A Thought Experiment

[Father Time]

...

Socialism does not take away individual freedom. It does not curtail success. It simply takes the focus of power away from money and puts it into the lives of those who live by its philosophies. It ensures that most or any people at all don't have to suffer to make other people wealthier. It gets rid of the wealthy and the impoverished. And it isn't perfect, but its better than someone suffering for your prosperity.

Totally and absolutely false. It is truly amazing that you have deluded yourself into believing that. That explains your wacky response to one of my posts.

Your mission is clear: move to a Socialist country. Good luck with that.

If you can show that socialism does restrict individual freedom, with references to back your refutation, then I'll retract this statement, change my philosophy, and become a capitalist. Deal?

It takes away the freedom to run your business the way you want and I'm not just talking selling unsafe crap that doesn't work.

If nothing else it's unfair, as I've tried to show with my Tetris example.

 

[xsited1]

...

Socialism does not take away individual freedom. It does not curtail success. It simply takes the focus of power away from money and puts it into the lives of those who live by its philosophies. It ensures that most or any people at all don't have to suffer to make other people wealthier. It gets rid of the wealthy and the impoverished. And it isn't perfect, but its better than someone suffering for your prosperity.

Totally and absolutely false. It is truly amazing that you have deluded yourself into believing that. That explains your wacky response to one of my posts.

Your mission is clear: move to a Socialist country. Good luck with that.

If you can show that socialism does restrict individual freedom, with references to back your refutation, then I'll retract this statement, change my philosophy, and become a capitalist. Deal?

Just read your thread. There are plenty of posts that prove just that.

 

[amrchaos]

The child in the closet represents Christ and what must be done to gain salvation for the entire town!! In other words, thechild suffering is necessary for the people to live long and happy lives. So what if it is a neglected kid that is treated badly, is it not better than actual cruxifiction? At least the child is living and kept alive.

If one suffer and or die for the well being of the masses, what is wrong with that? Is this not the basis of Christianity? How about Islam when a person sacrifices himself for his belief.

Where is the immorality here? There are people that suffer and no benefit to the masses is bequeathed, the citizens of this town should be happy to have a messiah figure for their town--and one that is not put to death.

​

Another Suffering or sacrificing themselves for my happiness and well being is a religious fundemental. Without it, how can we even talk about morality?

(praise)(suffering)(cheers)(celebration)​

 

[Diuretic]

The dangers of the Socialistic State are:
1) it often is unjust in taking lawful property from individuals through excessive taxation,
2) it substitutes the collective judgment of the government for the freedom and judgment of the individual
3) it discourages initiative and entrepreneurship by individuals, and
4) it leads to excessive government power and hence corruption.

The danger of these tendencies of the socialist state were well summarized by Lionel Trilling, a respected man of the contemporary liberal left as quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Poverty and Compassion (Knopf Publisher 1991) “Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the moral imagination”.

As the distinquished political economist F. A. Hayek has stated; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”.

The definition of the word socialism from websters:

1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. Also a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3) stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


And just for history's sake lets look at the first government to impliment socialism as a system for governance.

In years of peace, Diocletian, with his aides, faced the problems of economic decay. To overcome depression and prevent revolution he substituted a managed economy for the law of supply and demand. He established a sound currency by guaranteeing to the gold coinage a fixed weight and purity which it retained in the Eastern Empire until 1453.

He distributed food to the poor at half the market price or free, and undertook extensive public works to appease the unemployed. To ensure the supply of necessaries for the cities and the armies, he brought many branches of industry under complete state control, beginning with the import of grain; he persuaded the shipowners, merchants, and crews engaged in this trade to accept such control in return for governmental guarantee of security in employment and returns .

The state had long since owned most quarries, salt deposits, and mines; now it forbade the export of salt, iron, gold, wine, grain, or oil from Italy, and strictly regulated the importation of these articles. It went on to control establishments producing for the army, the bureaucracy, or the court. In munition factories, textile mills, and bakeries the government required a minimum product, bought this at its own price, and made the associations of manufacturers responsible for carrying out orders and specifications.

If this procedure proved inadequate, it completely nationalized these factories, and manned them with labor bound to the job. Gradually, under Aurelian and Diocletian, the majority of industrial establishments and guilds in Italy were brought under the control of the corporate state. Butchers, bakers, masons, builders, glass blowers, ironworkers,
engravers, were ruled by detailed governmental regulations. The “various corporations," says Rostovtzeff, "were more like minor supervisors of their own concerns on behalf of the state than their owners; they were themselves in bondage to the officials of the various departments, and to the commanders of the various military units.

The associations of tradesmen and artisans received various privileges from the government, and often exerted pressure upon its policies; in return they served as organs of national administration, helped to regiment labor, and collected taxes for the state from their membership similar methods of governmental control were extended, in the late third and early fourth centuries, to provincial armament, food, and clothing industries. "In every province," says Paul-Louis, "special procuratores superintended industrial activities. In every large town the state became a powerful employer . . . standing head and shoulders above the private industrialists, who were in any case crushed by taxation.

Such a system could not work without price control. In 301 Diocletian and his colleagues issued an Edictum de pretiis, dictating maximum legal prices or wages for all important articles or services in the Empire. Its preamble attacks monopolists who, in an "economy of scarcity," had kept goods from the market to raise prices:

The edict was until our time the most famous example of an attempt to replace economic laws by governmental decrees. Its failure was rapid and complete. Tradesmen concealed their commodities, scarcities became more acute than before, Diocletian himself was accused of conniving at a rise in prices, riots occurred, and the Edict had to be relaxed to restore production and distribution. It was finally revoked by Constantine”

*Will Durant Story of Civilization, Part III, Caesar and Christ. Copyright Simon and Shuster, NY, 1944

Yugoslavia's socialist economy was a success.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

It takes away the freedom to run your business the way you want and I'm not just talking selling unsafe crap that doesn't work.

So are you talking about paying your employees less than minimum wage, not providing health insurance for them, retirement options, tuition assistance, or having the freedom to pollute or hire illegal immigrants, or what? Much of the regulation of small businesses has to do with workers' rights. Had it not been for unions in the early part of the 20th century there'd still be children working dangerous jobs in factories and the 80 hours workweek.

If nothing else it's unfair, as I've tried to show with my Tetris example.

Sorry, but communist Russia wasn't socialist - it was a corrupt oppressive oligarchy touting itself as socialist. Many ambitious power mongers used socialism as a means of drawing support to their cause when their cause was nothing more than to gain power: Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and Castro.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Just read your thread. There are plenty of posts that prove just that.

Sorry, xsited, but these posts prove nothing except that many people who think they know what socialism is, don't, and that they believe the same propaganda that has been used to describe socialism since the manufacturing moguls of the early 1900's called union members communists.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Maybe the GOP should consult their Bibles and ask the question WWJD?

Yeshua (Jesus) traveled around healing people for free.

In the Bible it states that we are all our brother's keepers.

Yeshua was quite big on taking care of the poor and down and out.

Yep, I think Yeshua would be socialist.

 

[N4mddissent]

We all know Canada isn't a purely Socialistic Country, but it can still be used as an example. Sadly, this is a common question. The government continues to grow and yet many Americans no longer understand that there is a line between limited government and a free people. Take for instance education, business and health care. The Government has intruded in these areas to such a degree that the individual is left with few choices. In other words, the government controls what choices a person can make. When politicians pass laws and regulations to manage society, freedoms are lost. People are better off when they have more choices and can make their own decisions.

So I haven't been able to choose what schools to attend, businesses to be involved in, or health care to receive? The last is true to an extent but that has be at the discretion of the provider not government and the first two I don't see a loss of freedom at all. You should explain.

Look at our educational system. We currently spend more money per student than any other industrialized nation and get the least in return. The government dictates what will be taught, who will teach it and where kids go to school. Obviously, they don't believe in competition, choice or rewarding teachers based on performance. Why does the government require so much control over our students? Power. Obviously, a loss of freedom in education has had a devastating effect on our country.

Business is another example of too much government intrusion. When the government tries to control the free market, you usually end up with disaster. Take for instance the rolling blackouts in California a few years back. It's a story of what happens when politicians try to manage competition and impose their vision of a market. Unfortunately, it was mislabeled as 'deregulation', but the opposite was true. The housing market was another example of how the government encouraged banks to provide risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers. That coupled with Crony Capitalism led to the mess. If they would just practice Liberty rather than control, you wouldn't see this mess.

Your school argument could be applied to private healthcare. We spend more than any other industrialized nation, yet our quality of care is ranked 37th by the WHO. I know many conservatives don't like the WHO methodology, so I throw in these stats as well: We are 45th overall in Life Expectancy, 30th among UN member nations. Just below Bosnia. Of course, this can be skewed in countries with high infant mortality rates. That must be the problem, since more than 40 countries including San Marino, Slovenia, Malta, and yes, Cuba have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. This is according to the CIA factbook. So, if we spend the most and our healthcare is worse in many categories than these nations, then isn't that an indictment of private healthcare systems?

Additionally, the countries that consistently demonstrate much better performance than American students are all countries with public education institutions. The major difference is that most countries have more federal control over standards than we do in the U.S. The fact that a local with no experience as an educator- hell, a local who can't read- can be elected to be on school board and set educational policy is probably the biggest flaw in our system. But the fact that other public education systems are outperforming ours demonstrates that it isn't the fact that it is "public" education that is the problem- it's the system we currently have established that is the problem.

Further evidence is that our public university system is not failing. Our universities, public and private, are as respected as any in the world. I believe the reason is that university systems are focused on knowledge and high standards of academic rigor, with control placed largely in the hands of respected experts and professors- whereas our primary and secondary sytems are local political footballs.

The government dictates (to a degree, it is mostly state and local agencies that establish curriculum) what is taught at public schools. Private schools are free to teach anything in any way they choose. Parents may send their child to a private school. Parents may also choose to homeschool their children. This is legal in our educational system. Many of the "requirements" that people interpret as the government's requirements are really the requirements of accrediting agencies. But there is nothing that states a school, especially a private school, must be accredited. The "requirement" that schools be accredited is imposed by the university system, which for comparison purposes, needs a way to ensure certain standards of educational rigor are met when they consider applicants. After all, a student could score an "A" at a school with very low standards or perhaps with non-traditional educational curriculum, while a student may score a "B" at a school with very high standards and a solid curriculum. If the university can only objectively judge based on grades, how will they know that the "B" student is probably more qualified than the "A" student?

So yes, the government (almost all local, not federal government) does put certain controls on the public school system. This is because of the tax structure in place to fund public schooling. I personally think the property tax system is ridiculous and almost guarantees that schools in rural and poor urban areas will always struggle, whereas affluent regions- where the children already have many advantages that predict educational success (successful parents, educated parents, financial security, etc...)- will always have great public schools. But there is no requirement that anyone participate in public schooling. Homeschooling or private schools are options to everyone. Charter schools are also being added into the market now as well.

As far as government interference, perhaps if everyone would act with decency and human compassion, then completely free-market systems would be great. But people won't act with decency. The problem with the California black-out situation was a combination of it being neither regulated nor de-regulated but some state in-between that allowed human beings to do what human beings do- manipulate things for their own benefit, even if the result is suffering for others. California capped the utility rates, while allowing the market to control energy wholesale provider prices. They did this based on faith in the free market to lower energy costs, and thus the capped rates established when the government was in control should be higher than the costs of energy after the wholesale market was allowed free competition. Unfortunately the market failed. Energy rates increased under the free-market. To a large degree this was due to human greed. To make sure that energy shortages did not occur, in the event of energy shortages by the providers, the utilities had to purchase energy at uncapped prices from out of state providers. This led to energy providers creating artificial shortages which caused wholesale prices to skyrocket- and led to utilities being forced to buy the energy out of state at the uncapped prices (often from the same companies that created the "shortage"). So Utilities in the state went from paying $45 per kilowatt hour for power to paying around $1400 per kilowatt hour. I am not sure that the utility regulation made much difference in this. If the utilities had been allowed to charge market prices, then they would have just passed these prices on to the public, bankrupting the citizens rather than the utility companies.

Public utilities, like other large scale providers like cable and phone companies enjoy virtual monopolies in their regions. Having Verizon compete with AT&T is not exactly what I call a market. Especially when there are many areas in which only one is available. Direct evidence of collusion is very difficult to prove. And cable companies are worse. Many towns and cities only have one cable company servicing the entire area. The market doesn't work in these systems. Competition is minimal. We can debate to what extent certain institutions should be regulated, but I believe absolute free-market captialism is an idealistic fantasy unless one desires a dystopian nightmare. Ayn Rand had interesting thoughts, and I can appreciate her views on religion- as well as enjoy her books- but I still think her philosophy is fatally flawed.

Humans are just not humane enough for absolute capitalism to work.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Humans are just not humane enough for absolute capitalism to work.

You know N4m?

Truer words were never spoken. Capitalism is based in greed and is rewarded for it.

 

[Father Time]

Just read your thread. There are plenty of posts that prove just that.

Sorry, xsited, but these posts prove nothing except that many people who think they know what socialism is, don't, and that they believe the same propaganda that has been used to describe socialism since the manufacturing moguls of the early 1900's called union members communists.

Ok since you and I clearly have different definitions of socialism please define socialism as you see it and we'll go from there.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok since you and I clearly have different definitions of socialism please define socialism as you see it and we'll go from there.

Well, socialism is far too broad a philosophy to easily and briefly define and there are different variations. I think that anarcho-democratic-socialism would work best for western civilization.

First let me start out by saying that communist China, Russia, etc. are not true socialism and, in fact, aren't even close. These are/were simply corrupt oligarchies that operated under the guise of socialism to dupe people into supporting their revolutions (or supporting their coops). So put out of your mind the preconceived notions you have about socialism and leave behind the associations that have been programmed there about it.

I want to first address your tetris example to show you the basic philosophy of true socialism. So the guy that invented tetris was screwed by communist Russia and so were the people of Russia, the only people who benefitted were those in power because Russia didn't really adhere to socialist principles. But, had Russia been truly socialist, the guy who invented tetris would have had absolute freedom to dedicate his life to working with the game. After the first version was so successful, he would've been able to hire as many people as he wanted and who he wanted to be part of the succcess of the game. In essence, if he wanted to work on the game to manufacture and distribute the game and make new versions and variations of the game he would have to share his success. In other words, hiring people who immediately have "profit" sharing as a benefit. As long as they make enough money to continue the operation, they can. If they are successful enough to make a profit, they can expand, and as they expand the people they hire will share in "profit" so that the success of the company is everyone's responsibility. The government has nothing to do with it other than to tax the company and to ensure that it operates under socialist principles. If they stop making money, they shrink and shrink, until its just Alexei (I think that was his name, who invented tetris) and he can continue until he has to find another job. But he won't be homeless, he won't starve, and, more importantly, his children won't be homeless or starve. And neither will any of the children in his community.

And his community will be small. Instead of a large city government, a large county government, a state government, and a central federal government, there will be small community governments governed by members of that community because socialism won't work for a large population. But it will work for a group of small communities that make up a city. And it will work for a small group of counties, and then a small group of states all treated as individuals instead of governments. Trade still happens between individuals of a community, and between communities, and between cities, and between states. Those who live in rural Iowa work on collective farms (if they choose to) and reap the benefit of success of that farm and that farm trades with a collective corn processing company in Ohio that manufactures corn products; and that corn processing company trades with a collective machine company out of Detroit for machine parts or a collective truck company out of New Jersey to distribute their products. The trade can be money and barter for goods and services produced by the collective company or by the community to which the collective belongs.

So there is in essence some capitalst principles. But, no one is wealthy and no one is impoverished. You still benefit from success if you invent something, you just don't get wealthy from it. Instead you can start a collective company producing the invention and coming up with new inventions and you, your employees, and your community all benefit from it - not just materially but "spiritually". You employees don't just work for a wage, they work for themselves. And if they don't work, they get fired. The government is a collective of people who know you and knows your situation and provides only the necessities such as housing, food, water, energy (such as heat and electricity), etc. If you want a phone, a tv, cable or satellite service, a computer, internet service, nice furniture, good food, a bigger house, etc., you have to work.

And you won't have to work 40 hours a week with 5 vacation days a year. You work whatever your collective decides is sufficient to run the company (which in most cases will be far less than 40 hours) and you'll get a month of vacation a year (maybe more) if that's what everyone decides. That way you can spend time raising your children and spend time with your wife and enjoy your youth instead of working like slave until you're at an age and at a financial situation when you can finally retire (which is just a few years before you die in the current economic system). So there are democratic principles too because democracy works better in smaller scales. I'm for adherence to a living constitution with basic unchanging moral and ethical principles (i.e. so that tyranny of the majority doesn't occur).

And we adopt a system similar to the UK's NHS. Is it perfect? No. But can we do better? I think so. No one needs to be denied health care or become homeless because of a monopolistic health insurance company who operates for profit and not for the welfare of its customers.

Is it perfect? No. Will there be high unemployment? Not necessarily but it will occur from time to time though it won't matter because there won't be a poor class. Will people abuse the system? Yeah. But most will not. And there won't be ultra-powerful, rich lobbies and special interest groups, there won't be Wal-marts but instead lots of small, private, family-run businesses. There won't be a few auto companies but lots of different cars. Competition will be fierce. Prices will stay low, and therefore cost will remain low. The government won't subsidize farms not to grow crops. Crime will be low, and drug abuse and alcoholism will be rarer. And everyone will have the same opportunity to achieve happiness in their own manner instead of spending their youth and their lives to make already wealthy people wealthier.

Most importantly is that everyone lives well, works for themselves, and their children have the equal opportunity to achieve success as they define it and not based obtaining wealth and/or power.

If this nation were to adopt such as system, which I understand is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, the only things that would change is the system of representation, and the dismemberment of corporations and private ownership of those now smaller companies would go to its employees and not an individual (unless he/she is the only employee) or a board of investors or owners unless that board is made up of the employees. Doctors would become the new health insurance companies so that neither a bureaucrat nor an insurance board determines your level of care.

That is a broad and very brief description of the socialism that I see as most beneficial to society as a whole. Basically money isn't the focus and the human spirit is.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The USA is 1 party away from being a socialist country. And both your parties are pretty much the same. Almost like one party.
Nothing is free in the USA. Think about it.

actually both partes ARE the same in the end.

Great post

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The dangers of the Socialistic State are:
1) it often is unjust in taking lawful property from individuals through excessive taxation,
2) it substitutes the collective judgment of the government for the freedom and judgment of the individual
3) it discourages initiative and entrepreneurship by individuals, and
4) it leads to excessive government power and hence corruption.

The danger of these tendencies of the socialist state were well summarized by Lionel Trilling, a respected man of the contemporary liberal left as quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Poverty and Compassion (Knopf Publisher 1991) “Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the moral imagination”.

As the distinquished political economist F. A. Hayek has stated; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”.

The definition of the word socialism from websters:

1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. Also a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3) stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


And just for history's sake lets look at the first government to impliment socialism as a system for governance.

In years of peace, Diocletian, with his aides, faced the problems of economic decay. To overcome depression and prevent revolution he substituted a managed economy for the law of supply and demand. He established a sound currency by guaranteeing to the gold coinage a fixed weight and purity which it retained in the Eastern Empire until 1453.

He distributed food to the poor at half the market price or free, and undertook extensive public works to appease the unemployed. To ensure the supply of necessaries for the cities and the armies, he brought many branches of industry under complete state control, beginning with the import of grain; he persuaded the shipowners, merchants, and crews engaged in this trade to accept such control in return for governmental guarantee of security in employment and returns .

The state had long since owned most quarries, salt deposits, and mines; now it forbade the export of salt, iron, gold, wine, grain, or oil from Italy, and strictly regulated the importation of these articles. It went on to control establishments producing for the army, the bureaucracy, or the court. In munition factories, textile mills, and bakeries the government required a minimum product, bought this at its own price, and made the associations of manufacturers responsible for carrying out orders and specifications.

If this procedure proved inadequate, it completely nationalized these factories, and manned them with labor bound to the job. Gradually, under Aurelian and Diocletian, the majority of industrial establishments and guilds in Italy were brought under the control of the corporate state. Butchers, bakers, masons, builders, glass blowers, ironworkers,
engravers, were ruled by detailed governmental regulations. The “various corporations," says Rostovtzeff, "were more like minor supervisors of their own concerns on behalf of the state than their owners; they were themselves in bondage to the officials of the various departments, and to the commanders of the various military units.

The associations of tradesmen and artisans received various privileges from the government, and often exerted pressure upon its policies; in return they served as organs of national administration, helped to regiment labor, and collected taxes for the state from their membership similar methods of governmental control were extended, in the late third and early fourth centuries, to provincial armament, food, and clothing industries. "In every province," says Paul-Louis, "special procuratores superintended industrial activities. In every large town the state became a powerful employer . . . standing head and shoulders above the private industrialists, who were in any case crushed by taxation.

Such a system could not work without price control. In 301 Diocletian and his colleagues issued an Edictum de pretiis, dictating maximum legal prices or wages for all important articles or services in the Empire. Its preamble attacks monopolists who, in an "economy of scarcity," had kept goods from the market to raise prices:

The edict was until our time the most famous example of an attempt to replace economic laws by governmental decrees. Its failure was rapid and complete. Tradesmen concealed their commodities, scarcities became more acute than before, Diocletian himself was accused of conniving at a rise in prices, riots occurred, and the Edict had to be relaxed to restore production and distribution. It was finally revoked by Constantine”

*Will Durant Story of Civilization, Part III, Caesar and Christ. Copyright Simon and Shuster, NY, 1944

Yugoslavia's socialist economy was a success.

So whats that 1 in 40? Not good odds to gamble my children and grandchildren's futures on.

 

[xsited1]

Just read your thread. There are plenty of posts that prove just that.

Sorry, xsited, but these posts prove nothing except that many people who think they know what socialism is, don't, and that they believe the same propaganda that has been used to describe socialism since the manufacturing moguls of the early 1900's called union members communists.

It's obvious that you are a socialist, so why argue? Just admit it. You're a socialist and I'm not. You believe socialism is wonderful and I don't. No amount of proof will convince you otherwise.

 

[Diuretic]

The dangers of the Socialistic State are:
1) it often is unjust in taking lawful property from individuals through excessive taxation,
2) it substitutes the collective judgment of the government for the freedom and judgment of the individual
3) it discourages initiative and entrepreneurship by individuals, and
4) it leads to excessive government power and hence corruption.

The danger of these tendencies of the socialist state were well summarized by Lionel Trilling, a respected man of the contemporary liberal left as quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Poverty and Compassion (Knopf Publisher 1991) “Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the moral imagination”.

As the distinquished political economist F. A. Hayek has stated; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”.

The definition of the word socialism from websters:

1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. Also a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3) stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


And just for history's sake lets look at the first government to impliment socialism as a system for governance.

Yugoslavia's socialist economy was a success.

So whats that 1 in 40? Not good odds to gamble my children and grandchildren's futures on.

Nice to know though that there's actually a successful model to emulate when the time comes for it to be instituted.

 

[xsited1]

So I haven't been able to choose what schools to attend, businesses to be involved in, or health care to receive? The last is true to an extent but that has be at the discretion of the provider not government and the first two I don't see a loss of freedom at all. You should explain.

Look at our educational system. We currently spend more money per student than any other industrialized nation and get the least in return. The government dictates what will be taught, who will teach it and where kids go to school. Obviously, they don't believe in competition, choice or rewarding teachers based on performance. Why does the government require so much control over our students? Power. Obviously, a loss of freedom in education has had a devastating effect on our country.

Business is another example of too much government intrusion. When the government tries to control the free market, you usually end up with disaster. Take for instance the rolling blackouts in California a few years back. It's a story of what happens when politicians try to manage competition and impose their vision of a market. Unfortunately, it was mislabeled as 'deregulation', but the opposite was true. The housing market was another example of how the government encouraged banks to provide risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers. That coupled with Crony Capitalism led to the mess. If they would just practice Liberty rather than control, you wouldn't see this mess.

Your school argument could be applied to private healthcare. We spend more than any other industrialized nation, yet our quality of care is ranked 37th by the WHO. I know many conservatives don't like the WHO methodology, so I throw in these stats as well: We are 45th overall in Life Expectancy, 30th among UN member nations. Just below Bosnia. Of course, this can be skewed in countries with high infant mortality rates. That must be the problem, since more than 40 countries including San Marino, Slovenia, Malta, and yes, Cuba have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. This is according to the CIA factbook. So, if we spend the most and our healthcare is worse in many categories than these nations, then isn't that an indictment of private healthcare systems?

Additionally, the countries that consistently demonstrate much better performance than American students are all countries with public education institutions. The major difference is that most countries have more federal control over standards than we do in the U.S. The fact that a local with no experience as an educator- hell, a local who can't read- can be elected to be on school board and set educational policy is probably the biggest flaw in our system. But the fact that other public education systems are outperforming ours demonstrates that it isn't the fact that it is "public" education that is the problem- it's the system we currently have established that is the problem.

Further evidence is that our public university system is not failing. Our universities, public and private, are as respected as any in the world. I believe the reason is that university systems are focused on knowledge and high standards of academic rigor, with control placed largely in the hands of respected experts and professors- whereas our primary and secondary sytems are local political footballs.

The government dictates (to a degree, it is mostly state and local agencies that establish curriculum) what is taught at public schools. Private schools are free to teach anything in any way they choose. Parents may send their child to a private school. Parents may also choose to homeschool their children. This is legal in our educational system. Many of the "requirements" that people interpret as the government's requirements are really the requirements of accrediting agencies. But there is nothing that states a school, especially a private school, must be accredited. The "requirement" that schools be accredited is imposed by the university system, which for comparison purposes, needs a way to ensure certain standards of educational rigor are met when they consider applicants. After all, a student could score an "A" at a school with very low standards or perhaps with non-traditional educational curriculum, while a student may score a "B" at a school with very high standards and a solid curriculum. If the university can only objectively judge based on grades, how will they know that the "B" student is probably more qualified than the "A" student?

So yes, the government (almost all local, not federal government) does put certain controls on the public school system. This is because of the tax structure in place to fund public schooling. I personally think the property tax system is ridiculous and almost guarantees that schools in rural and poor urban areas will always struggle, whereas affluent regions- where the children already have many advantages that predict educational success (successful parents, educated parents, financial security, etc...)- will always have great public schools. But there is no requirement that anyone participate in public schooling. Homeschooling or private schools are options to everyone. Charter schools are also being added into the market now as well.

As far as government interference, perhaps if everyone would act with decency and human compassion, then completely free-market systems would be great. But people won't act with decency. The problem with the California black-out situation was a combination of it being neither regulated nor de-regulated but some state in-between that allowed human beings to do what human beings do- manipulate things for their own benefit, even if the result is suffering for others. California capped the utility rates, while allowing the market to control energy wholesale provider prices. They did this based on faith in the free market to lower energy costs, and thus the capped rates established when the government was in control should be higher than the costs of energy after the wholesale market was allowed free competition. Unfortunately the market failed. Energy rates increased under the free-market. To a large degree this was due to human greed. To make sure that energy shortages did not occur, in the event of energy shortages by the providers, the utilities had to purchase energy at uncapped prices from out of state providers. This led to energy providers creating artificial shortages which caused wholesale prices to skyrocket- and led to utilities being forced to buy the energy out of state at the uncapped prices (often from the same companies that created the "shortage"). So Utilities in the state went from paying $45 per kilowatt hour for power to paying around $1400 per kilowatt hour. I am not sure that the utility regulation made much difference in this. If the utilities had been allowed to charge market prices, then they would have just passed these prices on to the public, bankrupting the citizens rather than the utility companies.

Public utilities, like other large scale providers like cable and phone companies enjoy virtual monopolies in their regions. Having Verizon compete with AT&T is not exactly what I call a market. Especially when there are many areas in which only one is available. Direct evidence of collusion is very difficult to prove. And cable companies are worse. Many towns and cities only have one cable company servicing the entire area. The market doesn't work in these systems. Competition is minimal. We can debate to what extent certain institutions should be regulated, but I believe absolute free-market captialism is an idealistic fantasy unless one desires a dystopian nightmare. Ayn Rand had interesting thoughts, and I can appreciate her views on religion- as well as enjoy her books- but I still think her philosophy is fatally flawed.

Humans are just not humane enough for absolute capitalism to work.

Just a few things:

So, if we spend the most and our healthcare is worse in many categories than these nations, then isn't that an indictment of private healthcare systems?

Not necessarily. You have to ask why we spend so much and why we are worse in many categories. We pay more for many reasons: more tests, higher drug costs and administration fees come to mind. More tests mean more profits for the doctor, but also the doctor doesn't want to get sued for missing something. Higher drug costs mean Americans finance advertising and cutting edge drug research. Higher administration fees mean there is more paperwork to keep up with. And yet most Americans are very unhealthy, so obviously on average we would be worse than other 'controlled' countries.

So yes, the government (almost all local, not federal government) does put certain controls on the public school system.

Exactly right. And I have to pay for public schools even though my kids go to private schools. How ridiculous is that?

As far as government interference, perhaps if everyone would act with decency and human compassion, then completely free-market systems would be great.

That's why we have laws.

Humans are just not humane enough for absolute capitalism to work

In the absence of laws, you are correct. That's why capitalism cannot work without an honest and fair legal system.

 

[N4mddissent]

Not necessarily. You have to ask why we spend so much and why we are worse in many categories. We pay more for many reasons: more tests, higher drug costs and administration fees come to mind. More tests mean more profits for the doctor, but also the doctor doesn't want to get sued for missing something. Higher drug costs mean Americans finance advertising and cutting edge drug research. Higher administration fees mean there is more paperwork to keep up with. And yet most Americans are very unhealthy, so obviously on average we would be worse than other 'controlled' countries.

Apply this same logic to your comment about our "public" schools failing. It is not necessarily the fact that they're public that is the reason they are failing. That was my point. It's disingenous to look a public school failure and say it's because they are public, but look at private healthcare's failures and suddenly have a nuanced view.

Exactly right. And I have to pay for public schools even though my kids go to private schools. How ridiculous is that?"

You still benefit from having an educated populace, whether it is directly through your kids, or indirectly through the extended benefits of having an educated population. It is certainly less expensive to collectively educate than have all private education. Economy of scale. Whatever private schools currently charge, the result of privatization of schools would result in either lower qualtity private schools or much higher tuition or some combination of both. Private school teachers tend to make less money than public school teachers in the same region. Since teacher salaries are already so low that is causes shortages in certain fields, then you can imagine the logistical problems if all schools were private. The increase in tuition would probably dwarf current taxes taken for education purposes, plus there would be no guarantee of an educated public.

In the absence of laws, you are correct. That's why capitalism cannot work without an honest and fair legal system.

But many social programs are in-effect humane behavior with the force of law- exactly what you are suggesting. You can't depend on parents to support their child's education. It wouldn't be fair for a child to grow up disadvantaged because his parents did not educate him. But if you compel education, then you must make sure that education is available. Since there is no guarantee that the parents are capable of schooling their child, then homeschooling cannot be the only option. What if the parents, being poor, cannot afford private school? Subsidize from the government or compel the school to take the student? You're basically getting back to public schooling with subsidies.

 

[Father Time]

Ok mtnman I'm confused, you said no one will be wealthy but then said if you want to have luxuries like phone internet whatever you have to work for them which I'd consider a form of wealth. So does the government then hand you that stuff for being a good worker or do you buy it yourself?

As for Tetris if the man wanted to get rich off of it instead of just hiring a ton of people I think he should be allowed to. I think the man's entitled to make a lot of money off the game since he designed it and it sold very well. You said though there's no wealthy anymore so what are you going to do to him supposing he didn't want to share his wealth?

Sorry I'm still a bit confused as to how it works (oh and next time could you try to write shorter, no offense or anything).

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Just read your thread. There are plenty of posts that prove just that.

Sorry, xsited, but these posts prove nothing except that many people who think they know what socialism is, don't, and that they believe the same propaganda that has been used to describe socialism since the manufacturing moguls of the early 1900's called union members communists.

It's obvious that you are a socialist, so why argue? Just admit it. You're a socialist and I'm not. You believe socialism is wonderful and I don't. No amount of proof will convince you otherwise.

What proof? I'm living in the proof, xsited. Proof that capitalism is about greed and that it fucks up the planet, fucks up civlization, and just about everything else it gets its greedy little hands on.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok mtnman I'm confused, you said no one will be wealthy but then said if you want to have luxuries like phone internet whatever you have to work for them which I'd consider a form of wealth. So does the government then hand you that stuff for being a good worker or do you buy it yourself?

As for Tetris if the man wanted to get rich off of it instead of just hiring a ton of people I think he should be allowed to. I think the man's entitled to make a lot of money off the game since he designed it and it sold very well. You said though there's no wealthy anymore so what are you going to do to him supposing he didn't want to share his wealth?

Sorry I'm still a bit confused as to how it works (oh and next time could you try to write shorter, no offense or anything).

None taken, but there wasn't much choice. Like I said, socialism isn't a simple thing to understand. It isn't just "government owns everything".

Those nonessential goods and services are purchased. You still make a wage. You purchase those goods and services from collectives or from single person operations that haven't yet grown enough that there is a need for more employees. Its like medicare. It doesn't pay for everything, so to supplement it, many people also buy health insurance. The government, aka your community, gives you what you need to survive, but if you want anything else, you'll have to work. Not to mention that your community might not feel very kind to you if you don't help to support it, so if you want the good will and friendship of those in your community, you'd better earn it.

As for the Tetris-man, were he to get wealthy, he hires a bunch of people to work for him. Now you have class striation. Those people don't work for themselves except to earn a wage. They are slaves to money. Nobody cleans toilets and takes great pride in themselves and their work, unless its their business. Otherwise they clean toilets for someone else who pays them, and its done ONLY for money.

And just like tax fraud, if Alexei didn't want to share "the" not "his" wealth, the law comes down on him. Everything material earned is shared in a socialist system. The only thing not sold is one's pride and human dignity. Far more important than wealth.