Posting to re-title.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Es, but, it was meant as an invitation to one person at first.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

While I await a response to my long post and we wait for Dena to return, or just in general a return to topic, would anyone like to know of a little "experiment" I ran within a year of taking the course I described and why the results lead me to beileve there's a problem with socialism others do not mention?

I am not entirely sure it is fair to signal one poster out in a thread title. A more descriptive title might be better.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Return to topic.

Just for the sake of clarification, what is the topic Sarge?

"For Dena" doesn't give me a lot to go on.
I'm guessing that for Dena the topic is to define socialism,
but for the rest of us is the topic " ignore this thread "?
If so then i've not stayed on topic.

Sorry.

If you wish, I can certainly rename the thread. Since Dena has indeed joined in, that invitation is no longer needed.

As my response to betreger points out, we should not focus on a "definition" so much as getting straight what Marx said. As I've been trying to say, if socialism is an enemy, one must know the enemy, not what some radio/TV host tells us about the enemy.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

While I await a response to my long post and we wait for Dena to return, or just in general a return to topic, would anyone like to know of a little "experiment" I ran within a year of taking the course I described and why the results lead me to beileve there's a problem with socialism others do not mention?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Return to topic.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Who says that the two can't coexist? A constitution sets out the broad principles to which the government has to abide, but a constitution doesn't cover every aspect of government policies, nor does it say much about the day to day operations of the government. Thats where bureaucrats come in.

Michel You are banging on open doors.
Bureaucrats are not elected. They work for any administration, left or right or neo-nazi. As long they are paid they are happy.
Thats why I posted the sketch 'Yes, Prime Minister' from BBC

And '297902'
Stability? 'This provides Stability and in the long run saves resources from being squandered through erratic changes in policy'.
Look at Russia and Ukraina.

Europe and US governments are different.

Мишель Michel In Holland
First part is the elected
Second part is the unelected but permanent

Clyde in USA
Senate is the elected by electors from 50 states.
Congress is the elected from ?
Third part is the unelected but permanent part? (I am not sure about that.)

No they are not that different. I grouped in both cases all the elected members together as one group, even though they are spread out of several institutions. The second group is everyone who works on a government ministry or department. IE the people that work for the government but aren't elected to their office. I'm sorry, but you missed my point entirely.

I think you are wrong.
It is a nations constitution who regulate this moderation.
The bureaucracy have to follow that law and the government as well.

Who says that the two can't coexist? A constitution sets out the broad principles to which the government has to abide, but a constitution doesn't cover every aspect of government policies, nor does it say much about the day to day operations of the government. Thats where bureaucrats come in.

The bureaucracy prevents sudden changes in the direction a country/union can move based on the whims of the elected powers in office.
This provides Stability and in the long run saves resources from being squandered through erratic changes in policy. It does have the drawback of allowing change to happen only gradually.

I think you are wrong.
It is a nations constitution who regulate this moderation.
The bureaucracy have to follow that law and the government as well.
It is the government who are trying change the constitution.
Luckily we have elections every 4 years to deal with this type of actions

Europe and US governments are different.

Мишель Michel In Holland
First part is the elected
Second part is the unelected but permanent

Clyde in USA
Senate is the elected by electors from 50 states.
Congress is the elected from ?
Third part is the unelected but permanent part? (I am not sure about that.)

Why stop at two? Why not split Government into more parts.

Since all parts will become Eventually Corrupt, and Attempt to gain more Power: None, of the Individual Parts of Government, will give up its Power to the other Parts.

Therefore stopping any One of its Parts from gaining too much Power.

Because the distinction I make here is binary. You are either voted in or your not. There is no third alternative. And to be sure, like I said, the bit that doesn't get voted in is divided in all kinds of departments and sub-departments so it is already divided into a lot of smaller parts.

Pfff, I don't think he looks That good, he's no 'übermensch' you know...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

his continuous Hijacking of this discussion.

Clyde, that's nuts, Sarge by definition can't hijack his own thread.

---

A man who LOVES George Carlin can't be bad:)

Clyde is a classical assumer, as Gary has so aptly shown on multiple occasions.
Until people on multiple fronts (i.e., including outside this "supposed forum" (ha ha, now I sound like Batter Up!)) describe me in the same way at least 3 times (triangulation), I shall ignore Clyde's character assassination of me. I shall also recognize he lacks a sense of humor.

P.S.-he also like to talk about the tactics of a person losing an argument, which is high-larry-us, given the opening post asked a question and then the o.p. has only made one post debating the response(s) and no one has addressed the issues in that response. Anywhom, I'm gonna go take a Prevacid now.

P.P.S.-it is also high-larry-us to describe 5 to 8, approximately, as multiple. It's more than a few, but nothing like his exaggeration. He has also not been PMd since he was plonked. His post being responded to was only made visible by someone not plonked that quoted it. The forum developers should really upgrade based on our plonk lists, eh?

Sigh... (Suck in Swedish)
Personal attacks...
Who are interested to read all that postings?
Boring.
It is so easy to ignore all that postings.
Why do you dont use PM instead?
Last resort is to x-mark that postings.

Clyde issues personal attacks without realizing he is guilty of doing what he calls others out on. I, on the other hand, am fully aware of my humorous zany remarks and how he misconstrues them for attacks.

Many here have had trouble with my zany remarks, but, when they read enough, they understand where I am coming from. Some of us could be friends.

I have won many over.

I do not expect Clyde will be one of these and I will not put out excessive effort to do so.

boring...

"I have won many over." Is it a war here?
In Ukraina, Gaza and Syria... Yes. But here...

Bureaucracy are governed by the government.
It protects the government.

No, not exactly. A government can be divided in roughly two parts. The first is the elected part, so all the elected representatives. The second part is the unelected but permanent part. These are the bureaucrats working at all the different departments. And these two parts frequently clash. There is tons of research about this, but to put it shortly, the bureaucrats and elected officials often don't see exactly eye to eye, and bureaucrats wield, in their own way, a degree of power. It is a mistake to see 'the government' as a single entity. Its composed of numerous smaller entities that all have their own agenda and preferences and very often they do not even pursue the same goals. But because of that, it works pretty effective as a leash.

Yes, Prime Minister:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero

A man who LOVES George Carlin can't be bad:)

Clyde is a classical assumer, as Gary has so aptly shown on multiple occasions.
Until people on multiple fronts (i.e., including outside this "supposed forum" (ha ha, now I sound like Batter Up!)) describe me in the same way at least 3 times (triangulation), I shall ignore Clyde's character assassination of me. I shall also recognize he lacks a sense of humor.

P.S.-he also like to talk about the tactics of a person losing an argument, which is high-larry-us, given the opening post asked a question and then the o.p. has only made one post debating the response(s) and no one has addressed the issues in that response. Anywhom, I'm gonna go take a Prevacid now.

P.P.S.-it is also high-larry-us to describe 5 to 8, approximately, as multiple. It's more than a few, but nothing like his exaggeration. He has also not been PMd since he was plonked. His post being responded to was only made visible by someone not plonked that quoted it. The forum developers should really upgrade based on our plonk lists, eh?

Sigh... (Suck in Swedish)
Personal attacks...
Who are interested to read all that postings?
Boring.
It is so easy to ignore all that postings.
Why do you dont use PM instead?
Last resort is to x-mark that postings.

Clyde issues personal attacks without realizing he is guilty of doing what he calls others out on. I, on the other hand, am fully aware of my humorous zany remarks and how he misconstrues them for attacks.

Many here have had trouble with my zany remarks, but, when they read enough, they understand where I am coming from. Some of us could be friends.

I have won many over.

I do not expect Clyde will be one of these and I will not put out excessive effort to do so.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Bureaucracy are governed by the government.
It protects the government.

No, not exactly. A government can be divided in roughly two parts. The first is the elected part, so all the elected representatives. The second part is the unelected but permanent part. These are the bureaucrats working at all the different departments. And these two parts frequently clash. There is tons of research about this, but to put it shortly, the bureaucrats and elected officials often don't see exactly eye to eye, and bureaucrats wield, in their own way, a degree of power. It is a mistake to see 'the government' as a single entity. Its composed of numerous smaller entities that all have their own agenda and preferences and very often they do not even pursue the same goals. But because of that, it works pretty effective as a leash.

So whats your problem with bureaucracy? Its one of the ways in which government is held in check.

The question is not adressed to me but I must give an answer to this.
Bureaucracy are governed by the government.
It protects the government.
Have you Heard of Parkinson's law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law
And its expensive. EU Bureaucracy for instance... (Bureau Crazy)

Why odd?

The police are a form of regulators, yet you argue that regulators should have no ability to restrict freedom. Yet that is exactly what the police does, they limit peoples freedom.

As you need speeding limits, so you need certain limits in other areas as well. Thats why you have regulators.

This is not a silly ALL OR NOTHING Discussion.

Do you agree with 'Controls' upon The Police? Do you agree, that if you Don't LIMIT the power of The Police: The Police Power will become dangerous, and destroy the Freedom's of The People?

Of course you agree.

Therefore: A Higher Power than The Police - The Government, must be limited. If not "All Power Corrupts" will be shown to be true again.

And that is why you have bureaucracy. It is one of the ways in which we impose limits on what the police can and cannot do. It supports the laws that limit what the police can do and it helps them become accountable to us, the people.

That is why the government is supported and at the same time shackled by a bureaucracy. It limits what a government can do, and it documents everything, making it technically possible to trace back everything the government ever does. In other words, accountability. To the people.

So whats your problem with bureaucracy? Its one of the ways in which government is held in check.