Socialism

[Crazed Rabbit]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

[Privateerkev]

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

Capitalism funnels money to a select few by exploiting cheap labor. It is an engine for economic growth but it requires growth to expand for the rest of time. This simply can not be sustained forever.

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Once you knock even one of these pegs out, Capitalism becomes unsustainable. If you try to fix one of these assumptions, you no longer have pure Capitalism but instead you have a hybrid.

If you have a hybrid, you have to figure out what ratio of Capitalism/Socialism to have.

[Fragony]

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

edit, back to religion, we are all sinners at heart?

[Privateerkev]

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

That might be the "belief" but the practice of pure capitalism is to expand regardless of the consequences. Someone who is a pure capitalist would demand that the person on the street work for his meal. And if he didn't, then he deserved what he got. You are obviously not a "pure" capitalist and I would guess that few people are.

If you believe in limiting the expansion of capital or in redistributing the wealth in any way, then you are simply not a pure capitalist but someone who believes in a hybrid model. Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

[Fragony]

Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

Every extreme is wrong you always have to find the balance, but I don't think that doing the good thing is something that should be regulated by anyone, most of all the government because governments tend to do poorly at everything they do, they have the job and what they are supposed to be doing. Would you trust them with the distribution of food, the market does it much much better.

[Privateerkev]

Every extreme is wrong you always have to find the balance, but I don't think that doing the good thing is something that should be regulated by anyone, most of all the government because governments tend to do poorly at everything they do, they have the job and what they are supposed to be doing. Would you trust them with the distribution of food, the market does it much much better.

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food. I watch too many miss out on getting food when we can produce more than enough to feed everyone.

I do not believe you should pay for what you need. It just seems wrong to me.

[HoreTore]

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food. I watch too many miss out on getting food when we can produce more than enough to feed everyone.

The current world situation is a good example. We lack food, and what does the market do? Do they focus on mass-producing as much as possible, to make sure that people can afford it? Nope, some of them even hold food back and wait for the price to increase even more. Meanwhile, millions of people are starving simply because they can't afford to buy enough food...

[rotorgun]

That might be the "belief" but the practice of pure capitalism is to expand regardless of the consequences. Someone who is a pure capitalist would demand that the person on the street work for his meal. And if he didn't, then he deserved what he got. You are obviously not a "pure" capitalist and I would guess that few people are.

If you believe in limiting the expansion of capital or in redistributing the wealth in any way, then you are simply not a pure capitalist but someone who believes in a hybrid model. Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

Let us forget for a moment all these concepts of capitalism or socialism. Assume that you are a mayor of a small village. Many types of people live in your village, for the most part all happy and productive. Also living there are some no account do nothings that roam the streets everyday begging for money or food. The first time such a person comes by and asks you personally for money you, being a good mayor and a philanthropist, generously give some thinking......it's only until the poor creature gets on his feet. Unfortunately, you see him continuing to ask for some money for a whole week. Later a whole month goes by, and still he begs....and people continue to help him. This is not an elderly man or a person with some disability, but a young, vibrant, probably virile person perfectly able to perform some kind of work. Do you really think that such a person deserves to have you go before the village council and demand that we support him? If you were my mayor, I would vote you out of office quicker than you could say welfare.

I would like to say that I am not opposed to your idea of a hybrid government. I am not entirely against socialism as long as there are some checks and balances.

PS: Have to bow out for a little while to go to my Doctor's appointment which my insurance (which I pay for in part, and part by my employer) will pay for.....that is to say unless you want to pay for Privateerkev?

[Privateerkev]

Let us forget for a moment all these concepts of capitalism or socialism. Assume that you are a mayor of a small village. Many types of people live in your village, for the most part all happy and productive. Also living there are some no account do nothings that roam the streets everyday begging for money or food. The first time such a person comes by and asks you personally for money you, being a good mayor and a philanthropist, generously give some thinking......it's only until the poor creature gets on his feet. Unfortunately, you see him continuing to ask for some money for a whole week. Later a whole month goes by, and still he begs....and people continue to help him. This is not an elderly man or a person with some disability, but a young, vibrant, probably virile person perfectly able to perform some kind of work. Do you really think that such a person deserves to have you go before the village council and demand that we support him? If you were my mayor, I would vote you out of office quicker than you could say welfare.

I do not see your analogy as accurate to the current world situation. Again I will state that there should be social controls and rules. What your describing is a collective action problem. To solve it will require almost everyone to give up something so everyone gets something.

Yes, if someone tries very hard, they will find a way to get out of working. Ironically it will take work to avoid working. But that is fine with me.

I would like to say that I am not opposed to your idea of a hybrid government. I am not entirely against socialism as long as there are some checks and balances.

I am not in favor of a hybrid system. I am simply willing to settle in order to get some of what I want. Because something is better than nothing. I am not so bound to a pure socialist utopian vision, that I am willing to discount progressive social change.

PS: Have to bow out for a little while to go to my Doctor's appointment which my insurance (which I pay for in part, and part by my employer) will pay for.....that is to say unless you want to pay for Privateerkev?

Your getting close to erecting a straw man there. I am very much in favor of a government run healthcare system. That would not mean me taking money directly out of my wallet to pay for your doctor visit. But it would mean me paying taxes to pay for your doctor visit. Your health is not only important to me as a moral issue, but it is actually in my best interests if your healthy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I found this quote interesting and relevant:

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.

[rotorgun]

I do not see your analogy as accurate to the current world situation. Again I will state that there should be social controls and rules. What your describing is a collective action problem. To solve it will require almost everyone to give up something so everyone gets something.

I agree with you in part here. I see nothing wrong with such cooperative measures, as long as there are some safeguards to prevent the wanton abuse of the public good.

I am not in favor of a hybrid system. I am simply willing to settle in order to get some of what I want. Because something is better than nothing. I am not so bound to a pure socialist utopian vision, that I am willing to discount progressive social change.

I misunderstood you than when you asked another person earlier if they would consider a hybrid form of government. It implied to me that you were so inclined as well. I am heartened to see that you are capable of compromise. That is the essence of true freedom IMO-to be able to sacrifice some of your desires to enable the greater good to go forward. I too am in favor of social change, and agree with some that all governments are "socialistic" to some degree. I just don't understand it as well as others, and fear some of its more communistic approach.

Your getting close to erecting a straw man there. I am very much in favor of a government run healthcare system. That would not mean me taking money directly out of my wallet to pay for your doctor visit. But it would mean me paying taxes to pay for your doctor visit. Your health is not only important to me as a moral issue, but it is actually in my best interests if your healthy.

But isn't paying taxes taking money directly out of your wallet as well? Unwarranted taking of money is called thievery is it not? Mandating me to do so to pay for benefits that others refuse to help subsidize, but still enjoy, is nothing much more than state sponsored and condoned stealing in my opinion.
I was only making a bit of a joke with you about having to pay for my Doctor's visit. Thanks though for your kindness in thinking of my health as a moral issue, but I still wouldn't want to hold you responsible for my health. That is my family's concern, or perhaps the concern of my closest friends, but I feel it is a private matter for me to take care of if possible.

I wish I could do more to help define Socialism with you, but I don't understand what recommends it. I shall have to follow this post more objectively I see.

I do enjoy the intellectual argument however, and mean nothing personal by my difference of opinion.