61% of Liberals Favor Socialism

[DiamondDave]

No they aren't. How does a Fire Department or Police Department fall into this definition:?

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Social contract is a mutually agreed method in which it is practical and useful and contributes to the general welfare to share certain infrastructure and some basic services. All such things are approved by the people before they are initiated. It is important not to confuse that with socialism that presumes government license over all that the people own and produce, and which controls the means by which the people will produce and distribute goods and profit from their own industry.

They would fall under that definition the same way nationalized health care would.

Those people provide a service that could theoretically be done by private firms or individuals.

The services being the "goods" that are produced and distributed.

Now, personally, I see nothing wrong with "Socialism" like the Fire Department, but some die-hard capitalist idealogues might disagree.

But you do not have federally mandated fire departments except for with federal properties owned by the fed... I.E. military base FD's etc.... does the fed own your personal well being or body, or is that your responsibility to take care of it or pay for the care of it?

The fire department is a LOCAL choice... and funny, I live in an area where we choose to publicly fund a local fire department through donation... and guess what, if their services are used and you have not been a person who donates, you are given a BILL

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Are any of the countries you mentioned "purely socialist"?

Thanks for proving that stupid questions do exist.

Socialism, by definition, is a stage of socioeconomic development that is not 'pure' capitalism or 'pure' communism. I've explained this before.

Today's homework assignment: Google 'Marx socialism' and report back what you find.

Socialism is the ultimate ponzi scheme: all the people take from those that have it, until it is gone, then all the people in control, force the ones not in control into servitude (they have robbed all the wealth or destroyed it).

You're thinking of capitalism/colonialism. In Republican lexicon, it's called 'Free Trade.'

 

[Foxfyre]

No they aren't. How does a Fire Department or Police Department fall into this definition:?



Social contract is a mutually agreed method in which it is practical and useful and contributes to the general welfare to share certain infrastructure and some basic services. All such things are approved by the people before they are initiated. It is important not to confuse that with socialism that presumes government license over all that the people own and produce, and which controls the means by which the people will produce and distribute goods and profit from their own industry.

They would fall under that definition the same way nationalized health care would.

Those people provide a service that could theoretically be done by private firms or individuals.

The services being the "goods" that are produced and distributed.

Now, personally, I see nothing wrong with "Socialism" like the Fire Department, but some die-hard capitalist idealogues might disagree.

But you do not have federally mandated fire departments except for with federal properties owned by the fed... I.E. military base FD's etc.... does the fed own your personal well being or body, or is that your responsibility to take care of it or pay for the care of it?

The fire department is a LOCAL choice... and funny, I live in an area where we choose to publicly fund a local fire department through donation... and guess what, if their services are used and you have not been a person who donates, you are given a BILL

Bingo. A number of small communities in New Mexico have unincorporated and no longer assess taxes for a Fire Dept. And in most cases, if there is no viable county FD, the neighbors pool their resources, buy a fire truck, make sure a few folks are trained to use it, and park it in somebody's barn. It doesn't get a really great ISO rating, but most insurance companies will accept that as at least some fire protection.

I think those who are maybe a little desperate to make socialism more respectable and mainstream, mostly so they can defend their revered socialist-minded leaders, do confuse social contract whereby people choose to share services and socialism in which they have no choice.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A number of small communities in New Mexico have unincorporated and no longer assess taxes for a Fire Dept. And in most cases, if there is no viable county FD, the neighbors pool their resources, buy a fire truck, make sure a few folks are trained to use it, and park it in somebody's barn. It doesn't get a really great ISO rating, but most insurance companies will accept that as at least some fire protection.

So the community buys a truck, which is communally owned and they all pay for it operate...

And it's all the local community...


You do realize that what you're describing is very much in line with most lines of Communist thought, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

A number of small communities in New Mexico have unincorporated and no longer assess taxes for a Fire Dept. And in most cases, if there is no viable county FD, the neighbors pool their resources, buy a fire truck, make sure a few folks are trained to use it, and park it in somebody's barn. It doesn't get a really great ISO rating, but most insurance companies will accept that as at least some fire protection.

So the community buys a truck, which is communally owned and they all pay for it operate...

And it's all the local community...


You do realize that what you're describing is very much in line with most lines of Communist thought, right?

Socialism is not communism. Social contract can be a communist system but most aren't. There has never been a communist government in the history of the world. Marx envisioned one, but he believed that it would require a strong central authoritarian government to seize control of everything and everybody for awhile in order to bring it about. What he didn't realize is that once a government achieves that control, it likes it so much it never quite gets past that part to the part where the people govern themselves in the Utopian harmony as Marx envisioned.

What I am describing is people who are free and independent and who take care of themselves as much as they are possibly able to do so. The fact that they voluntarily choose to share a service because it is more efficient and cost effective than would be each person doing it all themselves is not communism nor socialism, but rather a mutually agreed practical solution to solve a problem. Social contract. They do not presume to require anybody to participate who does not choose to do so. It is the closest thing to the Utopia that our Founders envisioned. The Founders vision turned out to be a whole lot more satisfactory than Marx's vision did.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Socialism is not communism.

No shit. I've explained what socialism is many times.

. There has never been a communist government in the history of the world.

Depending of what line of Communist thought ypu adhere to, either a communist government is impossible or numerous such governments have existed.

Marx envisioned one, but he believed that it would require a strong central authoritarian government to seize control of everything and everybody for awhile in order to bring it about.

Marx was a Utopian who also thought that a communist society could be forced into existence. In regards to that, he is a fool. The communist society can not be forced into existence. It can only evolve in its own time. All we can do is guide society in the right direction through sociopolitical and legal reform and philosophical enlightenment.

What he didn't realize is that once a government achieves that control, it likes it so much it never quite gets past that part to the part where the people govern themselves in the Utopian harmony as Marx envisioned.

Save that speech for the Marxists. You're telling me nothing I don't already know. I've commented on this before.

What I am describing is people who are free and independent and who take care of themselves as much as they are possibly able to do so.

Both individually and communally.

The fact that they voluntarily choose to share a service because it is more efficient and cost effective than would be each person doing it all themselves is not communism nor socialism

Yes, it is. It is communally owned and operated. Under Bourgeois Capitalism, it's be left- as was the case in the past- to private entrepreneurs only.

, but rather a mutually agreed practical solution to solve a problem.

Exactly was Communism ultimately is.

Social contract.

Bourgeois Capitalism is also social contract, as are all ethics. You're trying to act as though communism is somehow mutually exclusive with social contract, when the reality is that communist solutions emerge through social contract.

They do not presume to require anybody to participate who does not choose to do so

Nor does communism. Under the ideal communist system, those who do not wish to participate are free to leave the commune or live outside of its systems.

. It is the closest thing to the Utopia that our Founders envisioned.

The FF envisioned no Utopia. They envisioned real solutions which they sought to bring into existence through private enterprise, in accordance with Bourgeois Liberal ideology.

The Founders vision turned out to be a whole lot more satisfactory than Marx's vision did.

And that's why capitalism is on the brink of collapse? The descendants of Marxism are alive and well and are having great success in the FEC and elsewhere.

 

[DiamondDave]

A number of small communities in New Mexico have unincorporated and no longer assess taxes for a Fire Dept. And in most cases, if there is no viable county FD, the neighbors pool their resources, buy a fire truck, make sure a few folks are trained to use it, and park it in somebody's barn. It doesn't get a really great ISO rating, but most insurance companies will accept that as at least some fire protection.

So the community buys a truck, which is communally owned and they all pay for it operate...

And it's all the local community...


You do realize that what you're describing is very much in line with most lines of Communist thought, right?

Um... and as states on how it runs in my area... you do not have to be part of it... but if you VOLUNTARILY choose not to donate, you are then charged if they service an emergency for you

Quite different than government forced or a socialist or communist system

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Quite different than.... a socialist or communist system

No, it is a communist program. The only sense in which it conflicts with communist thought at all is in that it demands payment for aiding the community's neighbors.

 

[Foxfyre]

Socialism is not communism.

No shit. I've explained what socialism is many times.

. There has never been a communist government in the history of the world.

Depending of what line of Communist thought ypu adhere to, either a communist government is impossible or numerous such governments have existed.

Marx was a Utopian who also thought that a communist society could be forced into existence. In regards to that, he is a fool. The communist society can not be forced into existence. It can only evolve in its own time. All we can do is guide society in the right direction through sociopolitical and legal reform and philosophical enlightenment.


Save that speech for the Marxists. You're telling me nothing I don't already know. I've commented on this before.


Both individually and communally.


Yes, it is. It is communally owned and operated. Under Bourgeois Capitalism, it's be left- as was the case in the past- to private entrepreneurs only.


Exactly was Communism ultimately is.


Bourgeois Capitalism is also social contract, as are all ethics. You're trying to act as though communism is somehow mutually exclusive with social contract, when the reality is that communist solutions emerge through social contract.

Nor does communism. Under the ideal communist system, those who do not wish to participate are free to leave the commune or live outside of its systems.

. It is the closest thing to the Utopia that our Founders envisioned.

The FF envisioned no Utopia. They envisioned real solutions which they sought to bring into existence through private enterprise, in accordance with Bourgeois Liberal ideology.

The Founders vision turned out to be a whole lot more satisfactory than Marx's vision did.

And that's why capitalism is on the brink of collapse? The descendants of Marxism are alive and well and are having great success in the FEC and elsewhere.

Well since you obviously have no clue what I said nor were you seriously responsive to it, and I mostly disagree with your perception of how things were and are, we should probably just agree to disagree at this point and move on.

 

[rdean]

This one popped up again. Cool. I love making up statistics. Ummm, let's see.

58% of Republicans want uninsured Americans to "die quickly".

Of the 2.7 million Americans insurance companies cut to make their 12 billion in profit, 86% of Republicans blame the people cut. Say wanting operations and other needless things was keeping those companies from making their much needed profit.

Insurance companies don't make anything, they just stand between you and your doctor and skim billions off of insurance policies. 62% of Republicans say insurance companies aren't paid enough and skimming money is both "legal" and "really hard".

 

[Some Guy]

Insurance companies don't make anything, they just stand between you and your doctor and skim billions off of insurance policies.

Of course they don't make anything, they provide a service: risk management. And they don't skim money off the top just to skim money off the top; they provide their service and make a profit off of it just like any other corporation in America. If you really have a problem with health insurance companies, then surely you have a problem with car insurance companies and life insurance companies as well as they don't make anything either and skim money off the top, no?

But you're right in that they stand between you and your doctor and act as a middle-man, and middle-men always add cost to a process. Having the government enter that arena or completely take over that arena would still mean a middle-man exists and i personally don't have any confidence that the government can administrate health insurance benefits as efficiently as the private corporations do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Insurance companies don't make anything, they just stand between you and your doctor and skim billions off of insurance policies.

Of course they don't make anything, they provide a service: risk management. And they don't skim money off the top just to skim money off the top; they provide their service and make a profit off of it just like any other corporation in America. If you really have a problem with health insurance companies, then surely you have a problem with car insurance companies and life insurance companies as well as they don't make anything either and skim money off the top, no?

But you're right in that they stand between you and your doctor and act as a middle-man, and middle-men always add cost to a process. Having the government enter that arena or completely take over that arena would still mean a middle-man exists and i personally don't have any confidence that the government can administrate health insurance benefits as efficiently as the private corporations do.

The insurance companies are on record of making about a 2% profit in 2009. Most industries would think that cutting it way too close and such a low profit margin would be unacceptable low.

Before government got involved in the system, many years ago, we could go to the emergency room in a pinch, get stitched up or a broken arm set or whatever we needed, we might have a couple hundred dollars to pay off over the next year, but just about everybody could afford that.

Now the most routine emergency room visit, if any treatment is given at all, will almost always cost into the thousands. The average hospital bill is tens of thousands, and if it is a major surgery or illness can easily exceed a hundred thousand. That wipes out a LOT of families insurance premiums paid to the insurance company.

If the government would get out of it altogether except to do what tort reform and removal of regulation is appropriate at the federal level, let the individual states make their own rules and regulations about healthcare, and provide incentives for people to take an interest in and control some of their own costs, we would see both costs of medical care AND insurance come down to affordable levels again.