Natural disasters 'killed over 220,000' in 2008

A difference in hot and colder areas caused the cyclone in Myanmar. Is this related to climate change? Maybe, however these storms along with huge death tolls are nothing new. The deaths from this storm were caused by poverty, plain and simple. No "climate deal" will bring these people out of poverty. Only modernization and a release from their their military dictatorship will do that.
The deaths from earthquakes must be removed from any consideration of a climate deal.

I am sorry to see that physorg feels it is necessary to continue publishing propaganda.

It's pretty funny that they don't mention any death tolls for the US storms or European disasters.

Wait a minute, that's because the people in those locations weren't living in war zones (afghanistan), without running water or power to start with, or located in horribly poor regions (Southern China and Myanmar).

Looks like poverty is still the number 1 killer.

Poverty didn't kill those people, it just condemed them. Plenty of people in those regions have lived out long and semi-happy lives without ever being killed by a cyclone, flood or earthquake. For the most part, it's response time of the disaster struck government. Thousands of lives were saved in China because the military was digging people out within 24 hours. Tens of thousands of people died in Myanmar in the post-cyclone flooding because their government actively prevented aid from coming. Poverty is only a factor if you think money can stop the water from rising or the Earth's plates from moving.

Poverty didn't kill those people, it just condemed them. Plenty of people in those regions have lived out long and semi-happy lives without ever being killed by a cyclone, flood or earthquake. For the most part, it's response time of the disaster struck government. Thousands of lives were saved in China because the military was digging people out within 24 hours. Tens of thousands of people died in Myanmar in the post-cyclone flooding because their government actively prevented aid from coming. Poverty is only a factor if you think money can stop the water from rising or the Earth's plates from moving.

That's a very malformed comment. Look at the effects of a similar intensity event in a more affluent location and note the lack of death toll.

More money = more survivability in today's environment. The statistics show it, ignoring it is fallacy.

yeah yeah, when a scientific article weakens the case for global warming you guys laud it as "real science" and when a scientific article strengthens the case for global warming you label it as "propaganda" or "fraud". Have you guys ever wondered why insurance companies are so active in highlighting the impact of global warming?. They are in a unique position to both observe the impact of climate change and suffer financially from it. Of course they could be part of the conspiracy too though. Time to put on those tinfoil hats...

yeah yeah, when a scientific article weakens the case for global warming you guys laud it as "real science" and when a scientific article strengthens the case for global warming you label it as "propaganda" or "fraud". Have you guys ever wondered why insurance companies are so active in highlighting the impact of global warming?. They are in a unique position to both observe the impact of climate change and suffer financially from it. Of course they could be part of the conspiracy too though. Time to put on those tinfoil hats...

I re-read my comments and I don't think I said anything about global warming. As a matter of fact there really isn't much in this article that would scientifically link the events above with global warming. Realistically there is nothing in the article above that links anything having to do with global warming.

Wonder why that is, wanna give us a hand with that gmurphy?

205,000 of the 220,000 were killed in just 2 events: Cyclone Nargis and the Sichuan earthquake.

How many of them would have survived with proper building codes? Some? Many? Most of them?

What about emergency services (as noted by Velanarris)? Again, most of them?

Finally, while there may be some debate on the effects of climate on cyclones, there is no connections between (liveable)climate and earthquakes. Trying to claim a connection is disingenuous at best and flat out lying at worst.

Velanarris, Don't worry... I'll say the "global warming" words for you.

What a bunch of global warnming fearmongering bull-sheet. The Indonesian tsunami a few years ago claimed over 280,000 in ONE event. 220,000 lost to natural disaster (assuming you also wish to count disease or famine as a result of drought as a natural disaster) is a GOOD year, relatively speaking.

Poverty didn't kill those people, it just condemed them. Plenty of people in those regions have lived out long and semi-happy lives without ever being killed by a cyclone, flood or earthquake. For the most part, it's response time of the disaster struck government. Thousands of lives were saved in China because the military was digging people out within 24 hours. Tens of thousands of people died in Myanmar in the post-cyclone flooding because their government actively prevented aid from coming. Poverty is only a factor if you think money can stop the water from rising or the Earth's plates from moving.

That's a very malformed comment. Look at the effects of a similar intensity event in a more affluent location and note the lack of death toll.

More money = more survivability in today's environment. The statistics show it, ignoring it is fallacy.

I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear. Money does help. In fact, it helps a lot. But only in prevention of disaster. Once the disater strikes, it's worthless. Let's look at Katrina for example. The United States, a pretty wealthy nation compared to others, had the money to keep the levies in better condition, but didn't. The nation had the ability to act very quickly and reduce the death toll, but didn't. Money was there and could have provided a lot of prevention, but it ended up being no help at all. Looking at the individual victims of the flooding, you'll note that comparitive wealth had nothing to do with who lived and who died. If you were down there when the water hit, you were at serious risk of immenent doom. The properties were not spared based on the wealth of the owner's, in fact the more expensive beach properties and cruise ships suffered the most damage. The only thing wealth did in that particular scenario was that it provioded a means to get out of harms way before the actual event took place. Money only helps before the event as a preventative measure. Lack of money only condems a person to stick it out and hope for the best. The best thing for preventing loss of life is the response time of the government after the natural disaster hits.

America, Wealthy, Hurricane Katrina, less than 1,000 killed...
Myanmar, Very Poor, Cyclone Nargis, 135,000 killed.

Case closed.

"The best thing for preventing loss of life is the response time of the government after the natural disaster hits."

Bull... I live on the Texas coast... I and anyone else that has enough money for gas leaves when a hurricane is coming. When I came back... devastation... but guess what? I had enough money to buy flood insurance and homeowner's insurance. Everything fixed up real nice. Now tell me again why I needed the government to be my sugar daddy?

"The best thing for preventing loss of life is the response time of the government after the natural disaster hits."

Bull... I live on the Texas coast... I and anyone else that has enough money for gas leaves when a hurricane is coming. When I came back... devastation... but guess what? I had enough money to buy flood insurance and homeowner's insurance. Everything fixed up real nice. Now tell me again why I needed the government to be my sugar daddy?

Because it is the view of liberals and more specifically US democrats that people do not have to be personally responsible, nor should they be free from government reliance.

We need government response because not everybody has a place to go when the disaster strikes. You may be surprised to hear it, but not everybody has the ability to hop into a car and stay in a hotel two states over for a week or two. By all rights, those people were probably capable of landing a decent job to pay for neccesities like gas or insurance. That does not mean that we should be able to sit idly by while they drown and still keep a clear conscience. We have a moral obligation to help those who stare death in the face as much as we are able.

But sometimes things happen without enough warning to drive off to a hotel somewhere. Take Sichuan for example. There was basicaly no warning at all, and the only reason the death toll wasn't much, much higher was the response time of the government. Money was a complete nonissue once the buildings fell.

I don't think we should rely on the government for everything, but part of the social contract is that the government will do its very best to help its people when disaster strikes, be it war, plague, or hurricane. People should do their best to help themselves, of course, but most of the time that's not enough to save them or their property.
That flood insurance costs a pretty penny, a pretty penny that many can't afford to give up. Not only that, but insurance companies actively try to find ways to get out of paying for damages or at least reduce the amount they pay. Personaly, I trust a nonprofit organization more than a company whose sole interest is increased profits for shareholders, at least when it comes to aid in a crisis.

That does not mean that we should be able to sit idly by while they drown and still keep a clear conscience. We have a moral obligation to help those who stare death in the face as much as we are able.

You know, I don't get it. Are you pro personal accountability or not? You want the corporate types to hold themselves responsible, while the poor don't have to. Wealth should not be a burden.

"That flood insurance costs a pretty penny, a pretty penny that many can't afford to give up."

Oh yeah that flood insurance cost me almost 400 bucks last year... OH THE HORROR... Get rid of the big screen TV, Get insurance, and get a job....

"Take Sichuan for example. There was basicaly no warning at all, and the only reason the death toll wasn't much, much higher was the response time of the government. Money was a complete nonissue once the buildings fell."

That is more bullhockey... Why can't the Chinese afford to build homes that won't fall in on them? Do you think the death toll would have been as high in San Francisco??? Get a clue, man... Are you a friggin' Commie or what?

You know, I don't get it. Are you pro personal accountability or not? You want the corporate types to hold themselves responsible, while the poor don't have to. Wealth should not be a burden.

I am pro personal accountability. I'm also pro corporate responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for takeing care of themselves, but I also feel that part of that is helping out those who need help. We are not isolated from eachother and what hurts some of us will eventualy hurt all of us. The sad truth, however, is that not everyone acts responsibly, but that is no reason to turn our backs to them when they are in need. Wealth is a burden, if you can't accept the idea of using your wealth to benifit others, you really don't deserve any of that money.

Oh yeah that flood insurance cost me almost 400 bucks last year... OH THE HORROR... Get rid of the big screen TV, Get insurance, and get a job....

Yes, the family of eight living off two or three minimum wage jobs can totally aford $400 a year. All they have to do is stop getting sick all the time, poverty is no excuse for throwing all your money into healthcare. Or they could just stop eating so much, you poor people are the biggest pigs. Or they could sell a couple of their extra kids into servitude, they have far too many anyway. To you and me, $400 isn't very much. To the less fortunate, and the ones who are unaware of birth control, $400 is a lot of money that just isn't there.

That is more bullhockey... Why can't the Chinese afford to build homes that won't fall in on them? Do you think the death toll would have been as high in San Francisco??? Get a clue, man... Are you a friggin' Commie or what?

Two points. First, the death toll in San Francisco wouldn't be as high, but only because the population density is much lower. The death toll would probably still be pretty bad in an earthquake of that magnitude though. There are a lot of old buildings in San Fran that are not 'earthquake proof.' Second, am I a "friggin' Commie?" No. I see merit in the communist system, but have also watched that system turn on itslef and destroy entire nations. Don't discount the communists, though. They have a lot of valid ideas that could be applied to a capitalistic nation like the United States to improve the lives of millions.

I am pro personal accountability. I'm also pro corporate responsibility. I think everyone should be responsible for takeing care of themselves, but I also feel that part of that is helping out those who need help. We are not isolated from eachother and what hurts some of us will eventualy hurt all of us. The sad truth, however, is that not everyone acts responsibly, but that is no reason to turn our backs to them when they are in need. Wealth is a burden, if you can't accept the idea of using your wealth to benifit others, you really don't deserve any of that money.

But if I held myself responsible for my situation in the good times, then in turn, I should hold myself responsible in the bad times and work harder to get myself out, not rely on handouts.

Secondly

Yes, the family of eight living off two or three minimum wage jobs can totally aford $400 a year. All they have to do is stop getting sick all the time, poverty is no excuse for throwing all your money into healthcare. Or they could just stop eating so much, you poor people are the biggest pigs. Or they could sell a couple of their extra kids into servitude, they have far too many anyway. To you and me, $400 isn't very much. To the less fortunate, and the ones who are unaware of birth control, $400 is a lot of money that just isn't there.

This is a horrible hypothetical as it's unrealistic. A family of 8 cannot afford a home and live off 3 minimum wage jobs. Sorry, it's completely unrealistic. If this situation does exist anywhere, I'd hope the family would have the concious thought to sell the house and use that money to either live within their means or find another method without resorting to using my money to fix the situation they got themselves into.

If the poor are reproducing to a point where they have 6 kids and don't have enough money for basic insurance then I have no sympathy. That is an utter failure of personal responsibility that I won't encourage by handing out my money to assist it in perpetuity.

And in today's age how exactly is one "not aware" of birth control after having 6 kids through the hospital system. It's not possible. Someone would have to flat out refuse to use birth control through either financial or religious, perhaps other moral beliefs. In which case, we're financing belief systems that I don't support.

Your argument is emotional and not logical. I understand your point, and it's valid, just not for everyone, and certainly not for everyone else's belief system.

Lastly,

They have a lot of valid ideas that could be applied to a capitalistic nation like the United States to improve the lives of millions.

Name one.

"They have a lot of valid ideas that could be applied to a capitalistic nation like the United States to improve the lives of millions."

Yup... he's a commie...

I'm not saying we should support the stupid decisions people make that get them into poverty. That would be a complete waste of money that could be used elsewhere. What I'm saying is that, in times of disaster, we have an obligation to help everyone in danger, no matter what their background is like. Part of paying taxes is a small gaurantee that the government will help you if your life is in danger. I'm not proposing handouts, I'm proposing that we give a crap about whether our fellow citizen lives or dies. Or at the very least, hold up our end of the the social contract.

They have a lot of valid ideas that could be applied to a capitalistic nation like the United States to improve the lives of millions.


Name one.

The view of the role of govenment. Communists view the goverment as friends, as neighbors, as equals. They are willing to follow the government because it is usually made up of the most intelligent neighbors and friendds. We don't do that much in the States. Either we are too cynical, we think the goverment is one big power off in the distance doing dispicable things and asking us to pay for it, or we are too cowardly to acept that we are being led by normal, flawed people who may need our input every now and then. I like our government, but our people are nincompoops and need to start seeing the government as the alpha friend, the leader who needs a little helpful input every now and then, rather than a totalitarian beuracracy that wants to take everything from its people and give nothing back in return.

"They have a lot of valid ideas that could be applied to a capitalistic nation like the United States to improve the lives of millions."

Yup... he's a commie...

Ok, fine, and you're a redneck. Big deal.
Ooh! look out! I might start a prolatarian revolution, redistribute the wealth, slaughter millions in the name of progress, forcefuly control the economy of China, and form an evil pact with the Boogie man!

You, my friend, are deluded.

You, my friend, are deluded.

I'm well aware of that and perfectly okay with it.

OK then...

What I'm saying is that, in times of disaster, we have an obligation to help everyone in danger, no matter what their background is like.

I agree with this, however, the 'disaster' has to be well defined, and causing lives. Right now you'd have to work pretty hard to show me the disaster.

The view of the role of govenment. Communists view the goverment as friends, as neighbors, as equals.

What? That's certainly not the case. Communists don't view the government. "True" Communism is living together and having everything provided for you by the government. There's no viewing the government as anything other than your source for everything.

Either we are too cynical, we think the goverment is one big power off in the distance doing dispicable things and asking us to pay for it, or we are too cowardly to acept that we are being led by normal, flawed people who may need our input every now and then.

Actually, in the US, it's a representative republic. My personal view of the government is that it has gotten too large. Government in the US was setup to do 3 things. To establish a rule that will provide the means for life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice.

That means that the government needs to provide laws and the means to enforce them. That is all. Everything else is up to the citizen of the country.

Since then we've amended in social security, medicare, fica tax, sales tax, made it illegal to drink, made it legal to drink again, set term limits, abolishment of slavery, etc.

Some of those things, like the abolishment of slavery, term limits, etc are great things. The rest, not so necessary for a federal government to provide when state governments are more than capable of doing so if their citizens are self-responsible individuals.

I like our government, but our people are nincompoops and need to start seeing the government as the alpha friend, the leader who needs a little helpful input every now and then, rather than a totalitarian beuracracy that wants to take everything from its people and give nothing back in return.

Right now our government is becomming a totaliarian dictatorship, and it's the people that are giving them this power. By marching headlong into causes like "the war of drugs", censoring howard stern, the FCC regulations, even something as innocuous as the explicit lyrics stickers on cd's can be the roots of totalitarianism. Carbon taxes, cap and trade, financial regulation are the things that make governments from your simple representative government into a dictatorship.

That and the fact we have an over 95% incumbency rating in the house and congress for the past 80 years, (this election was an expected outlier). If you want to change this government, do it with your vote, not with more laws, more bureaus, and more government control.

I agree with this, however, the 'disaster' has to be well defined, and causing lives. Right now you'd have to work pretty hard to show me the disaster.

My definition for disaster is anything that threatens many citizens' lives, with the word 'many' used loosly. Any tornado near a town, any huricane, any strong earhquake, any volcano, any riot, any war, any alien invasions. Okay, that last one is a joke, but the point stands. When lives are at risk, we need to do our very best to remove or reduve the risk.

"True" Communism is living together and having everything provided for you by the government. There's no viewing the government as anything other than your source for everything

Actualy, the socialist utopia that communists wish to attain has no goverment whatsoever. The ideal is that everybody works together and takes only what they need, giving only what others need. The process leading to that utopia involves a government of equals and friends attempting to keep the greed of the average person in check. That obviously isn't how it plays out in practice, but that's the idealistic communist viewpoint.

Actually, in the US, it's a representative republic. My personal view of the government is that it has gotten too large. Government in the US was setup to do 3 things. To establish a rule that will provide the means for life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice.

Goverment in the US can't be limited by the philosophies of long dead ideolouges. I liked their philosophies, but also understand that they were struggling for independence from an oppressive monarchy. They didn't want anything to do with any central government at all. You'll also not that the originol US goverment, based on the philosophy of letting the states decide to do whatever they wanted, failed. That's why the constitution was written. They realized that the states argue too much and tend to screw up a lot.

I completley agree with you on censorship. It's a silly attempt to enforce pointless morals. (Don't get me wrong, some morals are good, but saying 'bad' words is largely harmless) I also think the government is far too large, but I have to disagree on the reasoning. I don't the think we are heading for totalitarianism at all. We've had some scares(Japanese internment camps, the Red Scare, prohibition, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Patriot Act, ect) but we have managed to bounce back with reason each time. The reason I think the government is too big is efficiency, mostly in the beurocracy. The whole thing is a sinkhole of wasted money and resources. The services provided are nice, but each department needs to be restructured for efficiency and productivity.

That and the fact we have an over 95% incumbency rating in the house and congress for the past 80 years, (this election was an expected outlier). If you want to change this government, do it with your vote, not with more laws, more bureaus, and more government control.

People don't vote. That's the biggest problem with our government system today. Why they don't vote, I can't begin to understand. I was exstatic the first time I got to vote. We have high incumbancy because the same exact people vote in each reelection, with very little fresh opinion thrown in each cycle. Personaly, I will vote for more laws, bereaus, ect. But I'm not doing it because I want to give more control to the government or because I want tax moneney to pay for my needs. I personaly vote for laws that make sense. The government needs to be able to raise funds for schools, developers shold be forced to supply water to their developements before getting aproval to build, power companies shouldn't be able to charge you for not using enough electricity. The government needs to step in some times as a control on public stupity. And in my experience, the public is extremely stupid.
It's probably different where you are, but I live in a state where education is one of the last things to get funding and one of the first things to get cut, where we drink more beer per capita than any other state, and where are biggest income sources are gambling, hotels, and brothels. We need government here. It's a hell hole of morons and tools.

OK, so maybe you're not as Commie as Mike B. wants to believe...

I think everyone should be responsible for takeing care of themselves, but I also feel that part of that is helping out those who need help.

Correct, if you categorize "helping out those who need help" as a personal responsibilty.

We have a moral obligation to help those who stare death in the face as much as we are able.

Yes, if you categorize "We" as people and citizens... not "We" as a government. I generally call that "charity". I spread my wealth through charity EVERY YEAR. People have morals, not governments. If I am an honest and law-abiding person then to me the only "moral obligation" of my government is to have my government out of my way. Everything else (like providing for common defense) is a "constitutional obligation".

I like our government, but our people are nincompoops and need to start seeing the government as the alpha friend... rather than a totalitarian beuracracy that wants to take everything from its people and give nothing back in return.

I agree on nicompoops... but so your solution to this is to meld selected facets of communism into the role of America's government? What?! We already have the best form of government, we just need better stewards/leaders to clean out the muck and make it work.

Communists view the goverment as friends, as neighbors, as equals.

There's another name for Communists who think the government is their friend and neighbor... "Useful Idiots."

They are willing to follow the government because it is usually made up of the most intelligent neighbors and friendds.

The history of Communist nations doesn't bear out your statement. They "followed" Communist governments at the point of a bayonet!.. and often straight into prisons or firing squads.

Sum of my points being... there may be certain economic "Communist ideals" that seem to have some arguable level of "equivalency" with a person's individual moral responsibilities to care for a neighbor. But NO selected facet of Communism will ever fit into the mold of a Representative Republic government. I don't need or want a government to decide for me where my charity (a.k.a. profit) goes. My work in a Capitalistic (free market) arena is what allows me to be charitable to those who are unfortunate or "unaware" as you put it.

Speaking of "unaware"... I take it for granted that part of MY personal responsibility is to assume the risks of where I choose to live and what I choose to do (or not do). If I choose to live in a flood plain, hurricane zone, tornado alley, earthquake zone, or on the side of a volcano.... then I assume the risk. But what place in this world isn't prone to one form of disaster or another? So let's assume disaster is unavoidable and I "have nowhere to go"... I would be able to get by on the charity of my true friends and neighbors, and the best insurance plan that capitalism can offer me, if the dictated welfare of government didn't drain them of their charitable resources.

Lastly...

I live in a state where... It's a hell hole of morons and tools.

Must be Nevada or New Jersey. OK, so friggin' MOVE!! Land is still real cheap down here in the south with us red-necks.

Barkster, did you ever hit the nail on the head when you said, "I would be able to get by on the charity of my true friends and neighbors, and the best insurance plan that capitalism can offer me, if the dictated welfare of government didn't drain them of their charitable resources."

The problem with government is that it is by definition ineficient. Why hire hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats to sit in marble offices and write checks with our money when we can take care of any local problems ourselves?
It's time to get back to the basics of America.

Actualy, the socialist utopia that communists wish to attain has no goverment whatsoever. The ideal is that everybody works together and takes only what they need, giving only what others need. The process leading to that utopia involves a government of equals and friends attempting to keep the greed of the average person in check. That obviously isn't how it plays out in practice, but that's the idealistic communist viewpoint.

You're not well informed on what communism and socialism are. They are not the same, and they certainly cannot be used interchangably.

Communism relies on Oligarcy to hand out "communal resources" while Socialism is ownership of everything by the society, rather than the individual.

I am not up for either system. Communism means I have to rely on people who have been proven to be corrupt repeatedly to give me the means by which to live.

Socialism would mean that everything I've worked so hard for and own belongs to people who don't deserve it because they can sit on their ass and gain benefit from my hard work.

If you think either of those systems, at their core, have anything to offer mankind then you are living in a college-aged dream of idealism.

Once you start losing things due to the oppression of charitable government you'll either become more moderate or become another cog in the wheel.

I simply refuse to be a cog in the wheel.

We already have the best form of government, we just need better stewards/leaders to clean out the muck and make it work.

That's extremely premature and arrogant. Our form of government has yet to be tested over the amount of time that the other forms have government have had. When we've had half a millenium, preferably more, to make sure we don't fail like the Roman Republic, then you can start trumpeting the nationalist b.s.

They "followed" Communist governments at the point of a bayonet!.. and often straight into prisons or firing squads.

I'm not talking about the general citizens of communist states. I'm refering to communistic idealists, who in actual communist states, usually end up leading, fighting for the leadership, or getting stabed in the back for political reasons.

I take it for granted that part of MY personal responsibility is to assume the risks of where I choose to live and what I choose to do (or not do). If I choose to live in a flood plain, hurricane zone, tornado alley, earthquake zone, or on the side of a volcano.... then I assume the risk.

You assume that everyone has the means to make that choice. Ideally yes, everyone in a free market society has the means to be whever they want and whatever they want. It's not a reallity. People get hit year after year by tornado after tornado and never move somewhere a little safer. Why? They don't have the means to pick up and start over somewhere else.

Must be Nevada or New Jersey. OK, so friggin' MOVE!! Land is still real cheap down here in the south with us red-necks.

I would love to move away. However I, as a college student from a family of underpaid teachers, do not yet have the means to get the hell out of here.

You're not well informed on what communism and socialism are. They are not the same, and they certainly cannot be used interchangably.

I apologize. I was using the term 'socialist utopia' because that is the wording used by Karl Marx. If you would like to stop this fallacy at the root, I would suggest writting him a letter.

If you think either of those systems, at their core, have anything to offer mankind then you are living in a college-aged dream of idealism.

Your tone makes idealism sound like a bad thing. It's true that basing decisions purely on the ideal is moronic, but that isn't what I do. I look at the best parts of each ideal, compare them to reality, and form opinions and make decisions based on that. I'm pretty liberal, as you might expect from a college aged, lower middle class, person from a city, but I try my best to patiently listen to every viwepoint before passing judgement. It's very difficult for educated people to become 'cogs in the wheel.' Our nation's education system, while improvable, has ensured that our country's chances of ever truely oppressing us for an extended period of time or quite slim indeed.
Also, I'd like to note that socialism has succefuly been incorperated into several modern governments with great success and without trampling on the rights of citizens or abolishing free elections.

Your tone makes idealism sound like a bad thing. It's true that basing decisions purely on the ideal is moronic, but that isn't what I do.I look at the best parts of each ideal, compare them to reality, and form opinions and make decisions based on that.

Well you're ignoring the past precedent set by the vast majority of socialist regimes. Meaning, you're not forming your opinions based on reality, you're making your decisions based on "ideals" as you just stated above.

I'm pretty liberal, as you might expect from a college aged, lower middle class, person from a city, but I try my best to patiently listen to every viwepoint before passing judgement. It's very difficult for educated people to become 'cogs in the wheel.'

I'm going to disagree with you here. If it is difficult for educated people to become cogs in the wheel then explain the rise of Nazi Germany. You can't say the Nazi's were idiots as they housed some of the greatest scientific, political, and social minds of their time, (arguably, of any time).

Our nation's education system, while improvable, has ensured that our country's chances of ever truely oppressing us for an extended period of time or quite slim indeed.

I disagree again. Our educational system has been socialized. The government is totally in control of the education our students receive, meaning, it's even easier for the government to oppress us. The most notable of which would be Hitler's HJ. Effectively it was a socialized education that led German children to believe anti-zionist propaganda.

Also, I'd like to note that socialism has succefuly been incorperated into several modern governments with great success and without trampling on the rights of citizens or abolishing free elections.

You're going to have to provide examples of this outside of France, which is the only modern and industrialized nation I know of that has any sort of "successful" socialism at play. France almost can't be included, but they're considered the bastion of western socialism simply due to the fact that almost all of their services industries are government owned leading to 30% of the population working for the government. Having more population working for the government really isn't socialism, it's communism sans provision.

Well you're ignoring the past precedent set by the vast majority of socialist regimes. Meaning, you're not forming your opinions based on reality, you're making your decisions based on "ideals" as you just stated above.

I'm not ignoring the past. I know full well what has happened when nations become communist states. I alo know that it is possible to identify the mistakes of the past and avoid those mistakes when reattemting a goal.

If it is difficult for educated people to become cogs in the wheel then explain the rise of Nazi Germany. You can't say the Nazi's were idiots as they housed some of the greatest scientific, political, and social minds of their time, (arguably, of any time).

You can't tell me you think the Nazi leaders, the real geniuses behind the movement, were cogs in the wheel. These guys built the wheel, formed the cogs,and drive it all wherever they pleased. The brilliant scientists who actually stayed in the Reich were either kept there at gunpoint or had been raised to believe that what they saw was moraly right.

I disagree again. Our educational system has been socialized. The government is totally in control of the education our students receive, meaning, it's even easier for the government to oppress us. The most notable of which would be Hitler's HJ. Effectively it was a socialized education that led German children to believe anti-zionist propaganda.

Would you prefer that all of our schools were privatized? In that scenario, all of the schools would cost a good deal of money to attend, so only wealthy families could afford to send their children to school. The poverty rate would skyrocket and we would all suffer in the end. their's nothing wrong with the government providing us with things we need like basic education, police, healthcare, transportation, and secure border. and the anti-zionist propaganda began in the home before Hitler ever came to power.

You're going to have to provide examples of this outside of France

The United Kingdom.

I'm not ignoring the past. I know full well what has happened when nations become communist states. I also know that it is possible to identify the mistakes of the past and avoid those mistakes when reattemting a goal.

If it was that easy we would have attained utopia previously. Every socialist government falls for the exact same reason, stagnation.

You can't tell me you think the Nazi leaders, the real geniuses behind the movement, were cogs in the wheel. These guys built the wheel, formed the cogs,and drive it all wherever they pleased. The brilliant scientists who actually stayed in the Reich were either kept there at gunpoint or had been raised to believe that what they saw was moraly right.

Then by your own admission above, it isn't difficult to become a cog in the wheel, you simmply need to be motivated to do so, be it by force or reward.

Would you prefer that all of our schools were privatized? In that scenario, all of the schools would cost a good deal of money to attend, so only wealthy families could afford to send their children to school. The poverty rate would skyrocket and we would all suffer in the end. their's nothing wrong with the government providing us with things we need like basic education, police, healthcare, transportation, and secure border. and the anti-zionist propaganda began in the home before Hitler ever came to power.

If you immediately made all school private you'd no longer have property tax, and the vast majority of city taxes would vanish, some state taxes would be reduced, and the quality of education would drastically improve.

Giving consumer choice creates best of breed mentality. Rather than having to attend a local school you would have the ability to elevate yourself much as college students do when they attend the widely privatized universities as you're doing now.

The United Kingdom.

They're capitalists with socialized healthcare. That'd be equivilent to calling the US a Socialist society because we have medicare.

Socialism and communism are only forms of resource distribution. The entire society does not fund the burden of the masses, nor is the entire society relegated to receiving the same benefits from the government.

If it was that easy we would have attained utopia previously. Every socialist government falls for the exact same reason, stagnation

Yes, and how did each of those nations try to prevent collapse? What can we learn from their mistakes and how can we avoid them? I honestly beleive that Mao didn't carefully study previous examples before starting the revolution in China.

Then by your own admission above, it isn't difficult to become a cog in the wheel, you simmply need to be motivated to do so, be it by force or reward.

That's called persuasion, and it works the same way for all people in every situation. It's much more difficult to get highly educated people to stop thinking independently and and start doing whatever their government comnmands, as opposed to the poorly educated masses. "Cog in the wheel" implies that the person in question just goes with the flow, keeps their head down, and doesn't give it a second thought.

If you immediately made all school private you'd no longer have property tax, and the vast majority of city taxes would vanish, some state taxes would be reduced,

Highly doubt it, unless the leaders of that state are so concerned with getting re-elected, that they would forgoe doing their job in hopes of getting a quick sugar high from tax rebates. The money saved from education would go to anything else in the budget that is lacking or could use serious improvement. If the taxes were immediatly cut, they would probably have to be raised again in the future to pay for the services that should have been improved from the begining.

Giving consumer choice creates best of breed mentality. Rather than having to attend a local school you would have the ability to elevate yourself much as college students do when they attend the widely privatized universities as you're doing now.

And that works...for colleges. But privatizing lower education would completley screw over any family in poverty. It would also make it more difficult for the middle class family to put their kid through college if they had to spend thirteen years paying the tuition for basic education.
The material learned isn't going to change much just because schools have to compete. There's only so much a kid can learn at one time. The price of private schools would lower, of course, but not by so much that everyone could afford to go.

They're capitalists with socialized healthcare. That'd be equivilent to calling the US a Socialist society because we have medicare.

Did I say I wanted to become a socialist country? No. I said, "They have a lot of valid ideas that could be applied to a capitalistic nation like the United States to improve the lives of millions."

That means a valid example would be any capitalist country that has adopted a socialist program with at least moderate success, preferably great success. That means the UK, France, and Canada all make perfect examples.

Socialism and communism are only forms of resource distribution. The entire society does not fund the burden of the masses, nor is the entire society relegated to receiving the same benefits from the government.

I'm pretty sure that in the ideal Socialist or Communist society, the entire society does take on the burden of the masses, and the government (while there still is one) does regulate resource distribution to make sure nobody takes more than they need.

Theo, if you want to consider each country with a social program of any type to be in line with socialist ideals then each and every first and second world country is socialist by your definition.

Canada, and the UK are far from socialist in their ideals. UK carries multiple apportioned taxes, Canada as well.


In regards to education, if public schools garner a higher level of education then why do all educational studies concerning the subject show a marked difference between the standardized testing scores of public and private school children?

Much like medicine, which is not socialized, (but getting there very quickly), the poor will have schools to go to. They won't be of the same quality as the higher costing schools however if you want to say that the poor won't be able to afford schooling and that it's an unfair detriment to the impoverished, then on what grounds are you satisfied with the collegiate system?

The public school system is lacking even more. We depend on an abundance of government m0oney to pay for education, and as we can see it's not working. Our educational scores drop every year and have been for the past decade. Education is the first thing cut and the last thing bolstered. Education is not in the interests of a socialized government as the educated will question why they have to assist others when the primary motivator of human society has always been, "what are my needs".

It's natural to look after yourself, then your friends and family, and then, if you're interested, charity. Socialism is just forced charity, and it is not beneficial to societies, regardless of the benefits for those on the lower echelons of that society.

Theo, if you want to consider each country with a social program of any type to be in line with socialist ideals then each and every first and second world country is socialist by your definition.

Canada, and the UK are far from socialist in their ideals. UK carries multiple apportioned taxes, Canada as well

At what point did I say that these countries are socialist? I said that they have used socialist ideas. That doesn't mean that they are socialists, that means they recognize a good idea when they see it and were able to adapt those good ideas to their systems.

why do all educational studies concerning the subject show a marked difference between the standardized testing scores of public and private school children?

Simple, they're much better funded. Every student there is paying a nice lump sum for their education, so there tends to be more funding for teacher's salaries and the baic material need, like paper. Public school systems are underfunded and are forced to cut back a lot.

They won't be of the same quality as the higher costing schools however if you want to say that the poor won't be able to afford schooling and that it's an unfair detriment to the impoverished, then on what grounds are you satisfied with the collegiate system?

Who said I was satisfied with the collegiate system? It works, but it definently needs improvement. I don't think money should be an issue for undergraduate education.

We depend on an abundance of government m0oney to pay for education, and as we can see it's not working. Our educational scores drop every year and have been for the past decade.

And why have our test scores been dropping? Because NCLB cuts funding to schools that get low test scores and doesn't give funding to schools with good test scores unless they show significant improvement in those scores each year. the problem isn't that the government funds education, it's that the government has consistently weasled its way out of funding education.

Education is not in the interests of a socialized government as the educated will question why they have to assist others when the primary motivator of human society has always been, "what are my needs".

The well educated, if they have any reasoning skills at all, tend to realize that it is in their best interest to assist others. When the masses suffer and the fortunate ignore them, the fortunate tend to be masacered shortly before the masses turn on themselves. Nobody wins when we refuse to help anybody but ourselves.

At what point did I say that these countries are socialist? I said that they have used socialist ideas. That doesn't mean that they are socialists, that means they recognize a good idea when they see it and were able to adapt those good ideas to their systems.

Theo you're right, you didn't directly state they are socialist countries. I've realized in the course of our conversation that I'm probably being over argumentative. You've stated your point and backed it up adequately. I think this is one of those areas where we'll have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the debate, I'll have to concede for now.

You are right. This is one of those things that people will argue over for a long time to come. You've made some great points, thank you for the interesting debaate.