>>>I've noticed that your particular style involves conviently snipping what I write and then deliberetly missteating it. Claiming "abolition of personal property" as a straw man is rich, especially considering your previous use and reuse (see below) of what I already pointed out as the ultimate straw man the "wild west".
>
>Really? Here's a direct quote from your last post:
>
>JS>>"The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property" - Guess who?
>
>I wonder why you posted that, if not as a straw man?

For further context:
JS: Of course that depends on how we define success. If the Australian model is so superior why is it mandatory?

JR: LOL. It's superior because it is mandatory. QED. ;-)

Ergo, mandatory confiscation is superior as shown in the Super. Looks like advocation for abolition of private property to me.

>As for the rest: you declare that traffic lights are protective but that compulsory super is confiscation of property. Then you insist that your definitions justify themselves. I say that both are protective and that the benefit from sacrificing some rights/property at traffic lights/supporting retirees will not end civilization or usher in Communism, which are the two specters YOU raised.

What private property is sacrificed by traffic lights? What rights are sacrificed?

1) Driving is a priviledge, not a right. To maintain the priviledge one agrees to adhere to the rules of the road.
2) Paraphrasing Holmes, Individual rights end at our nose. Running a red light infringes on the right of way of others.

I never claimed the end of civilization, rather the end of America, as private property is the key to our existence as a nation.

>>>Sounds great. Why stop at retirement and health care? What about homes, doesn't everyone need a home? How about cars? and Tvs and cell phones are becomming pretty necessary in the modern world. I say we create compulsory schemes for all that way everyone will get everything and future generations will love us.
>
>More straw men. I raised a successful real-life scheme. In response you talk about confiscations, abolition of property rights and lots of other imaginary stuff that apparently overwhelms what is happening with my example in real life.

From my original post regarding the Super in another thread:
I'm not familliar with the Super, but from a quick search it looks a lot like a 401k here in the US with a mandatory contribution for employees and employers. It's regulated by the state but the funds are managed in by what amounts to private trusts in different industries which the employees get to choose from. Best of all, the state does not have access to the funds. I don't like the mandatory contribution, but upon quick review it looks solid.

I agreed that the Super looks solid and similar to a 401k. I said I don't like the mandatory contribution which sparked our further discussion. The abolition of private property rights is not imaginary. It exists right there in the Super. Here it exists in SS, Medicare, Medicaid and any number of other "taxes" which rather than going into the general fund for the running of Constitutionally delegated powers of the federal government, are instead redistributed to a select portion of the population who meet specified criteria. That's confiscation and redistribution. That's Marxist at it's core.

>Have you checked the effect of the Aussie scheme on their stock market? Hint: it's made them better and stronger. But whatever.

By that logic the bailouts, stimulus, quantitative easing and Euro can-kicking are a resounding success because the stock market has soared since 2008. ;)

>>>If you think that generations prior to mine left the world better then you either have no idea how young I am or have a rose covered view of the world. The boomers inherited a booming post-war nation and have so thouroughly screwed it up that it'll take decades to unwind the debt, regulatory hell and complete lack of responsibility they instilled in their zombie children. That's only if they are defeated. Since they're retiring and no one votes like a senior getting a government check I hold little hope for the future of this nation.
>
>I think that's a slightly more colorful rendition of the point I tried to make.

I'm gen X, do you think the boomers are leaving things better than their parents left them?

>>>That the rest of the west (and soon the east) is collapsing into a gluttonous spending induced sinkhole seems to have our attention for now, but given the rise of ADHD I'm guessing we'll ignore the obvious and happily follow Ireland, Greece, Portugal and soon to be Italy, Spain, etc right off the cliff.
>
>As least you'll still have your principles- as you drop, you can proclaim that you adhered to the truth that the market is best,

This is where our disconnect, in many discussions, seems to lie. We are so far from a free market economy that it's hard to remember what one looks like. The State, at all levels, is so heavily entwined in our lives that there is no truly "free" market left. The closest we have is the internet and politicians are striking from all angles to get their fingers in that. To suggest the present drop has anything to do with my market principals is to belie reality.

>you never bowed down to Commie thinking like those Aussies

Marxist...and of course we have, see SS, Medicare, Medicaid, PPAACA, HUD, DOE(x2), EPA...ad infinitum...

>so who cares if their managed funds are now comparable to those other Socialists in Iceland who kept their own oil rather than privatising it.

Update : Forgot to link.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html

SOURCE: 2011 CIA WORLD FACTBOOK
Iceland - Oil
Production : 0 bbl/day (2009 est.)
Consumption : 18,900 bbl/day (2009 est.)
Exports : 1,915 bbl/day (2008 est.)
Imports : 16,390 bbl/day (2008 est.)
Proved Reserves : 0 bbl (1 January 2010 est.)

What am I missing?