Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 8th Jun 2013 14:57 UTC
Legal And yes, the PRISM scandal is far, far from over. More and more information keeps leaking out, and the more gets out, the worse it gets. The companies involved have sent out official statements - often by mouth of their CEOs - and what's interesting is that not only are these official statements eerily similar to each other, using the same terms clearly designed by lawyers, they also directly contradict new reports from The New York Times. So, who is lying?
Thread beginning with comment 564220
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Re:
by woegjiub on Sun 9th Jun 2013 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re:"
Member since:

Social democracy is watered-down socialism, no?
Government-owned media, power, and other infrastructure (where competition makes no sense, because it needs to be ubiquitous) is a weakened form of government ownership of the means of production.

Once you take subsidies and investments in research and businesses into account, you may not have a socialist state, but it's not a free market either; it's in the middle.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Re:
by orfanum on Sun 9th Jun 2013 17:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Re:"
orfanum Member since:

Well, you just defined it for yourself, it's in the middle: Social Democracry uses various means to redistribute the way wealth moves through society, as well as securing the ability of citizens to freely engage in both the political process and in the creation of wealth itself.

Germany for example has a cast-iron constitution and some of the most successful businesses on the planet. Does the state of Germany or even Bavaria own BMW? And I would love to see you arguing the point that he or she supported watered-down socialism to a member of the conservative and Catholic Christian Social Union party there.

In your view therefore the United States must be socialist, since the Interstate road system is funded by the government-or do you assiduously avoid using it, given that it therefore must be the highway to socialist hell?

Would that business did actually pay for everything it used to make money in the States (where I am guessing you are from). But that would be a free market, wouldn't it?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Re:
by woegjiub on Sun 9th Jun 2013 22:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Re:"
woegjiub Member since:

Which was why I called them some of the more socialised countries; the free-state to socialist state balance lies more to the left in those nations than most ohers.

I live in Australia, so I am frustrated by our Labor party selling off government assets, and creating privately owned monopolies.
True socialism would only work in a global (single world-state) technocracy/democracy hybrid, due to how stupid the general population is, and how easily they are made to vote against their own interests.

Liberterianism works nowhere, though. Companies are not accountable, and once they have enough clout, they become un-boycottable. They are able to do anything they like, and use their power to their own interests, at the expense of everyone else, including customers.
It is naïve to trust companies, who do not have to release all of their internal workings, more than one trusts governments, who theoretically do.
Private lobbying is the reason the governments are so corrupted and despotic in the first place.

Edited 2013-06-09 22:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5