commerce, which is where socialism rears its ugly head.

I am an exception then...

I doubt you've ever been in such a situation.

Once multi-nationals get a global monopoly then they can afflict political sanctions on groups or nations. They are not a country so they cannot be attacked easily and they have no opponents to their business. Therefore they have political immunity.

True to a degree, but there are many dynamic influences at play, and corporations come and go. But they certainly do have enemies; competitors who sometimes can have a greater impact on them than many would like to think. They're also vulnerable to the fickleness of public taste and demand; it doesn't take much for a less than optimally responsive corporation to crumble.

From the eye of a socialist (I have read many books on the topic), capitalism is incoherent because periphery countries and core countries will never ever be equal. People in poor countries will always suffer under capitalism because they cannot escape and equate profit and national prosperity.

This is where we come more to the nitty-gritty of it. What you learn in books is often simply theory; once you get out into the world and experience real life, you'll find it very different indeed. The real world doesn't conform to theories other than in the most general sense; it does whatever is optimal, 9 times out of 10 that which is most effective and profitable. If in doing so it benefits others socially, great, but that's not the prime aim. If you look deeply into many of the so-called 'fair trade' and 'commercial aid' companies, on the bottom line you'll still find that profit is king; in fact many of these type of organisations, which superficially seem as if they're 'doing a good thing' can end up causing more harm to the very communities they're supposed to be helping than if they'd left alone.

Yes, but I will argue that a successful socialist revolution will occur and reign for as long as capitalism before falling in favour of a more compatible system.

I personally believe you're very wrong there, based both on a look at history and a knowledge of our basic human instincts.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Just thought I would add something.

Socialism is fantastic.... In theory and only in theory.
The idea that you can help everyone, bring total equality is brilliant, however, it is so unrealistic and so unachievable it's hardly worth discussing it as a serious alternative to capitalism... Actually I'll rephrase that. It is NOT worth discussing it as an alternative. Period.

However, some aspects of socialism can be incorporated into a capitalist society. For example, you can have free enterprise, businesses in every area of the economy and system, whilst still having some nationalised alternative.

The health care system is a great example. You can have a private health care system that is unrivalled, but for those that just cannot afford it, have a free health care system that will aid them. Comprehensive Education is another example.

It is all about balance. Obviously, this balance is hugely variant depending on what country you try and apply it to. A clear example is America is and will always be more capitalist than the United Kingdom.

Why should anything be nationalized other than defense and a few other things that only a government can do?

The private sector can provide almost anything cheaper and better than the government.

When you give the government the right to take your money you are giving up a lot of freedom and you are giving an inefficient entiy the means to control your life. You hardly ever get you money's worth. The fact that the NHS is the third largest employer in the world is a great example of the massive overhead cost you have to pay in order for the government to provide a service that you could get better through the private sector.

By the way, very few people in the US can't afford health care and they are mostly the illegals, welfare queens and a few people in transit in their lives. Tough luck. Maybe the illegals should go back to Mexico and overthrow the government and institute socialized medicine in their country. It is not my concern to provide it to them in my country.

Originally Posted by flash

Why should anything be nationalized other than defense and a few other things that only a government can do?

Because I believe everyone has a right to health and education.
Some cannot afford private health care, thus the Government should help.

The private sector can provide almost anything cheaper and better than the government.

Yes and no... I shall explain below.

When you give the government the right to take your money you are giving up a lot of freedom and you are giving an inefficient entiy the means to control your life. You hardly ever get you money's worth. The fact that the NHS is the third largest employer in the world is a great example of the massive overhead cost you have to pay in order for the government to provide a service that you could get better through the private sector.

That is not actually true.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is a nationalised industry.
It is a global broadcaster, probably one of the wealthiest and most successful.

The issue is not whether it is nationalised or not. Just like you "NHS is the third largest employer" comment, it is actually not important. The issue is, how it is run.

The NHS as it is, is not run brilliantly. However, run the NHS like the BBC... well you'll get an efficient, cheaper healthcare system.

By the way, very few people in the US can't afford health care and they are mostly the illegals, welfare queens and a few people in transit in their lives. Tough luck. Maybe the illegals should go back to Mexico and overthrow the government and institute socialized medicine in their country. It is not my concern to provide it to them in my country.

I agree. Illegals should not have rights to anything.
They should be caught and deported.

However, believe it or not, but there are cases of people who work all their lives and can barely afford to live.

Originally Posted by Midas

The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights, the term ‘property’ being used in its widest sense. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong.

I'm afraid your entire premise is wrong.

And to verify it, we must go back to the original source of the political creed....

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few....

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labor, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


Excerpt from The Communist Manifesto (Marx/Engels ~ 1848)

In a modern sense, the intention is the abolition of Capital Goods (as opposed to Consumer Goods) as a tradeable, private concern. The implication that I have heard time and time again from capitalistas on forums such as these, that under such a system gangs of armed, unwashed party members would remove your television at gunpoint and hand it over to your next-door-neighbour is a complete fallacy designed to spook the unenlightened into complicity through fear.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I've always thought socialism was dodgy, as it does operate on the principle of taking one person's earned wealth and giving to another because the latter is poor, however it never addresses the reasons why they're poor.

What you allude to is not socialism, but redistribution within a capitalist system (i.e. what we have now). Socialism re-defines the concept of ownership to the extent that "unearned wealth" becomes a logical impossibility.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Because I believe everyone has a right to health and education. Some cannot afford private health care, thus the Government should help.

Why should the government help? Why should the government take your money by force of arms and give it to somebody else?

Isn't a person responsible for their own health and well being? Why should I be responsible for somebody else's health care bills?

I believe in public education because I think it helps the nation to have a literate population. However, I don't think everyone has a right to an education. There is no right involved, only that a basic education is usually a good investment for the government to make. There are very few other government functions that meet the same criteria as education.

Besides, the government does not do a good job of education. They are inefficient and have imposed state values on children.

I sent my kids to a private school instead of public. Back in the 1980s and 1990s I was paying about $2500 a year in tuition for a school that had the highest test scores in the county. At the same time the friggin county was spending about $7000 per student.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is a nationalised industry.
It is a global broadcaster, probably one of the wealthiest and most successful.

I'll have to look into this. Do they actually make a profit that is returned to the taxpayers? Can they turn a profit because their assets have been capitalized by the government? What are the real economics compared to private broadcasters?

I will suspect that when I look into I will discover something that is missing.

However, believe it or not, but there are cases of people who work all their lives and can barely afford to live.

Not my responsibility. If I feel sorry for them I will help them out with charity. I don’t want the government taking my money and handing it over to these people. That is stealing.

Originally Posted by flash

I believe in public education because I think it helps the nation to have a literate population. However, I don't think everyone has a right to an education. There is no right involved, only that a basic education is usually a good investment for the government to make. There are very few other government functions that meet the same criteria as education.

State healthcare and State education benefit the country.
You cannot have effective workers if they are not healthy.

One of our greatest scientists; Mr Hawking, has survived thanks to the NHS. Would you let him die? Even though his mind is worth more than the cost of his health care!

I'll have to look into this. Do they actually make a profit that is returned to the taxpayers? Can they turn a profit because their assets have been capitalized by the government? What are the real economics compared to private broadcasters?

In Britain the BBC runs the show. No private broadcaster compares to the BBC.
The BBC has a profit side to it. All of those profits are used to finance the rest of the BBC.

I shall review the budgets.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

State healthcare and State education benefit the country.
You cannot have effective workers if they are not healthy.

One of our greatest scientists; Mr Hawking, has survived thanks to the NHS. Would you let him die? Even though his mind is worth more than the cost of his health care!

You can argue that almost anything "benefits the state" if you want. For instance, you can claim that me having a car benefits the state, or having a house, or a swimming pool. How about me living comfortable in a house with air conditioning or having free electricity?

Where do the state’s responsibility end and my personal responsibility start? Socialists would argue that the state’s responsibility is never ending. I believe in personal responsibility because that is the real definition of freedom. Any state responsibility comes with some pretty good strings attached like high cost and government intrusion.

Health Care is a personal responsibility and should be viewed as such.

I am not responsible for the health care of Steven Hawking. I read one of his books years ago so I paid his royalties. He can buy his own health care.

In Britain the BBC runs the show. No private broadcaster compares to the BBC.
The BBC has a profit side to it. All of those profits are used to finance the rest of the BBC.

Do they sell air time to advertisers? If so why are they more profitable than other broadcasters? Is it because they are a legacy broadcaster that has a broad base of loyal fans? If they are profitable there is a reason for it and that reason may not be the efficiency of the government.