Socialism

[Don]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bernie-sign-illinois-575x534.jpg

[Green Arrow]

So, is vandalism of someone's property okay if it makes a political point you agree with?

The analogy attempt is ridiculous, too.

[zelmo1234]

Actually it is a perfect example of Socialism.

those that have are forced to give to those who do not. those that produce are punished, those that strive to achieve have their rewards taken from them.

Those that do the bare minimum to get by are those that reap the rewards. Soon people learn to stop trying to become a success, and the society sinks into poverty and despair.

that is Socialism in a nut shell.

[Quicksilver]

Actually it is a perfect example of Socialism.

those that have are forced to give to those who do not. those that produce are punished, those that strive to achieve have their rewards taken from them.


Those that do the bare minimum to get by are those that reap the rewards. Soon people learn to stop trying to become a success, and the society sinks into poverty and despair.

that is Socialism in a nut shell.

Actually..................it is NOT.... Apparently you, like so any others, have Socialism confused with Communism. They are NOT synonymous... The OP is an example of Communism.. not Socialism.. You really need to educate yourself on the difference before commenting.

[FindersKeepers]

So, is vandalism of someone's property okay if it makes a political point you agree with?

The analogy attempt is ridiculous, too.

It's actually a pretty good analogy.

People have forgotten -- or never knew -- why the lure of socialism comes with a dark side.

Sanders seems like a good guy. I think his intentions are good.

I just think we need to remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Don't take that last sentence to mean that I'm religious -- I'm not. But, it's apropos.

[PNW]

Actually it is a perfect example of Socialism.

those that have are forced to give to those who do not. those that produce are punished, those that strive to achieve have their rewards taken from them.

Those that do the bare minimum to get by are those that reap the rewards. Soon people learn to stop trying to become a success, and the society sinks into poverty and despair.

that is Socialism in a nut shell.
Proving once again that very few understand just what they have been told scares them so badly.

[iolo]

It is a bit like hearing the SS discussing racial tolerance to see what post-McCarthy Americans have to say about 'socialism'. Brain-washing works, ok?

[Quicksilver]

Read more... this article outlines the differences between Communism and Socialism..


http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

[Quicksilver]

Also... Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a DEMOCRATIC Socialist..... again there is a difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-socialism-and-democratic-socialism/

[Safety]

Also... Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a DEMOCRATIC Socialist..... again there is a difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-socialism-and-democratic-socialism/

It ends in -ism, they are told to avoid words that end that way, socalism, communism, racism.....

[Quicksilver]

It ends in -ism, they are told to avoid words that end that way, socalism, communism, racism.....

and particularly intellectualism..

[Green Arrow]

It's actually a pretty good analogy.

People have forgotten -- or never knew -- why the lure of socialism comes with a dark side.

Sanders seems like a good guy. I think his intentions are good.

I just think we need to remember that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Don't take that last sentence to mean that I'm religious -- I'm not. But, it's apropos.

The only way the analogy would be appropriate is if the vandal took half the sign and left the sign owner affordable healthcare.

[Peter1469]

I like the college GPA analogy better. The A student gets a C so her good grades redistribute to the dumb students. That way everyone is equal.


:smiley:

[Quicksilver]

I like the college GPA analogy better. The A student gets a C so her good grades redistribute to the dumb students. That way everyone is equal.


:smiley:

Again.... That is not Socialism.... It's communism.. They are NOT interchangeable. Ya Know... I posted some links to some pretty good articles upthread... Try reading them.

[Peter1469]

Again.... That is not Socialism.... It's communism.. They are NOT interchangeable. Ya Know... I posted some links to some pretty good articles upthread... Try reading them.

The main difference between the two is nationalism. Communism is international in scope.

I understand that there are a lot of strains of socialism. I am only speaking in general and directed at what America thinks socialism is.

[Chris]

Actually..................it is NOT.... Apparently you, like so any others, have Socialism confused with Communism. They are NOT synonymous... The OP is an example of Communism.. not Socialism.. You really need to educate yourself on the difference before commenting.

Depends on definitions. A communist would define socialism as the transition from capitalism to communism. So the OP fits that definition.

Original conceptions of socialism, where you get out what you contribute, not so much.

[Chris]

Proving once again that very few understand just what they have been told scares them so badly.


And did you have a counter explanation? Or are you afraid to give it?

[AZ Jim]

I like the college GPA analogy better. The A student gets a C so her good grades redistribute to the dumb students. That way everyone is equal.


:smiley:Again, reflecting a completely wrong analogy for Social Democracy.

[Standing Wolf]

Many of the things that we as Americans - even the staunchest of Conservatives among us - take for granted, like Social Security and legal labor unions, would horrify Americans living in 1916 as being "radical Red Socialism"...just as they'd be horrified by so many other aspects of our culture. Yes, our institutions have been influenced in a positive, relatively mild and conservative way by Socialist values over the years, but we - all of us - would miss them if they went away.

[Peter1469]

Again, reflecting a completely wrong analogy for Social Democracy.

I disagree.

[Peter1469]

Many of the things that we as Americans - even the staunchest of Conservatives among us - take for granted, like Social Security and legal labor unions, would horrify Americans living in 1916 as being "radical Red Socialism"...just as they'd be horrified by so many other aspects of our culture. Yes, our institutions have been influenced in a positive, relatively mild and conservative way by Socialist values over the years, but we - all of us - would miss them if they went away.


Social Security is enforced saving at terms that would be criminal in the market place.

[AZ Jim]

I disagree.
That's the American way Amigo...

[Chris]

Many of the things that we as Americans - even the staunchest of Conservatives among us - take for granted, like Social Security and legal labor unions, would horrify Americans living in 1916 as being "radical Red Socialism"...just as they'd be horrified by so many other aspects of our culture. Yes, our institutions have been influenced in a positive, relatively mild and conservative way by Socialist values over the years, but we - all of us - would miss them if they went away.

I would distinguish between socialism and socialization. National defense is socialization, not socialism. Medicare and Canada's healthcare system, and even that in the Nordic nations, are socialized healthcare, not socialist. Too many call that socialism.

[decedent]

Capitalism eliminated poverty.

[Quicksilver]

Capitalism eliminated poverty.

Actually so did Socialism..... as in Social Security and Medicare... both socialist programs. Prior to their inception nearly 50% of Seniors lived in poverty.. Now it's closer to 10%

[decedent]

Actually so did Socialism..... as in Social Security and Medicare... both socialist programs. Prior to their inception nearly 50% of Seniors lived in poverty.. Now it's closer to 10%

But there are poor people in China and Cuba. There are no poor people in America.

[Chris]

Actually so did Socialism..... as in Social Security and Medicare... both socialist programs. Prior to their inception nearly 50% of Seniors lived in poverty.. Now it's closer to 10%

Except those were not socialist. The basis of SS, for example, is insurance, see SSA.GOV's explanation.

[Quicksilver]

But there are poor people in China and Cuba. There are no poor people in America.

Because Communism does not work.... that's why... again.. don't confuse the two.

[Chris]

Communism fails to solve the economic calculation problem.

[Quicksilver]

Except those were not socialist. The basis of SS, for example, is insurance, see SSA.GOV's explanation.


However.... SS benefits are paid out of the FICA taxes of current workers and given to current retirees... who in turn will collect benefits paid by future workers.. THAT is Socialist.... There is no savings account set aside for anyone... In addition... If you think about it.. INSURANCE is Socialist... with payments made to people out of the premiums sent in by other insured people..

[Peter1469]

However.... SS benefits are paid out of the FICA taxes of current workers and given to current retirees... who in turn will collect benefits paid by future workers.. THAT is Socialist.... There is no savings account set aside for anyone... In addition... If you think about it.. INSURANCE is Socialist... with payments made to people out of the premiums sent in by other insured people..

SS is a Ponsi scheme.

[Chris]

However.... SS benefits are paid out of the FICA taxes of current workers and given to current retirees... who in turn will collect benefits paid by future workers.. THAT is Socialist.... There is no savings account set aside for anyone... In addition... If you think about it.. INSURANCE is Socialist... with payments made to people out of the premiums sent in by other insured people..

What is your definition of socialism? It seems so broad as to include any cooperation. Makes it meaningless.

[Standing Wolf]

However.... SS benefits are paid out of the FICA taxes of current workers and given to current retirees... who in turn will collect benefits paid by future workers.. THAT is Socialist.... There is no savings account set aside for anyone... In addition... If you think about it.. INSURANCE is Socialist... with payments made to people out of the premiums sent in by other insured people..

All true. If something works and it benefits society, however, the folks who bristle at the word "Socialism" will find a way not to identify that thing as bearing any relation to Socialism.

Sort of like a teetotaler who won't have alcohol is his house but uses Nyquil.

:smiley-char092:

[Chris]

All true. If something works and it benefits society, however, the folks who bristle at the word "Socialism" will find a way not to identify that thing as bearing any relation to Socialism.

Sort of like a teetotaler who won't have alcohol is his house but uses Nyquil.

:smiley-char092:


Socialism has specific definitions. There's a distinct difference between socialist and socialized. Now do you have something better than ad hom for an argument there?

[Standing Wolf]

Socialism has specific definitions. There's a distinct difference between socialist and socialized. Now do you have something better than ad hom for an argument there?

I'm always interested when posters accuse other posters of using "ad homs" (or "red herrings" or "straw men") when they plainly have not.

In what way was anything I wrote an ad hominem argument, or really anything like one?

[Mac-7]

Also... Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a DEMOCRATIC Socialist..... again there is a difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-socialism-and-democratic-socialism/

There isnt much difference between Marxist socialism and "democratic" socialism.

Marx believed in public ownership of everything whereas modern socialist accept limited private ownership of property.

But modern democratic socialists arrive at practically the same place as thier marxist ancestors through taxation and regulation.

In terms of domestic social policy modern democratic socialists are basically fascists minus the concentration camps and ovens.

Their methods are the same - private ownership but government control and redistribution of the wealth

[Boris The Animal]

Again.... That is not Socialism.... It's communism.. They are NOT interchangeable. Ya Know... I posted some links to some pretty good articles upthread... Try reading them.
Uhh yes they are. Both are contradictory to free market capitalism and need to be avoided at all costs.

[Chris]

I'm always interested when posters accuse other posters of using "ad homs" (or "red herrings" or "straw men") when they plainly have not.

In what way was anything I wrote an ad hominem argument, or really anything like one?

This is ad hom: "the folks who bristle at the word "Socialism" will find a way not to identify that thing as bearing any relation to Socialism." That's yours. It addresses (mocks) the messenger and fails to address the message.

I always find it interesting when people defend their logical fallacies.

[Standing Wolf]

This is ad hom: "the folks who bristle at the word "Socialism" will find a way not to identify that thing as bearing any relation to Socialism." That's yours. It addresses (mocks) the messenger and fails to address the message.

I always find it interesting when people defend their logical fallacies.

I always find it interesting when human beings are born without a sense of humor. :dontknow:

[Chris]

i always find it interesting when human beings are born without a sense of humor. :dontknow:

lol

[Chris]

I think wikipedia has a fairly neutral definition of socialism: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production; as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment."

Social Security is nothing of the sort. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the means of production. Good grief.

[Peter1469]

Definitions are funny. Because too many people ignore them. :smiley:

[Green Arrow]

Definitions are funny. Because too many people ignore them. :smiley:

Or make them up as they go along to suit their arguments.

[Chris]

Or make them up as they go along to suit their arguments.

That's fine if people are willing to give a definition. The problem comes when definitions are assumed and people talk past each other.

[Quicksilver]

Here's the list of the top 10 Socialist programs in the USA. When speaking of Socialism... thinking it only has to do with Production... is NONSENSE... it has to do with ownership... and you will see by this list that we OWN these programs in the sense that our tax dollars PAY for them.. Therefore... it is of benefit to ALL.... Or for the "Common Good".... THAT is Socialism.

http://www.chailife.com/2009/10/top-ten-socialist-programs-the-anti-socialism-nuts-use/

[Chris]

Here's the list of the top 10 Socialist programs in the USA. When speaking of Socialism... thinking it only has to do with Production... is NONSENSE... it has to do with ownership... and you will see by this list that we OWN these programs in the sense that our tax dollars PAY for them.. Therefore... it is of benefit to ALL.... Or for the "Common Good".... THAT is Socialism.

http://www.chailife.com/2009/10/top-ten-socialist-programs-the-anti-socialism-nuts-use/



So by your definition the General Welfare clause in the Constitution is socialism.

(Are all your ellipses loss for words?)

[Quicksilver]

Yes... General welfare is a form of Socialism.... Like it or not.


As for my ....... just a habit... as you will find, I am seldom as a loss.

[Chris]

Yes... General welfare is a form of Socialism.... Like it or not.


As for my ....... just a habit... as you will find, I am seldom as a loss.

That's nuts.

[Green Arrow]

Here's the list of the top 10 Socialist programs in the USA. When speaking of Socialism... thinking it only has to do with Production... is NONSENSE... it has to do with ownership... and you will see by this list that we OWN these programs in the sense that our tax dollars PAY for them.. Therefore... it is of benefit to ALL.... Or for the "Common Good".... THAT is Socialism.

http://www.chailife.com/2009/10/top-ten-socialist-programs-the-anti-socialism-nuts-use/

No.

[FindersKeepers]

The only way the analogy would be appropriate is if the vandal took half the sign and left the sign owner affordable healthcare.

What if the owner would rather spend that half of his sign on food? Or on a car? Why is he not allowed to choose what his sign is for?

Therein lies "part of" the evil of socialism.

There is much, much more.

[Green Arrow]

What if the owner would rather spend that half of his sign on food? Or on a car? Why is he not allowed to choose what his sign is for?

Therein lies "part of" the evil of socialism.

There is much, much more.

Who said he can't?

[Chris]

What if the owner would rather spend that half of his sign on food? Or on a car? Why is he not allowed to choose what his sign is for?

Therein lies "part of" the evil of socialism.

There is much, much more.

Try Statism. That's what you're describing.

[PNW]

I like the college GPA analogy better. The A student gets a C so her good grades redistribute to the dumb students. That way everyone is equal.


:smiley:
Of course you do, it has nothing over 3 syllables.

[FindersKeepers]

Who said he can't?

When the state takes a substantial portion of your income and decides to offer you services it thinks you need, you have lost the ability to control spending your income for what you feel is the most important.

That loss of control is why socialism rarely lasts in a nation. All nations take a "bit" of income in order to supply infrastructure, but the more they take, and the more they dole out, the more people lose individual choice.

[Quicksilver]

When the state takes a substantial portion of your income and decides to offer you services it thinks you need, you have lost the ability to control spending your income for what you feel is the most important.

That loss of control is why socialism rarely lasts in a nation. All nations take a "bit" of income in order to supply infrastructure, but the more they take, and the more they dole out, the more people lose individual choice.

Then I'm guessing you will turn down Medicare coverage and send back your Social Security check?

[Mac-7]

Then I'm guessing you will turn down Medicare coverage and send back your Social Security check?

If I get a refund with compound interest for every penny I paid in.

[Quicksilver]

If I get a refund with compound interest for every penny I paid in.

Sorry dear... Your money's gone. It's been sent to your grandma and grandpa...... You will have to depend on the youngsters that are working to get yours..

[Chris]

When the state takes a substantial portion of your income and decides to offer you services it thinks you need, you have lost the ability to control spending your income for what you feel is the most important.

That loss of control is why socialism rarely lasts in a nation. All nations take a "bit" of income in order to supply infrastructure, but the more they take, and the more they dole out, the more people lose individual choice.



You just pointed to the problem: "When the state takes a substantial portion of your income and decides to offer you services it thinks you need, you have lost the ability to control spending your income for what you feel is the most important." Namely, the state.

It doesn't matter if it's state capitalism, state socialism, or state whathaveyouism, the problem is a state that has grown to powerful and intrusive on the lives of the people it's supposed to serve.

The general name for that is statism. We could argue about the specific name, I would call it oligarchy where the state is corrupted by and serves the needs of rich and powerful corporations.

[Mac-7]

Sorry dear... Your money's gone. It's been sent to your grandma and grandpa...... You will have to depend on the youngsters that are working to get yours..

You are the one sneering at people who believe in limited government.

I will let you have SS and Medicare all to yourself if you refund the money that was taken away from me.

[FindersKeepers]

Then I'm guessing you will turn down Medicare coverage and send back your Social Security check?

I always have to laugh when pro-nanny-state supporters throw those two items out. First, Medicare is not a "gimmee" like Medicaid. Recipients pay into it just as they do any insurance plan.

Second, it would have been wonderful if SS had never gotten off the ground - but it has - and for the past 20 years, I've paid the annual maximum into the program. So, no, I will not turn down my own money!

I would have made a much higher return, however, had I been allowed to invest that sum over the years along with my other investments.

[Green Arrow]

When the state takes a substantial portion of your income and decides to offer you services it thinks you need, you have lost the ability to control spending your income for what you feel is the most important.

That loss of control is why socialism rarely lasts in a nation. All nations take a "bit" of income in order to supply infrastructure, but the more they take, and the more they dole out, the more people lose individual choice.

The only political and economic system that is tax free is anarchism, taxes are not "socialism," they are not unique to socialism.

[FindersKeepers]

The only political and economic system that is tax free is anarchism, taxes are not "socialism," they are not unique to socialism.

I don't recall anyone advocating for a "tax free" society. I think what everyone is trying to explain is how socialism, in which wealth is redistributed, is a failed system because it punishes the motivated.

[Chris]

I don't recall anyone advocating for a "tax free" society. I think what everyone is trying to explain is how socialism, in which wealth is redistributed, is a failed system because it punishes the motivated.

If you and I exchange each for what the other values have we not redistributed wealth even to the point of generating it?

[Tahuyaman]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bernie-sign-illinois-575x534.jpg


So, is vandalism of someone's property okay if it makes a political point you agree with?

The analogy attempt is ridiculous, too.


It actually makes a valid point.

[FindersKeepers]

If you and I exchange each for what the other values have we not redistributed wealth even to the point of generating it?

If we exchange through our own free will, sure, we've created a supply/demand scenario, whereby capitalism is born.

But -- if you make ten times more than me -- then the government comes and takes nearly half of your earnings and gives them to me -- so we will be on equal footing, how motivated are you to make that much next year?

Me, on the other hand, will be happy to continue to put forth minimum effort -- because I get what you earned anyway.

[Chris]

If we exchange through our own free will, sure, we've created a supply/demand scenario, whereby capitalism is born.

But -- if you make ten times more than me -- then the government comes and takes nearly half of your earnings and gives them to me -- so we will be on equal footing, how motivated are you to make that much next year?

Me, on the other hand, will be happy to continue to put forth minimum effort -- because I get what you earned anyway.


Right, agree, except still with terminology for what you describe happens under capitalism, specifically state capitalism and probably just the same state socialism.

[Green Arrow]

I don't recall anyone advocating for a "tax free" society. I think what everyone is trying to explain is how socialism, in which wealth is redistributed, is a failed system because it punishes the motivated.

You did. You criticized taxation pretty explicitly in your post.

[Green Arrow]

It actually makes a valid point.

No, it doesn't. Read the thread, I already explained why.

[Tahuyaman]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/bernie-sign-illinois-575x534.jpg


No, it doesn't. Read the thread, I already explained why.

I disagree with you. Is that OK with you?

[Quicksilver]

What amazes me, and makes me chuckle a little, is how some here deny the real truth... many programs and institutions that people love are Socialist in nature.. Public roads, public Libraries, Social Security, National Parks to name just a few...are based on the Socialist concept. In fact the healthcare our Vets receive at the VA is socialized medicine. The fear of a simple word, and the denial that one can really like something is SOCIALIST is hysterical.. Deny it all you please... that doesn't change the facts.

[Chris]

What amazes me, and makes me chuckle a little, is how some here deny the real truth... many programs and institutions that people love are Socialist in nature.. Public roads, public Libraries, Social Security, National Parks to name just a few...are based on the Socialist concept. In fact the healthcare our Vets receive at the VA is socialized medicine. The fear of a simple word, and the denial that one can really like something is SOCIALIST is hysterical.. Deny it all you please... that doesn't change the facts.


Ah, so now you step back from socialism to "Socialist in nature."

I think you mean social.

I mentioned much earlier your definition seemed to encompass all cooperation.

[William]

OK, you can all shoot me down in flames (and probably will :grin:) cos we don't do proper economics til next year, but AFIK, it works like this.

The reason all developed societies have social services (no matter what we call them) and stuff like progressive taxation, is not to punish or reward anyone, or to redistribute income. We have these things so the people, and their families, who are least advantaged in society (for whatever reason) do not suffer too much, and so that society runs without too much civil unrest. We have both, the storming of the Bastille, and the storming of the Winter Palace, to remind us of what can (and probably will) happen as the result of (a) 'let them eat cake' government policies, and the 'people are poor cos they're lazy and they choose to be poor' public attitude. As Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell-Holmes once said - "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilisation."

So the reason we have taxation is that the public welfare (which includes transport and communication networks, medical and justice systems, and national defence,) requires funding to operate (stuff has to be bought, people need to be paid,) and the reason we have our form of government is that a system of Athenian direct democracy is impossible in populations of tens of millions. So we are stuck with representative government (big or little) and I don't really see the problem with that.

The size of government is dictated by how well ordered we want our society to be, and what we want our society to do for us. The size of the population can also be a factor, but it is mainly what we want government to do. If we want very little control over the environment in which we must live, and very little control upon what others do, which may or may not affect us directly, and if we do not want the commercial sector to be held responsible for what they sell and what they do to our environment, and if we want to return to a system of feudalism, where the rich and powerful act as Lords of the Manor, and everyone else is effectively a serf (just like in 1066 AD), then 'small government' is your ideal system.

It doesn't cost that much to run massive prisons where the inmates produce enough goods to cover the cost of their daily bread and water, and the threat of the Bastille helps the serfs to know their place. Also, you don't have to waste money on unnecessary stuff like education and medical care (except for those who can pay for it) - so it's a win-win system for those who believe in rugged individualism and every man for himself. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice. :grin:

But we should remember that the government is us - it is not some alien entity which has invaded our lands. And the French have a saying which goes "Tout nation a la gouvernement quelle merite." Which roughly translated means "Every people get the government they deserve." And we all do - more or less. :wink:

[Chris]

OK, you can all shoot me down in flames (and probably will :grin:) cos we don't do proper economics til next year, but AFIK, it works like this.

The reason all developed societies have social services (no matter what we call them) and stuff like progressive taxation, is not to punish or reward anyone, or to redistribute income. We have these things so the people, and their families, who are least advantaged in society (for whatever reason) do not suffer too much, and so that society runs without too much civil unrest. We have both, the storming of the Bastille, and the storming of the Winter Palace, to remind us of what can (and probably will) happen as the result of (a) 'let them eat cake' government policies, and the 'people are poor cos they're lazy and they choose to be poor' public attitude. As Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell-Holmes once said - "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilisation."

So the reason we have taxation is that the public welfare (which includes transport and communication networks, medical and justice systems, and national defence,) requires funding to operate (stuff has to be bought, people need to be paid,) and the reason we have our form of government is that a system of Athenian direct democracy is impossible in populations of tens of millions. So we are stuck with representative government (big or little) and I don't really see the problem with that.

The size of government is dictated by how well ordered we want our society to be, and what we want our society to do for us. The size of the population can also be a factor, but it is mainly what we want government to do. If we want very little control over the environment in which we must live, and very little control upon what others do, which may or may not affect us directly, and if we do not want the commercial sector to be held responsible for what they sell and what they do to our environment, and if we want to return to a system of feudalism, where the rich and powerful act as Lords of the Manor, and everyone else is effectively a serf (just like in 1066 AD), then 'small government' is your ideal system.

It doesn't cost that much to run massive prisons where the inmates produce enough goods to cover the cost of their daily bread and water, and the threat of the Bastille helps the serfs to know their place. Also, you don't have to waste money on unnecessary stuff like education and medical care (except for those who can pay for it) - so it's a win-win system for those who believe in rugged individualism and every man for himself. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice. :grin:

But we should remember that the government is us - it is not some alien entity which has invaded our lands. And the French have a saying which goes "Tout nation a la gouvernement quelle merite." Which roughly translated means "Every people get the government they deserve." And we all do - more or less. :wink:



Except we--human beings--had such services before we invented government. Why? Simple. We're social animals.

[William]

Except we--human beings--had such services before we invented government. Why? Simple. We're social animals.

But did we? Were there transport networks, communication networks, care for the sick, the young, the elderly, and the disabled, available for those without resources in pre-historic tribes? Once the tribes recognised the need for things like that, and the problem of the lawless behaviour of some, forms of social control evolved. The rule of the tribal chieftains or elders were the beginnings of what we call government today. No collection of hundreds of people (let alone tens of millions) can operate efficiently without some agreed form of central control, and an agreed set of social rules. Government is what we make it, some systems are better than others, but I don't think anarchy is one of those. :smiley:

[Dr. Who]

This is ad hom: "the folks who bristle at the word "Socialism" will find a way not to identify that thing as bearing any relation to Socialism." That's yours. It addresses (mocks) the messenger and fails to address the message.

I always find it interesting when people defend their logical fallacies.
It was a general statement, not expressed against an individual, therefore not ad hom, otherwise all of the statements on this forum regarding the disreputable liberals or conservatives, Dems or Cons would all be ad hominem.

The words socialism or socialistic have a rich history in America, almost always associated with Communism by a certain demographic. That demographic has its beginnings in the McCarthy and in the Cold War eras where the word socialism was demonized as being entry level communism. No one in government really cared whether Communism ultimately didn't work in it's isolated and corrupted context, they cared that the aims of globalists were being thwarted by regimes that wouldn't play ball and so made sure that communism couldn't work, by ensuring that they were cut off from any products that they could not produce themselves. Such behavior makes it easy for aggressive egomaniacs to come to power, because they make a big show of rejecting the rejectors. People who are suffering from privation like to think that their government is not being wimpy, but rather standing up to the establishment.

[Peter1469]

What amazes me, and makes me chuckle a little, is how some here deny the real truth... many programs and institutions that people love are Socialist in nature.. Public roads, public Libraries, Social Security, National Parks to name just a few...are based on the Socialist concept. In fact the healthcare our Vets receive at the VA is socialized medicine. The fear of a simple word, and the denial that one can really like something is SOCIALIST is hysterical.. Deny it all you please... that doesn't change the facts.

Public roads, etc are not socialism.

Public schools.....

[Quicksilver]

Yes they are.

[Peter1469]

Yes they are.
Incorrect.

[del]

Incorrect.

compelling, really

[Quicksilver]

Incorrect.

Really? Then perhaps YOU should be responsible for the maintenance and paving of the roads you personally drive on?

[Peter1469]

Really? Then perhaps YOU should be responsible for the maintenance and paving of the roads you personally drive on?

I pay more in taxes that many people make in a year.

I got my roads covered.

To the point; public roads and schools, etc are not socialism.

[Quicksilver]

I pay more in taxes that many people make in a year.

I got my roads covered.

To the point; public roads and schools, etc are not socialism.

EVERYONE pays taxes in one way or another. Those taxes pay for roads and schools. One individual could not do it alone. That is why ownership of roads and schools belongs to the public... and that is a form of Socialism.

[del]

I pay more in taxes that many people make in a year.

I got my roads covered.

To the point; public roads and schools, etc are not socialism.


well, i'm impressed

lol

[Peter1469]

EVERYONE pays taxes in one way or another. Those taxes pay for roads and schools. One individual could not do it alone. That is why ownership of roads and schools belongs to the public... and that is a form of Socialism.

Incorrect.

[Quicksilver]

Incorrect.


Your opinion... But you are wrong.

[Peter1469]

Your opinion... But you are wrong.
Untrue.

Socialism is the public ownership of things.

In English, words have meanings.

[Quicksilver]

Untrue.

Socialism is the public ownership of things.

In English, words have meanings.

So why are they called... PUBLIC roads.... PUBLIC schools... PUBLIC Libraries..... PUBLIC Parks ???

[Peter1469]

So why are they called... PUBLIC roads.... PUBLIC schools... PUBLIC Libraries..... PUBLIC Parks ???

Oh boy..., public schools.....

[Chris]

But did we? Were there transport networks, communication networks, care for the sick, the young, the elderly, and the disabled, available for those without resources in pre-historic tribes? Once the tribes recognised the need for things like that, and the problem of the lawless behaviour of some, forms of social control evolved. The rule of the tribal chieftains or elders were the beginnings of what we call government today. No collection of hundreds of people (let alone tens of millions) can operate efficiently without some agreed form of central control, and an agreed set of social rules. Government is what we make it, some systems are better than others, but I don't think anarchy is one of those. :smiley:

Yes. Going back as far as archeology can reach.

Assume prior to the modern state there was no social order. Nothing but chaos. Now explain how the modern state arose.

[Chris]

It was a general statement, not expressed against an individual, therefore not ad hom, otherwise all of the statements on this forum regarding the disreputable liberals or conservatives, Dems or Cons would all be ad hominem.

The words socialism or socialistic have a rich history in America, almost always associated with Communism by a certain demographic. That demographic has its beginnings in the McCarthy and in the Cold War eras where the word socialism was demonized as being entry level communism. No one in government really cared whether Communism ultimately didn't work in it's isolated and corrupted context, they cared that the aims of globalists were being thwarted by regimes that wouldn't play ball and so made sure that communism couldn't work, by ensuring that they were cut off from any products that they could not produce themselves. Such behavior makes it easy for aggressive egomaniacs to come to power, because they make a big show of rejecting the rejectors. People who are suffering from privation like to think that their government is not being wimpy, but rather standing up to the establishment.

It addresses the messenger and not the message. That's ad hom.

I swear some of you confuse ad hom with personal insult and I don't know why.

Yes, I know the history of socialism. But I really think some are conflating social with socialism and others socialism with statism.

[Peter1469]

Yes. Going back as far as archeology can reach.

Assume prior to the modern state there was no social order. Nothing but chaos. Now explain how the modern state arose.
Gunpowder. And expense to maintain modern armies.

[Chris]

Gunpowder. And expense to maintain modern armies.

Those require order first. If there's no order before the state, how did the state bootstrap itself? --It's rhetorical, of course there was social order before the state arose, of course the social order still exists without in some case and despite the state in others.

[del]

Incorrect.

as compelling as it ever was

[Green Arrow]

What amazes me, and makes me chuckle a little, is how some here deny the real truth... many programs and institutions that people love are Socialist in nature.. Public roads, public Libraries, Social Security, National Parks to name just a few...are based on the Socialist concept. In fact the healthcare our Vets receive at the VA is socialized medicine. The fear of a simple word, and the denial that one can really like something is SOCIALIST is hysterical.. Deny it all you please... that doesn't change the facts.

Of the things you mentioned, only Social Security is "socialist in nature," and even then, it's a very tenuous connection.

And I say this as a socialist.

Yes, fear of the word "socialism" is irrational and often based in ignorance of the subject, but a defense of socialism that also fails to understand the subject is equally bad.

[Dr. Who]

It addresses the messenger and not the message. That's ad hom.

I swear some of you confuse ad hom with personal insult and I don't know why.

Yes, I know the history of socialism. But I really think some are conflating social with socialism and others socialism with statism.
I beg to differ, ad hom is defined as: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. If I were to say that many people on the forum characterize all liberals as idiots, and that prejudice colors their opinion on liberal member responses, that is not an ad hom statement, it is a fact. If on the other hand I dismiss your opinion by stating that you only think that I am wrong, because you think all liberals are idiots, that is ad hom, unless of course you just finished stating that since all liberals are idiots, my opinion is worthless. :wink:

[Dr. Who]

You just pointed to the problem: "When the state takes a substantial portion of your income and decides to offer you services it thinks you need, you have lost the ability to control spending your income for what you feel is the most important." Namely, the state.

It doesn't matter if it's state capitalism, state socialism, or state whathaveyouism, the problem is a state that has grown to powerful and intrusive on the lives of the people it's supposed to serve.

The general name for that is statism. We could argue about the specific name, I would call it oligarchy where the state is corrupted by and serves the needs of rich and powerful corporations.
Social Security came about on the heels of the worst depression the world had ever really known and where elderly people were literally starving on the streets because even if they had had any savings, investments or means of support, they were exhausted or vitiated by the economic collapse. SS ensures that no matter what happens, so long as government is functioning, people will not starve. One may have investments, stocks, bonds or property providing a retirement income, but if the economic rug is pulled out, those little nest eggs can be rendered null and void. What then? Young people can still find a way to make a living, but the elderly are no longer competitively employable. Those who suggest that investments made throughout your lifetime will necessarily provide for your retirement ignore not such ancient history where the businesses upon which those investments were predicated and banks holding peoples' savings were entirely wiped out by an economic downturn leaving the elderly begging for food on the streets.

[donttread]

So, is vandalism of someone's property okay if it makes a political point you agree with?

The analogy attempt is ridiculous, too.

Clearly in today's world most governments are hybrids and show components of Capitalism, Socialism and even Communism to varying degrees. Our modern government also heavily incorporates megacorp boot licking and control freakism into the mix

[donttread]

Social Security came about on the heels of the worst depression the world had ever really known and where elderly people were literally starving on the streets because even if they had had any savings, investments or means of support, they were exhausted or vitiated by the economic collapse. SS ensures that no matter what happens, so long as government is functioning, people will not starve. One may have investments, stocks, bonds or property providing a retirement income, but if the economic rug is pulled out, those little nest eggs can be rendered null and void. What then? Young people can still find a way to make a living, but the elderly are no longer competitively employable. Those who suggest that investments made throughout your lifetime will necessarily provide for your retirement ignore not such ancient history where the businesses upon which those investments were predicated and banks holding peoples' savings were entirely wiped out by an economic downturn leaving the elderly begging for food on the streets.


Or SS would have ensured those things had it been properly managed. It is however our money, was to be kept clear of the general fund and should be paid back to us . It was not intended to be a general fund tax or a disability program

[Peter1469]

SS is enforced savings at dumb rates of return.

I would give up my SS today if I could get out of the system and invest that money myself. And I am 46.


Social Security came about on the heels of the worst depression the world had ever really known and where elderly people were literally starving on the streets because even if they had had any savings, investments or means of support, they were exhausted or vitiated by the economic collapse. SS ensures that no matter what happens, so long as government is functioning, people will not starve. One may have investments, stocks, bonds or property providing a retirement income, but if the economic rug is pulled out, those little nest eggs can be rendered null and void. What then? Young people can still find a way to make a living, but the elderly are no longer competitively employable. Those who suggest that investments made throughout your lifetime will necessarily provide for your retirement ignore not such ancient history where the businesses upon which those investments were predicated and banks holding peoples' savings were entirely wiped out by an economic downturn leaving the elderly begging for food on the streets.

[Peter1469]

Those require order first. If there's no order before the state, how did the state bootstrap itself? --It's rhetorical, of course there was social order before the state arose, of course the social order still exists without in some case and despite the state in others.Look at history and when the nation state started.

[FindersKeepers]

You did. You criticized taxation pretty explicitly in your post.

There's a difference between taxation for infrastructure and taxation for redistribution of wealth. The former aids in growing out the economy, the latter is nothing more than thievery. The US is capitalistic nation - and we have taxes (a tad too many). But, just because we're taxed, doesn't make us socialist. There are dozens of degrees of difference.

Yes, I DO criticize taxation.

Just not all of it.

[Chris]

I beg to differ, ad hom is defined as: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. If I were to say that many people on the forum characterize all liberals as idiots, and that prejudice colors their opinion on liberal member responses, that is not an ad hom statement, it is a fact. If on the other hand I dismiss your opinion by stating that you only think that I am wrong, because you think all liberals are idiots, that is ad hom, unless of course you just finished stating that since all liberals are idiots, my opinion is worthless. :wink:


ad hom is defined as: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Precisely.

The fact you think your ad hom is factual doesn't make it not ad hom. If your aguement is to the person rather than the position, as you just defined it, it is ad hom.

[Chris]

Social Security came about on the heels of the worst depression the world had ever really known and where elderly people were literally starving on the streets because even if they had had any savings, investments or means of support, they were exhausted or vitiated by the economic collapse. SS ensures that no matter what happens, so long as government is functioning, people will not starve. One may have investments, stocks, bonds or property providing a retirement income, but if the economic rug is pulled out, those little nest eggs can be rendered null and void. What then? Young people can still find a way to make a living, but the elderly are no longer competitively employable. Those who suggest that investments made throughout your lifetime will necessarily provide for your retirement ignore not such ancient history where the businesses upon which those investments were predicated and banks holding peoples' savings were entirely wiped out by an economic downturn leaving the elderly begging for food on the streets.


I know the history of SS. How does that make it socialism?

[Dr. Who]

I know the history of SS. How does that make it socialism?
It doesn't make it socialism per se, but it does make it a socialistic program.

[Chris]

It doesn't make it socialism per se, but it does make it a socialistic program.

OK, we disagree as I would simply call it a social program.

In primitive times, family, tribe, clan took care of their own. Adam Smith describes a later system whereby the unwritten rule was the community or town took care of its own and in order to mve you had to get someone in the town to vouch for you. It's only in recent times that the government has taken over this social function. It's not socialism.

[Green Arrow]

There's a difference between taxation for infrastructure and taxation for redistribution of wealth. The former aids in growing out the economy, the latter is nothing more than thievery. The US is capitalistic nation - and we have taxes (a tad too many). But, just because we're taxed, doesn't make us socialist. There are dozens of degrees of difference.

Yes, I DO criticize taxation.

Just not all of it.

So, what taxation is occurring to "redistribute wealth," in your opinion?

[FindersKeepers]

So, what taxation is occurring to "redistribute wealth," in your opinion?

That's simple. Redistribution of wealth (as it relates to taxation) is the government's channeling of money from those who have more -- to those who have less via social programs, adjustable rent, minimum wage initiatives, and the like. Some of that (a little bit) goes on in societies that are not socialistic. More of that goes on in societies that are.

Redistribution of wealth, outside of taxation, occurs in the form of charities and private giving of money to those in need. I certainly don't oppose that. I only oppose it being done by force, as is done through taxation and governmental control.

[Chris]

That's simple. Redistribution of wealth (as it relates to taxation) is the government's channeling of money from those who have more -- to those who have less via social programs, adjustable rent, minimum wage initiatives, and the like. Some of that (a little bit) goes on in societies that are not socialistic. More of that goes on in societies that are.

Redistribution of wealth, outside of taxation, occurs in the form of charities and private giving of money to those in need. I certainly don't oppose that. I only oppose it being done by force, as is done through taxation and governmental control.

In a capitalist nation like ours, taxes are used to redistribute wealth to the poor who then use it to purchase necessities from rich corporations. That coupled with subsidies and protections, funnels all wealth to the wealthy who in turn support politicians. Where's that wealth coming from, the middle class. There's a lot of that going on, not just a little bit. It's not socialism (nor is it free-market capitalism).

[Green Arrow]

That's simple. Redistribution of wealth (as it relates to taxation) is the government's channeling of money from those who have more -- to those who have less via social programs, adjustable rent, minimum wage initiatives, and the like. Some of that (a little bit) goes on in societies that are not socialistic. More of that goes on in societies that are.

Redistribution of wealth, outside of taxation, occurs in the form of charities and private giving of money to those in need. I certainly don't oppose that. I only oppose it being done by force, as is done through taxation and governmental control.

The problem is that charities and private individuals or organizations (such as churches) can only do so much, and what they can do is much less than the need. Especially in today's day and age. That is the only reason we, as a society, decided government should be used as a tool to assist that effort.

I guess the point I'm making is this - if taxes are okay, and are being collected anyway, why is it wrong to use them for more constructive efforts like helping the poor and infrastructure? Why use taxes to nation-build in Iraq when we can use them to nation-build here at home?

[FindersKeepers]

The problem is that charities and private individuals or organizations (such as churches) can only do so much, and what they can do is much less than the need. Especially in today's day and age. That is the only reason we, as a society, decided government should be used as a tool to assist that effort.

Psychologically, there is a huge difference. I work directly with charities to render emergency aid to communities and individuals impacted by natural disasters. I also work with Habitat for Humanity. The people we help very often take part in helping others once they get back on their feet. That doesn't happen with the government, and, in fact, studies show that people who depend on social programs to survive, feel as though they cannot survive without them.


I guess the point I'm making is this - if taxes are okay, and are being collected anyway, why is it wrong to use them for more constructive efforts like helping the poor and infrastructure? Why use taxes to nation-build in Iraq when we can use them to nation-build here at home?

I don't disagree with you, we pump so much money overseas - for good and for bad and for iffy reasons - that could be put to use here at home. But, while I agree with emergency and temporary help - long-term assistance should be reserved for those who truly can't function in society. But, raising taxes on some - to supplement the incomes of others -- the Robin Hood syndrome -- isn't beneficial in the long run.

[Green Arrow]

Psychologically, there is a huge difference. I work directly with charities to render emergency aid to communities and individuals impacted by natural disasters. I also work with Habitat for Humanity. The people we help very often take part in helping others once they get back on their feet. That doesn't happen with the government, and, in fact, studies show that people who depend on social programs to survive, feel as though they cannot survive without them.

That's because our government programs are not designed to allow people to survive without them. There is absolutely zero reason for that. It's not government programs that are the problem, it's how those programs are designed. Right now, they are designed to give people a hand out instead of a hand up. To use the United Kingdom as an example, J.K. Rowling was a struggling single mother on welfare before she made it big as the author of one of fiction's most successful franchises, and now she gives back to her country much more than they ever gave her on welfare.

I'm not suggesting everyone on welfare is going to make it big like Rowling, even with well-designed programs in place, but I look at it more as an investment in our future. When the poor are doing well, we will all do well. A rising tide lifts all boats, as the saying goes.


I don't disagree with you, we pump so much money overseas - for good and for bad and for iffy reasons - that could be put to use here at home. But, while I agree with emergency and temporary help - long-term assistance should be reserved for those who truly can't function in society. But, raising taxes on some - to supplement the incomes of others -- the Robin Hood syndrome -- isn't beneficial in the long run.

I favor progressive taxation simply because if you take 14.5% of my income (to use Rand Paul's tax rate as an example) and 14.5% of Warren Buffett's income, I'm going to be hurting financially and Buffett is barely going to notice a difference. Plus, he'll make up that 14.5% and more much quicker than I will. Now, that doesn't mean we go and tax Buffett and others of his wealth group at 50% or more as some suggest, but it also doesn't mean we give them the free ride people say they should get. It also doesn't mean the working poor are going to be tax free either, as others suggest.

We can argue over the specific rate each income group pays and how to appropriately divide each income group, but IMO, that's the best tax system because it appropriately gauges difference in income.

[Boris The Animal]

So, Greenie. You want to tax a millionaire 90% and leave them with nothing? Trotskyist much?

[Green Arrow]

I favor progressive taxation simply because if you take 14.5% of my income (to use Rand Paul's tax rate as an example) and 14.5% of Warren Buffett's income, I'm going to be hurting financially and Buffett is barely going to notice a difference. Plus, he'll make up that 14.5% and more much quicker than I will. Now, that doesn't mean we go and tax Buffett and others of his wealth group at 50% or more as some suggest, but it also doesn't mean we give them the free ride people say they should get. It also doesn't mean the working poor are going to be tax free either, as others suggest.

We can argue over the specific rate each income group pays and how to appropriately divide each income group, but IMO, that's the best tax system because it appropriately gauges difference in income.


So, Greenie. You want to tax a millionaire 90% and leave them with nothing? Trotskyist much?

Reading is fundamental.

[Boris The Animal]

Reading is fundamental.
What is fundamental is destroying Socialism and prosecuting all of its followers for treason.

[William]

So, Greenie. You want to tax a millionaire 90% and leave them with nothing? Trotskyist much?

That's not what he said. Hyperbole much? :grin:

[Ethereal]

So, is vandalism of someone's property okay if it makes a political point you agree with?

The analogy attempt is ridiculous, too.

Well, the basis of state socialism (which is what Sanders advocates) is to take someone's property without their consent and redistribute it to other people. The analogy seems somewhat fitting.

[William]

What is fundamental is destroying Socialism and prosecuting all of its followers for treason.

treason. n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Good luck with proving social programmes are levying war against your country. :grin:

[Ethereal]

Actually..................it is NOT.... Apparently you, like so any others, have Socialism confused with Communism. They are NOT synonymous... The OP is an example of Communism.. not Socialism.. You really need to educate yourself on the difference before commenting.

So Sanders doesn't support taking people's property and redistributing it? I guess taxes and welfare just spontaneously materialize after a shaman murmurs an incantation over a bubbling cauldron of arcane miscellany?

[Ethereal]

Also... Bernie Sanders identifies himself as a DEMOCRATIC Socialist..... again there is a difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-socialism-and-democratic-socialism/

Democratic socialism is socialism through the "ballot box". In other words, voting yourself into someone else's pocket.

[Ethereal]

The only way the analogy would be appropriate is if the vandal took half the sign and left the sign owner affordable healthcare.

Still, he is taking something that doesn't belong to him originally. The fact that this taking is predicated upon benevolent intentions doesn't alter that.

[Ethereal]

Many of the things that we as Americans - even the staunchest of Conservatives among us - take for granted, like Social Security and legal labor unions, would horrify Americans living in 1916 as being "radical Red Socialism"...just as they'd be horrified by so many other aspects of our culture. Yes, our institutions have been influenced in a positive, relatively mild and conservative way by Socialist values over the years, but we - all of us - would miss them if they went away.

I disagree. FDR's socialist policies were just an attempt to salvage an exploitative political system that crushes people beneath its collectivist jackboot. I would much rather have my liberty than have a pittance from the state.

[Ethereal]

Capitalism eliminated poverty.

Markets have substantially reduced poverty, but the real reason why poverty is declining in absolute terms is because of scientists and their amazing advancements. Still, without the market, there would not be an efficient and democratic way of widely and efficiently distributing those advances to the populace, so they're both instrumental in reducing poverty. But because market processes don't necessarily require benevolence or altruism in order to work properly, leftists generally dislike it. They tend to equate effectiveness with intentions instead of results.

[Ethereal]

Sorry dear... Your money's gone. It's been sent to your grandma and grandpa...... You will have to depend on the youngsters that are working to get yours..

Yea, but before it got to my grandma and grandpa, a sizable portion of it fell into the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and fraudsters.

[Ethereal]

You are the one sneering at people who believe in limited government.

I will let you have SS and Medicare all to yourself if you refund the money that was taken away from me.

Do I get my money back that went into the pockets of judges, lawyers, and cops waging the war on drugs, too?

[Ethereal]

What amazes me, and makes me chuckle a little, is how some here deny the real truth... many programs and institutions that people love are Socialist in nature.. Public roads, public Libraries, Social Security, National Parks to name just a few...are based on the Socialist concept. In fact the healthcare our Vets receive at the VA is socialized medicine. The fear of a simple word, and the denial that one can really like something is SOCIALIST is hysterical.. Deny it all you please... that doesn't change the facts.

Did you know that the first national highways in American history were provided to the public by private industry at no cost to taxpayers?

[Ethereal]

OK, you can all shoot me down in flames (and probably will :grin:) cos we don't do proper economics til next year, but AFIK, it works like this.

The reason all developed societies have social services (no matter what we call them) and stuff like progressive taxation, is not to punish or reward anyone, or to redistribute income. We have these things so the people, and their families, who are least advantaged in society (for whatever reason) do not suffer too much, and so that society runs without too much civil unrest. We have both, the storming of the Bastille, and the storming of the Winter Palace, to remind us of what can (and probably will) happen as the result of (a) 'let them eat cake' government policies, and the 'people are poor cos they're lazy and they choose to be poor' public attitude. As Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell-Holmes once said - "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilisation."

So the reason we have taxation is that the public welfare (which includes transport and communication networks, medical and justice systems, and national defence,) requires funding to operate (stuff has to be bought, people need to be paid,) and the reason we have our form of government is that a system of Athenian direct democracy is impossible in populations of tens of millions. So we are stuck with representative government (big or little) and I don't really see the problem with that.

The size of government is dictated by how well ordered we want our society to be, and what we want our society to do for us. The size of the population can also be a factor, but it is mainly what we want government to do. If we want very little control over the environment in which we must live, and very little control upon what others do, which may or may not affect us directly, and if we do not want the commercial sector to be held responsible for what they sell and what they do to our environment, and if we want to return to a system of feudalism, where the rich and powerful act as Lords of the Manor, and everyone else is effectively a serf (just like in 1066 AD), then 'small government' is your ideal system.

It doesn't cost that much to run massive prisons where the inmates produce enough goods to cover the cost of their daily bread and water, and the threat of the Bastille helps the serfs to know their place. Also, you don't have to waste money on unnecessary stuff like education and medical care (except for those who can pay for it) - so it's a win-win system for those who believe in rugged individualism and every man for himself. Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice. :grin:

But we should remember that the government is us - it is not some alien entity which has invaded our lands. And the French have a saying which goes "Tout nation a la gouvernement quelle merite." Which roughly translated means "Every people get the government they deserve." And we all do - more or less. :wink:

So when I earn something and someone else takes it from me, it's okay because it's done with benevolent intentions?

[Ethereal]

But did we? Were there transport networks, communication networks, care for the sick, the young, the elderly, and the disabled, available for those without resources in pre-historic tribes? Once the tribes recognised the need for things like that, and the problem of the lawless behaviour of some, forms of social control evolved. The rule of the tribal chieftains or elders were the beginnings of what we call government today. No collection of hundreds of people (let alone tens of millions) can operate efficiently without some agreed form of central control, and an agreed set of social rules. Government is what we make it, some systems are better than others, but I don't think anarchy is one of those. :smiley:

Centralized control happens all the time in the market place. But it happens voluntarily and organically. These are what Hayek referred to as "spontaneous orders", because they are not planned or directed by an authority figure.

And, yes, we did have such services in the absence of taxation and redistribution policies. Private charities were the main supplier of public goods like healthcare and housing for homeless people, and I've seen no evidence that this social arrangement was less effective than the coercive, centralized policies of the present.

[Ethereal]

Really? Then perhaps YOU should be responsible for the maintenance and paving of the roads you personally drive on?

What's wrong with that? The people who rely on the roads the most will have the largest incentive to pay for them. That's how the first national highways in American history were built. A private syndicate in the automotive industry wanted to encourage people to drive more cars, so they invested in a national highway system. The common mistake of socialists is to assume that profit motive and public benefit are mutually exclusive. But that simply isn't the case. A modern example of the nexus of private profit motive and public benefit is the attempt by companies like Google and Facebook to bring the entire world free high speed internet. They are doing this because it is an investment in their business model, just like the Lincoln and Dixie highways were in the early 1900's.

[Ethereal]

The problem is that charities and private individuals or organizations (such as churches) can only do so much, and what they can do is much less than the need. Especially in today's day and age. That is the only reason we, as a society, decided government should be used as a tool to assist that effort.

All the money the government relies on comes from the private market place. So if the private market cannot provide enough resources to support the poor and the needy, then how can the government, who relies on private wealth, do more than them?


I guess the point I'm making is this - if taxes are okay, and are being collected anyway, why is it wrong to use them for more constructive efforts like helping the poor and infrastructure? Why use taxes to nation-build in Iraq when we can use them to nation-build here at home?

No argument here. If we are going to tax people, we should, at the very least, use them to promote the general welfare and common defense, not line the pockets of war profiteers.

[Ethereal]

Psychologically, there is a huge difference. I work directly with charities to render emergency aid to communities and individuals impacted by natural disasters. I also work with Habitat for Humanity. The people we help very often take part in helping others once they get back on their feet. That doesn't happen with the government, and, in fact, studies show that people who depend on social programs to survive, feel as though they cannot survive without them.



I don't disagree with you, we pump so much money overseas - for good and for bad and for iffy reasons - that could be put to use here at home. But, while I agree with emergency and temporary help - long-term assistance should be reserved for those who truly can't function in society. But, raising taxes on some - to supplement the incomes of others -- the Robin Hood syndrome -- isn't beneficial in the long run.

Actually, Robin Hood was taking money from the government and giving it back to the poor people they stole it from originally... :grin:

[Chris]

Did you know that the first national highways in American history were provided to the public by private industry at no cost to taxpayers?

Same things with levees and canals and just about anything, till the rich who built them found they could use government to make others pay for it.

[Ethereal]

Same things with levees and canals and just about anything, till the rich who built them found they could use government to make others pay for it.

And that's exactly right. A lot of important infrastructure was provided by private investment and development in America during its early history. But some of the rich guys figured out that they could just get society to subsidize their business investments by capturing the political system and raiding the treasury. Henry Ford was one of them. He refused to help finance the Lincoln and Dixie Highways because he thought the government should subsidize the automotive industry's investment strategies. Ford was a huge "progressive".

[Tahuyaman]

So, Greenie. You want to tax a millionaire 90% and leave them with nothing? Trotskyist much?

I guess 10% is better than nothing.

[Green Arrow]

Well, the basis of state socialism (which is what Sanders advocates) is to take someone's property without their consent and redistribute it to other people. The analogy seems somewhat fitting.

That is incorrect. A more accurate representation of what Sanders supports is everyone pays taxes into a community pot, and then those taxes are used to give everyone services that they need.

[Peter1469]

That is incorrect. A more accurate representation of what Sanders supports is everyone pays taxes into a community pot, and then those taxes are used to give everyone services that they need.

How do you handle the free rider problem?

[Chris]

How do you handle the free rider problem?

Under a strict socialism you only get to reach into the heap according to what you contribute. But that wouldn't play well to liberal progressives.

[Ethereal]

That is incorrect. A more accurate representation of what Sanders supports is everyone pays taxes into a community pot, and then those taxes are used to give everyone services that they need.

How is that different than what I described?

[Green Arrow]

How is that different than what I described?

You stated that it takes the property of others and redistributes it to others. That is incorrect. Everyone pays into the system and everyone gets to take from it. In effect, you are paying for your own healthcare and that of your family, your own college tuition and that of your family, your own public school tuition and that of your family, your own infrastructure maintenance and defense, etc. Just at less of a cost than you would be paying if you were handling all of that on your own.

[Green Arrow]

How do you handle the free rider problem?

There isn't one. Everyone pays taxes. The only people that wouldn't be are those who are physically or mentally incapable of working, in which case I'd hardly describe them as "free riders."

[Peter1469]

There isn't one. Everyone pays taxes. The only people that wouldn't be are those who are physically or mentally incapable of working, in which case I'd hardly describe them as "free riders."That is far better than today were 45% don't pay federal income taxes.

[Green Arrow]

That is far better than today were 45% don't pay federal income taxes.

Most of those aren't even "welfare bums," and it's U.S. tax policy largely pushed by Reagan that has them not paying federal income taxes.

Source (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/2/#5db56cd34893):


The vast majority of non-income taxpayers fall into three categories:

~17 percent includes students, people with disabilities or illnesses, the long-term unemployed, and other people with very low taxable incomes. Also included would be people like our soldiers in foreign wars who are exempted from paying income taxes while they are on active duty in a war zone.
~22 percent of people who did not pay federal income taxes in 2009 are people aged 65 or older who have modest incomes (and do not have earnings).
~61 percent are working people who pay payroll taxes but are not paying income taxes.

[Peter1469]

Most of those aren't even "welfare bums," and it's U.S. tax policy largely pushed by Reagan that has them not paying federal income taxes.

Source (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/09/19/the-real-truth-behind-the-47-percent-why-arent-these-people-paying-federal-income-taxes/2/#5db56cd34893):

I think latter presidents were responsible for that.