Socialism and You

[Topless T/A]

Alright...you all need to quit using socialism and the Democratic party interchangably. I saw in another post someone throwing around Marxism as if it was a policy of the Democratic party, and seriously you all need to stop watching Faux news and get a clue. The current liberal ideals are found in the "social liberalism" school of though, NOT in socialism or communism like you all like to think so much.

Socialism :

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term 'socialism' was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who 'helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises' after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Social Liberalism

Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), radical liberalism,[3] modern liberalism,[4] or in North America and the British Isles simply liberalism, is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. It forms the core of the somewhat wider movement of left-liberalism, with which it is often (if not usually) conflated. Used as a term it has also meant support for civil and human rights and freedoms, particularly in opposition to traditional values and beliefs, but as defined here social liberalism is concerned with the economic as well as the social dimension of politics.

It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Classical liberalism, believes that the provision of negative freedom, that is freedom from coercion, constitutes liberty, and is therefore, a strictly laissez-faire philosophy. Social liberalism however sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.[5] They believe that lack of positive rights, such as economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.[2]

Social liberals, therefore, support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided or guaranteed public services. In the process, it expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good and accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic monopolies and regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws intending to secure economic opportunities for all. Moreover, the accumulation of wealth by a small group is seen as the consolidation of power within a small faction of society and, therefore, seen as a threat to liberty.[5]

Rejecting both the most extreme forms of capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, social liberalism emphasizes what it calls "positive liberty", seeking to enhance the "positive freedoms" of the poor and disadvantaged in society by means of government regulation.

Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. They believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty.[2] Social liberals are strong defenders of human rights and civil liberties. They support a mixed economy of mainly private enterprise with some state provided or guaranteed public services (ex: some social liberals defend obligatory universal health insurance, with the state paying a basic health insurance to the most poor of the society).

Link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

[TIM TIM TIM]

I dont know a whole lot about the whole topic but I would say I am for the social liberalism to an extent.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Oh...well...if wikepedia says so.

[Topless T/A]

Oh...well...if wikepedia says so.

that's fairly typical.

Find a better explanation of it, and I'll gladly substitute...the wikipedia article is spot on.

[PPGMD]

Social Liberalism almost always descends close to Socialism. Take a look at France, and other European countries, any time there is a little crisis, rather then tackling the problem, they ban the thing that people use to act out with.

Also once people get used to receiving government services, it's very very hard to ween them off them. Programs like Welfare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps were meant to be temporary programs to help families get back on their feet, yet even after the reform in the 90's there are even more reports of people living off of it for almost their entire lives.

[Rich]

Without proper labels, choose which one resembles "Social Liberalism" and which one resembles "Conservatism". Then pick the one that most resembles "Socialism".

Option A.
Work hard, keep the money you make, spend it on what you want and what you think you need.

Option B.
Don't work too hard (because you don't have to), and allow the government to spend the money of those that do work hard for you on what they think you need.

[Joe]

I'll post it again here...

Show me ONE society where socialism is causing the general population to "live better" then we are currently with the few socialistic programs we have in place.

Thanks.

[Topless T/A]

does anyone here read? I mean really? The Democratic party does not stand for socialism.

[Joe]

does anyone here read? I mean really? The Democratic party does not stand for socialism.

The bills they push say otherwise.

[Topless T/A]

The bills they push say otherwise.

no...you all have it in your mind what you want to believe, and that's apparently not going to change no matter how many different times it's explained to you.

[m0nk3y]

no...you all have it in your mind what you want to believe, and that's apparently not going to change no matter how many different times it's explained to you.

pot, kettle.

Regardless of label, the majority of the 'progress' of the Democratic party are altruistic at best, extremely anti-liberty and socialistic. Yes, I said it- and it's true. Social programs that take from one to give to or care for another are socialistic- accept it, move on.


Also, how can you even consider posting that Wikipedia entry?

From Dictionary.com:
lib·er·ty /ˈlɪbərti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.

Positive liberty? How can "Positive Liberty" and "Positive Freedoms" possibly be anything other than ambiguous phrases to hide behind?

Liberty is supposed to be guaranteed in this country, and the big two parties have done nothing but steadily chip away at our freedoms. This is not an entitlement country, as much as you and your colleagues may want it to be- this nation was founded for the sole purpose of promoting a free society. Forced taxation and wealth distribution is the furthest concept from liberty.

You'd be better off focusing your agendas in the private spectrum- this goes for Republicans too. Care for the poor, issue awareness and positive change is not only exacted much more effectively by private, non-government organizations, but tends to not encroach on the freedoms and liberties of others. Democrats especially need to get out of people's pockets- forced taxation and mandatory involvement is not only anti-liberty, but a form of slavery.

[moldyhands]

I'll post it again here...

Show me ONE society where socialism is causing the general population to "live better" then we are currently with the few socialistic programs we have in place.

Thanks.
are you serious? many countries that are considered socialist/social liberal etc. have great qualities of life.

http://form.internationalliving.com/qol06/Index.html

check out that link. they list the US as sixth.

money isn't everything for quality of life. i guarantee that most people here would like a guaranteed 6 weeks off vacation each year. working 40 hours a week (i think they upped it back from 36).

many western european countries are socialist and have thriving economies. shit, the euro is beating the US dollars ass like a kid from a botched abortion.

france has better healthcare according to the world health organization; more laid back life; and is a great place to live.

don't get me wrong, i love living here, but to say that a socialist country can't prosper is to ignore reality.

[Zealot]

france has better healthcare according to the world health organization; more laid back life; and is a great place to live.


minus the rioting immigrants and high unemployment rate

[moldyhands]

You'd be better off focusing your agendas in the private spectrum- this goes for Republicans too. Care for the poor, issue awareness and positive change is not only exacted much more effectively by private, non-government organizations, but tends to not encroach on the freedoms and liberties of others. Democrats especially need to get out of people's pockets- forced taxation and mandatory involvement is not only anti-liberty, but a form of slavery.i love how ignorant and idealistic you libertarian types are. always with the same bullshit argument that the private sector can do it better.

on one hand you say that nobody should have to pay for social programs and the other you say that if left untouched by the gov't the private sector (the ones that shouldn't have to pay taxes to help people) will surely handle the problem.

go to a country that doesn't have social programs. you'll see how well the private sector does at helping.

so, do you want to go back to the times of the industrial revolution where people were working 15 hours a day, 6 days a week and could be fired for being out sick or do you want a nice place to live, less bums on every corner, and the cost being higher taxes?

[m0nk3y]

I'm sorry, I don't see how HIGHLY wasteful government programs, work restrictions, multiple incentives to remain unemployed and forced taxation would drive us back into industrial revolution ages.

Before you start bringing up african countries who are at a geographical disadvantage or even go into work days/hours and being 'fired for sick days', let's keep this in mind- socialistic democrats will always insist that it is justified to forcefully restrict and destroy liberty in the name of security. I remember a certain forefather warning us of this situation... The USA would be just fine in a state of higher liberty and voluntary taxation. Those who wish to help others would have more resources available to give to the organization of their choice. If I see the government being wasteful, how can I go about retrieving the funds that have been forcefully taken from me to give them to an organization with less waste that does more good? ...and who's to say you're not going to get fired for being sick now? Don't we live in an at-will employment state? I dont want to stray too far here, but isn't that the point of your party's favoured group, the LABOUR UNION? Maybe in a date and age where we could use them, they could actually do some good.

Face it- you're granting, enabling and growing a wasteful, corrupt monopoly that is driving this country into the ground. We've got a ridiculous amount of debt, poverty, people without proper care, cities in disrepair... and you all are defending and promoting the organization that's squandering your funds and efforts, allowing it to happen. We live in a country of plenty, and people suffer- the government has had it's chance and proven time and time again of it's wasteful, bureaucratic ways all while hiding behind a facade of 'change!' and 'you deserve better!' and 'we'll take care of you!'.

[Scott]

i love how ignorant and idealistic you libertarian types are.


Now now.

Lets stay on topic please minus name calling. :)



so, do you want to go back to the times of the industrial revolution where people were working 15 hours a day, 6 days a week and could be fired for being out sick or do you want a nice place to live, less bums on every corner, and the cost being higher taxes?


I hardly think anyone is calling for the industrial revolution to come back even though there was a lot less policial correctness back then but anyhow.

I will gladly take less government handholding. The last time I checked I did not know we had a bum on every corner and any of us living in shanty's. Think of any industry the government has tried to regulate or run and how big of a clusterfuck it is. FEMA being a perfect example of many.

[moldyhands]

Now now.

Lets stay on topic please minus name calling. :)





I hardly think anyone is calling for the industrial revolution to come back even though there was a lot less policial correctness back then but anyhow.

I will gladly take less government handholding. The last time I checked I did not know we had a bum on every corner and any of us living in shanty's. Think of any industry the government has tried to regulate or run and how big of a clusterfuck it is. FEMA being a perfect example of many.socialism does not take control of industries. that's fascism.

as for monkey's comments on voluntary taxation - SERIOUSLY? you're right, i shouldn't call names, but that is seriously an ignorant statement. make taxes voluntary and this country would collapse in a week. that's what i mean about the ultra-libertarians. they border on anarchy. they have this idealistic notion that the private sector will take things up and benefit mankind.

[Scott]

socialism does not take control of industries. that's fascism.

as for monkey's comments on voluntary taxation - SERIOUSLY? you're right, i shouldn't call names, but that is seriously an ignorant statement. make taxes voluntary and this country would collapse in a week. that's what i mean about the ultra-libertarians. they border on anarchy. they have this idealistic notion that the private sector will take things up and benefit mankind.


Voluntary taxation is indeed a little off the deep end of things and how many people really are out there pushing this ? You know darn well that will never happen. Until a ultra-libertarian makes it through some polling and has a valid chance there is little to worry about.

Personally I am for a flat tax so every pimp, drug dealer, under the table cash worker, booky, illegal worker, etc. gets to pay their fair share. It has been proven that it works, granted not on a economy as big as ours. I also think we would have a huge windfall of money from a program like this. However the accountants, IRS, and supporting attorneys are so ingrained into our society it would be very hard to get this enacted.

[DSG]

Flat tax FTW.

[whitebread]

socialism does not take control of industries.
are you serious? government ownership of industry doesn't qualify as "taking control" to you?

[BAMF]

Voluntary taxation is indeed a little off the deep end of things and how many people really are out there pushing this ? You know darn well that will never happen. Until a ultra-libertarian makes it through some polling and has a valid chance there is little to worry about.

Personally I am for a flat tax so every pimp, drug dealer, under the table cash worker, booky, illegal worker, etc. gets to pay their fair share. It has been proven that it works, granted not on a economy as big as ours. I also think we would have a huge windfall of money from a program like this. However the accountants, IRS, and supporting attorneys are so ingrained into our society it would be very hard to get this enacted.

Do you have any idea what the tax percentage would have to be if a flat tax were enacted? Its the simple fact of hwo much wealth is concentrated in how small of the population. You'd see a ballooning of welfaer and other govenrment assistance programs like you couldn't begin to imagine. Hell, myself, making 42k a year, would probably suddenly become barely able to provide for myself under my mother's roof, much less out on my own.

Yes, it sucks that the rich have to pay more. It doesn't give me warm fuzzies either. But SOMEONE has to pay it. And the poor CAN'T.

My solution? Attack this problem from the other end. Reduce government spending.

[whitebread]

My solution? Attack this problem from the other end. Reduce government spending.
i agree. the only way the issue of lower taxation can be addressed in a sustainable way is if we attack spending first.

[Derek]

Oh come on moldy, we all know if the government were to stop interfering in industries that these big businesses would act in the best interest of consumers and not shareholders.

And if we were to stop taxing these multi billion dollar corporations who can hardly pay their CEO's annual salary of 400 million dollars, think of all the soup kitchens they would open (because thats what big business does when they are left on their own, they use extra money to care for the poor).

On a more serious note, look at the telecom industry. They were given over 200 billion in tax cuts to "beef up" our internets and get more broadband penetration for the future. They hardly invested any of this money and instead came out with DSL that used existing coper wire that quickly became outdated and useless instead of investing in fiber to the home. Now the telecoms are bitching that they dont have enough bandwith to support the floods of people that are now using the internet (like no one saw this coming).

If this is how telecoms operate WITH federal regulation i would really hate to see what they would do if left on their own.

[dink921]

i agree..the oil companies are a great example..... but on a side note, i have fiber ran to my house :)

I <3 FiOS 20mbs up / 20mbs down

[25psi]

Do you have any idea what the tax percentage would have to be if a flat tax were enacted? Its the simple fact of hwo much wealth is concentrated in how small of the population. You'd see a ballooning of welfaer and other govenrment assistance programs like you couldn't begin to imagine. Hell, myself, making 42k a year, would probably suddenly become barely able to provide for myself under my mother's roof, much less out on my own.

Yes, it sucks that the rich have to pay more. It doesn't give me warm fuzzies either. But SOMEONE has to pay it. And the poor CAN'T.

My solution? Attack this problem from the other end. Reduce government spending.
A Flat Tax isn't " everyone pays X amount of dollars" its "everyone pays the same X% tax rate" the wealthy in this country would still be paying their fair share in taxes.

But yes our 3.1 TRILLION DOLLAR budget needs to be trimmed.

[whitebread]

Oh come on moldy, we all know if the government were to stop interfering in industries that these big businesses would act in the best interest of consumers and not shareholders.

And if we were to stop taxing these multi billion dollar corporations who can hardly pay their CEO's annual salary of 400 million dollars, think of all the soup kitchens they would open (because thats what big business does when they are left on their own, they use extra money to care for the poor).

On a more serious note, look at the telecom industry. They were given over 200 billion in tax cuts to "beef up" our internets and get more broadband penetration for the future. They hardly invested any of this money and instead came out with DSL that used existing coper wire that quickly became outdated and useless instead of investing in fiber to the home. Now the telecoms are bitching that they dont have enough bandwith to support the floods of people that are now using the internet (like no one saw this coming).

If this is how telecoms operate WITH federal regulation i would really hate to see what they would do if left on their own.
in a competitive market, consumers and corporations can both benefit. over half of American households are shareholders and also consumers. also, a large number of Americans are employed by corporations, and are again consumers also. so portraying consumer and corporate interests as opposites is misleading. do you like the computer you use, the car you drive, and the clothes you wear? they have all probably been brought to you by corporations who saw a profit in it. take away their profit and what incentive do they have to provide those things to you? also, part of the tax burden on corporations is passed on to consumers and workers. in addition, high corporate tax rates encourage corporations to relocate overseas to more friendly environments and make corporations that do stay here less competitive with foreign corporations, resulting diminished economic growth for the country and lower income growth for workers.

also, your example doesn't prove what you want it to. you are pointing to distortionary government behavior and then saying, "look at how badly that turned out, we need more government distortion."

and i don't think anybody here is saying that corporations will give to charity. the purpose of business is to earn profit, within the bounds of the law. the idea is that the workers who benefit from higher wages, the consumers who benefit from lower prices, and the shareholders who receive greater returns will be better able to contribute to charitable causes.

[Scott]

Flat tax FTW.

Right on Dave !

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

socialism does not take control of industries. that's fascism.


Right. Socialism is when the government we all trust so much takes our money and disperses it the way they (the government) sees fit.

BTW, all you socialist - the IRS takes personal checks.

[whitebread]

BTW, all you socialist - the IRS takes personal checks.
it was funny when bush said that during the state of the union. oh, and money orders also. haha.

[DSG]

Hey Topless, Moldy and you other "progressives"...LOL

Why don't you tell me why Obama and Hillary are NOT socialist? Cause everything that comes out of there mouths and from there records, it sure as heck sounds like they are Socialist.

And if they are not Socialist then why does every socialist/communist leader/dictator in the world want a Democrat in the White House come next January? I dont exactly fall in line behind Hugo Chaves or Castro and go for their candidate.

[Josh]

so um....you make a thread trying to make socialism a palatable because what hillary and obama are pushing doesn't adhere to a textbook definition of the word? you must honestly think people on this site don't have a brain stem to think with...

[SilentBob86]

^^^
Yessir!
pot, kettle.

Regardless of label, the majority of the 'progress' of the Democratic party are altruistic at best, extremely anti-liberty and socialistic. Yes, I said it- and it's true. Social programs that take from one to give to or care for another are socialistic- accept it, move on.


Also, how can you even consider posting that Wikipedia entry?

From Dictionary.com:


Positive liberty? How can "Positive Liberty" and "Positive Freedoms" possibly be anything other than ambiguous phrases to hide behind?

Liberty is supposed to be guaranteed in this country, and the big two parties have done nothing but steadily chip away at our freedoms. This is not an entitlement country, as much as you and your colleagues may want it to be- this nation was founded for the sole purpose of promoting a free society. Forced taxation and wealth distribution is the furthest concept from liberty.

You'd be better off focusing your agendas in the private spectrum- this goes for Republicans too. Care for the poor, issue awareness and positive change is not only exacted much more effectively by private, non-government organizations, but tends to not encroach on the freedoms and liberties of others. Democrats especially need to get out of people's pockets- forced taxation and mandatory involvement is not only anti-liberty, but a form of slavery.

Repped!

If i could rep your second post i would too. I like the way you think sir!

[Joe]

so um....you make a thread trying to make socialism a palatable because what hillary and obama are pushing doesn't adhere to a textbook definition of the word?


Maybe that's what he really believes...

Sometimes some of the loudest disciples are the fluffiest sheep.

[Josh]

Maybe that's what he really believes...


ouch, what a mind job.

[DSG]

Hey Topless, Moldy and you other "progressives"...LOL

Why don't you tell me why Obama and Hillary are NOT socialist? Cause everything that comes out of there mouths and from there records, it sure as heck sounds like they are Socialist.

And if they are not Socialist then why does every socialist/communist leader/dictator in the world want a Democrat in the White House come next January? I dont exactly fall in line behind Hugo Chaves or Castro and go for their candidate.



I guess I get ignored?

[Joe]

I guess I get ignored?

I've noticed that anytime anyone asks for an answer on pointed questions, there are a few who avoid it... :roll:

[SilentBob86]

Shit, dem's dont want to have to admit their front runners are a couple of socialists in sheeps clothing.

[moldyhands]

i'm a socialist, so it wouldn't bother me at all.

however hillary and obama aren't socialists. they're obviously closer to that ideology than a republican. regardless, i'm too lazy to point out specific arguments right now.

all throughout the rest of the world, the word socialism is not a bad thing. only in america do we make a word into an evil without understanding it.

[SilentBob86]

Idk, ive done my fair share of arguing it and done a small amount of research into it. I think our govt has enough power as it is, if not more then it should. I think the last thing we need is to basically grant the govt complete power....im gonna have to say fuck that.

[moldyhands]

Idk, ive done my fair share of arguing it and done a small amount of research into it. I think our govt has enough power as it is, if not more then it should. I think the last thing we need is to basically grant the govt complete power....im gonna have to say fuck that.
why would you think socialism = granting the gov't complete power? the two things are not necessarily related at all.

[jabtay]

1. - i'm a socialist
2. - i'm too lazy to point out specific arguments right now.
Spoken like a true socialist

[SilentBob86]

why would you think socialism = granting the gov't complete power? the two things are not necessarily related at all.
In a socialist society dosent the govt control the flow of basically all wealth and money? I may be wrong, but im for smaller govt and spending. Less power, or more responsible people controlling that power. Correct me if i am wrong about socialism, like i said ive done some mild research and online arguing.

[moldyhands]

Spoken like a true socialist
:lol:

ok - that was funny - but fuck you:lol:

[uyht]

Can one of you folks in your own words define what you think socialism is and what is the inherent evil of it?

Currently there are many socialistic things our country does. Welfare, Unemployment, Social Security our public school system and many other items that we all pay taxes to better our country as a whole. I am not seeing the evil here. If there is a "evil" it is the small percentage of folks who take advantage of these services.

I think it is fair for those that make a higher income to pay more. Why not? To make our country great shouldnt we take care of those who are down on their luck? Havnt you ever needed help.

If your parents gave you money you are a socialist. If you ever collected unemployment, or went to a public school you are a socialist. I just do not understand some of the comments here. I would think we would want to make those that are weak strong.

And dont take it as every aspect of society is socialised. thats not what anyone is getting at. but to have certain social services available for those that need them is a good thing, I think.

[moldyhands]

In a socialist society dosent the govt control the flow of basically all wealth and money? I may be wrong, but im for smaller govt and spending. Less power, or more responsible people controlling that power. Correct me if i am wrong about socialism, like i said ive done some mild research and online arguing.
economic socialism purely means that there are certain social systems put into place to ensure that the less fortunate in society are still able to live a comfortable life. note, this does not mean to have people living off the system doing nothing. a lot of it can simply come from things like free healthcare, a progressive tax system, and welfare programs such as ones already in existence right here.

it's actually hilarious how many socialist ideals are held by uneducated people that hear the term and think, "oh my god, i'm a red commie!!!"

nearly every country in europe is socialist. britain, germany, the netherlands, sweden, france, italy. all have very different levels of liberties and restrictions on those liberties. this has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with the same political bullshit we have hear. it is perfectly plausible (and possible) to have a socialist state and keep all freedoms intact.

and don't any of you libertarians give me shit about getting taxed being equal to not being free. you're free to vote for people that will remove taxes or you're free to leave. you willingly stay here and don't even respect the infrastructure and freedoms from tyranny that those taxes provide you.

[25psi]

Currently there are many socialistic things our country does. Welfare, Unemployment, Social Security our public school system and many other items that we all pay taxes to better our country as a whole. I am not seeing the evil here. If there is a "evil" it is the small percentage of folks who take advantage of these services.
If by "taking advantage" you mean using the system for the most you can get out of it, welcome to human nature.

I think it is fair for those that make a higher income to pay more. Why not? To make our country great shouldnt we take care of those who are down on their luck? Havnt you ever needed help. I don't have an issue with the rich paying more in taxes, I do have an issue of the rich having to pay *proportionately* more, someone making 30k per year should have the same tax RATE as someone making 300k per year....they make 10x more and pay 10x more, pretty fair in my book.

If your parents gave you money you are a socialist. If you ever collected unemployment, or went to a public school you are a socialist. I just do not understand some of the comments here. I would think we would want to make those that are weak strong. Recieving handouts or gifts isn't socialism, if the giver of the gift or handout forcably took the good from another person, then it's socialism.


I think I speak for most on here that argue against Socialism/Social Liberalism, it's not that we don't want to help the poor or misfortunate, it's that we believe having the Government step in a try to run/regulate things makes EVERYONE worse off.

[moldyhands]

I think I speak for most on here that argue against Socialism/Social Liberalism, it's not that we don't want to help the poor or misfortunate, it's that we believe having the Government step in a try to run/regulate things makes EVERYONE worse off.
read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. that is exactly what would happen in the absence of gov't social programs and regulation. corporations do not care about workers. they only care about profits. speaking purely on a monetary level, it will always benefit corporations to abuse unskilled labor and even to a lesser extent, to abuse skilled labor where possible.

take away socialistic benefits like minimum wage and every american in an unskilled labor position would be getting paid what illegal immigrants currently get paid. you think if you're working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, you're going to put yourself through college and rise up out of that?

the gov't is the only body that CAN run social programs, because if there's a profit motive, the corporations will always choose themselves over people. now i agree, lack of a profit motive leads to inefficiencies that we currently see in gov't, but unless someone comes up with a better plan, it's all we got.

[jabtay]

Currently there are many socialistic things our country does. Welfare, Unemployment, Social Security our public school system and many other items that we all pay taxes to better our country as a whole. I am not seeing the evil here. If there is a "evil" it is the small percentage of folks who take advantage of these services.
the evil here is, none of this works. Public education is a joke, hell look around this site and see how many people can actually put a sentence together.

Welfare...well its a nasty trap that people dont often get out of. its either because they dont want to, or they just cant. This is a shame on both counts. This system can be drastically improved.

Unemployment...I agree there is a need for this, but it needs to be reformed at well.

Social Security...what the hell is that? Oh yeah its that thing i pay into and will never receive. This one is the one in most desperate need of restructuring.

All in all, I dont think people (myself included) think socialism is completely evil. But we do not think the Government is capable of running these programs. Proof of this can be seen daily.

[jabtay]

:lol:

ok - that was funny - but fuck you:lol:
Oohoohoh shit...I got you good, you fucker

http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/chem120a_nhy/rod%20farva.jpg

[25psi]

[QUOTE=moldyhands;3620185]read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. that is exactly what would happen in the absence of gov't social programs and regulation. corporations do not care about workers. they only care about profits. speaking purely on a monetary level, it will always benefit corporations to abuse unskilled labor and even to a lesser extent, to abuse skilled labor where possible.
I think "The Jungle" is more a sucess of a Free Media then anything else. Free media allows for at least some transparency in business, at that point customers can vote with their dollars wether they approve of a companies business practises.

take away socialistic benefits like minimum wage and every american in an unskilled labor position would be getting paid what illegal immigrants currently get paid. you think if you're working 10 hours a day, 6 days a week, you're going to put yourself through college and rise up out of that?
Minimum wage is simple economics, if you impose a price floor on a good or service, they're will be a surplus( meaning people our of work) a minimum wage is good for those who get the job, but not so much for the jobs that get cut. No minimum wage would mean that there would be more low-wage job opportunities, these jobs may not go anywhere but you have to start somewhere. Though I know anytime you can put that you have job expirience on a job app. is a plus.

the gov't is the only body that CAN run social programs, because if there's a profit motive, the corporations will always choose themselves over people. now i agree, lack of a profit motive leads to inefficiencies that we currently see in gov't, but unless someone comes up with a better plan, it's all we got.
Well, those greedy corporations are why most Americans have a job, decent housing, TV's, Cars, etc. while they may be greedy(because humans are greedy) and sometimes have less then desirable working conditions or safety, THEY are all we've got.

[moldyhands]

the evil here is, none of this works. Public education is a joke, hell look around this site and see how many people can actually put a sentence together.

Welfare...well its a nasty trap that people dont often get out of. its either because they dont want to, or they just cant. This is a shame on both counts. This system can be drastically improved.

Unemployment...I agree there is a need for this, but it needs to be reformed at well.

Social Security...what the hell is that? Oh yeah its that thing i pay into and will never receive. This one is the one in most desperate need of restructuring.

All in all, I dont think people (myself included) think socialism is completely evil. But we do not think the Government is capable of running these programs. Proof of this can be seen daily.
dude - public education in more socialistic countries is some great. public education is a function of how much it is stressed and how little politics enter the arena. for instance, talk to a european and they'll wonder why on earth we'd be arguing over taking evolution out of a textbook or why we're considering putting creationism in it. actually, i think the poor education in this country is due to our society being constantly exposed to sound bits and glamorizing of media stars. BBC news focuses on news. our news focuses on brittney spears and what kind of outfit the presidential candidates wore today. our news is tabloid style and doesn't get down to real details.

i agree, our social systems all need improvement, but you've kind of agreed with my point - that they are necessary to live in such a nice society.

[moldyhands]

[
I think "The Jungle" is more a sucess of a Free Media then anything else. Free media allows for at least some transparency in business, at that point customers can vote with their dollars wether they approve of a companies business practises. read up on industrial revolution labor struggles and political movements during the industrial revolution. there were actually labor union armies that faced american military troops (fighting for the corporations no less) because the workers were trying to strike and the gov't wouldn't let them.

yeah - after strikes, police attacks on those strikes, the calling in of military to move strikers out, finally enough people were able to meet stringent restrictions on voting and vote in politicians that enacted socialistic laws that protected the worker from corporations abusing them.

The Jungle and other like publications of its day brought about transparency so that people went to the polls. the answer is not, allow corporate abuse and hope that people will purchase elsewhere based on morals. worker abuse = lower cost to sell lower priced products to the very people that are abused because they can't afford anything else. seriously libertarian ideals have been proven to make humanity miserable. socialistic ideals have shown to make very prosperous, peaceful societies all throughout western europe.

[jabtay]

i agree, our social systems all need improvement, but you've kind of agreed with my point - that they are necessary to live in such a nice society.
I agree they are necessary. But I dont want the government investing in such programs if they cannot maintain them. I really dont get it, they cant manage the programs that are in place, but people want more programs. this cannot end good...

[moldyhands]

I agree they are necessary. But I dont want the government investing in such programs if they cannot maintain them. I really dont get it, they cant manage the programs that are in place, but people want more programs. this cannot end good...
i'll plus one you on that.

along with this argument, i have often said to the flat tax and national sales tax supporters that we need to fix gov't spending issues before we think of changing the revenue generation system's structure.

[jabtay]

system of social organization in which property and the distribution of income are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

This is the definition of Socialism that makes me scared...

[25psi]

read up on industrial revolution labor struggles and political movements during the industrial revolution. there were actually labor union armies that faced american military troops (fighting for the corporations no less) because the workers were trying to strike and the gov't wouldn't let them.

yeah - after strikes, police attacks on those strikes, the calling in of military to move strikers out, finally enough people were able to meet stringent restrictions on voting and vote in politicians that enacted socialistic laws that protected the worker from corporations abusing them.

The Jungle and other like publications of its day brought about transparency so that people went to the polls. the answer is not, allow corporate abuse and hope that people will purchase elsewhere based on morals. worker abuse = lower cost to sell lower priced products to the very people that are abused because they can't afford anything else. seriously libertarian ideals have been proven to make humanity miserable. socialistic ideals have shown to make very prosperous, peaceful societies all throughout western europe.


With regards to unions, I don't have a problem with true unions forming, but I don't think the government should disperse them or enforce their survival.Unions did fight for improved working conditions.


I don't know how you can say Libertarian ideals have been proven to make society miserable. Hong Kong is a perfect example of how an extremely poor area became one of the richest areas in the world through little government interference short of the English enforcing a Common Law-style judicial system. Under Libertarian ideals the government would not of fought the unions, nor defended them.

Western europe has stayed afloat because of relatively low Business taxes, despite the excessive personal income tax burden. Many eastern european countries, Iceland as well(a Nordic state no-less) have Flat Tax systems and have fast growing economies.

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

All politics is a pendulum. It swings too far one way and you gotta pull it back the other way.

[HullBreach]

Let me put it simply: I don't like socialism because it makes other people responsible for my failures.

I have two major arguments against socialism:

Broken Feedback Loop
When you were a child, you doubtlessly at some point burned a finger on a candle or stove. The natural reaction to this pain is to pull away from it and not do that again.

There were four important steps here: Action, result, reaction, and learning. Beacuse our action (trying to touch the flame) resulted in something negative (pain) we reacted (pulled away) and learned not to do that again (fire is fucking hot).

This happens socially as well. Lets say Joe doesn't like his boss so he suggests the boss go fornicate with a close relative (action). Joe's boss informs him that he no longer has a job (result), so Joe has to deal with tight cashflow and get a new Job (reaction). Joe now learns that he should be more tactful and professional in the workplace.

Heres were socialism goes wrong: In most socialist countries, employment laws regarding employee termination make firing an employee absurdly difficult for an employer to do. And even if they do manage to fire the employee, they simply go "on the dole" receiving a comfortable stipend from the government while unemployed.

As such, Joe isn't inconvienienced in the least by his actions, reprehensible as they may be.

This is actually happening in France, where young people, particularly immigrants (those "youths" so fond of Car-B-Ques) cannot find work as employers don't want to take the risk of hiring some shitty brat they'll have a hell of a time getting rid of.

Thus we have a broken feedback loop, caused by the good intentions of socialists.

Corruptabillity
The other problem with socialist governments is that they inherantly seem to develop into a sort of oligarchy with a self-perpetuating political class of bueracrats who run the show.

When you take a group of people, and grant them the amount of power government regulation grants over industry, you inevitiably make keeping that group of people happy the #1 goal of industrialists.

As much as people complain about corruption in the US government, we've got nothing on the majority of socialist countries and institutions in the world. Look at how many European nations and politicians got egg on their face from the oil for food scandals? Or the whole Airbus mess.