Serious question for Socialist Americans

[Dr.Traveler]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

By making sure that the food and housing provided insures survival, not comfort. That's why public monies for food should be limited to fruits, vegetables, dairy, and grain. You can live without meat, chocolate, alcohol, and cigarettes.

Public housing should be pretty minimal with enough environmental control to ensure you don't freeze to death or die of heatstroke.

For those thinking I'm being too tough there, I grew up in a two bedroom house with 3 kids and 2 parents. No A/C until I was well into my teens and a heater set really damn low to save money. I remember some summers lunch being an optional meal and sometimes lunch was a bread and butter sandwich. You can survive on pretty minimal standards. It's the desire for comfort that can make you want to thrive. Now my quality of life is drastically improved and my own son won't have to grow up like I did.

 

[regent]

America, as most industrial nations on this planet have an economic system that is called a convergent or mixed economy. The mixture is socialism and captitalism. The debate should center about the question does America have enough socialism or too much.
Can anyone name a nation that is pure capitalism or pure socialism, there might be one and I would be interested to know the name.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Socialiats, among -many- other things, seek to provide "social justice", which boils down to taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. They do this because their version of morality tells them that it is wrong for people to go without when others have more than enough, and they see government as the means thru which they may attain that end.

In short, they happily force their morality upon others, while taking great exception should someone try to do the same to them.

However, though, are you totally against the idea of social “safety nets”?

For instance, are you against the idea of folks receiving temporary unemployment payments for when they suddenly lose their job, just to stay afloat for a few months in between?

I suppose unemployment insurance is a form of taking from the haves, and giving to the have nots, but is not a concept that I’m against. Are you?

3-4 months tops, with monitored employment agency participation

 

[ladyliberal]

Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

When a charity provides support for the homeless and hungry it is redistributing wealth to provide someone a better life.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

When a charity provides support for the homeless and hungry it is redistributing wealth to provide someone a better life.

In addition, those government programs came into existence because charity falls short of meeting the need in times of severe economic distress. Folks may not like them, but they do provide the last safety net and serve a purpose.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

When a charity provides support for the homeless and hungry it is redistributing wealth to provide someone a better life.

another imbecile that cant quite grasp the concepts of voluntary vs coercive redistribution

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

When a charity provides support for the homeless and hungry it is redistributing wealth to provide someone a better life.

Only if you dishonestly change the meaning of "redistrubution", as used in context, from its common meaning.

 

[ladyliberal]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

(I don't identify as a socialist and I don't support providing free food and housing for everyone but...)

Scarcely any Americans work solely to acquire subsistence level food and housing for themselves. Almost everyone spends money on clothing, transportation, medicine, better food or housing, consumer goods, caring for others, etc. Almost everyone would rather work and buy nice things than enjoy unlimited leisure and sufficiently low-quality food and shelter.

If we extend your argument to its logical conclusion, we ought to discourage not only public social welfare programs but also private homeless shelters and soup kitchens. After all, they all would harm society by discouraging people from being productive.

Not if you continually try to make it more comfortable to not work. Providing someone with a place to sleep and food until they get on their own two feet is one thing. To try and make their lives the same as someone with a job providing for themselves is something entirely different. At that point it is not longer welfare and is now re-distribution of wealth.

Absolutely, no one should be trying to make it more comfortable for everyone to not work. In deciding whether to offer assistance to someone in need, one should take into account how that assistance may alter their incentives.

 

[Dragon]

Absolutely no one should be trying to make it more comfortable for everyone to not work

The assumption behind that statement is that there are jobs for people to work at. I believe we are rapidly approaching an economy in which that is no longer true, or not true for an increasing percentage of the people. In which case we may need to re-think things on a very basic level.

 

[ladyliberal]

Look I'm for charity providing support for the homeless and hungry. I'm not for providing wealth redistribution to provide someone a better life.

When a charity provides support for the homeless and hungry it is redistributing wealth to provide someone a better life.

Only if you dishonestly change the meaning of "redistrubution", as used in context, from its common meaning.

"Redistribution" has multiple common meanings. The definition I used appears first in dictionary.com:

re·dis·trib·ute   [ree-di-strib-yoot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -ut·ed, -ut·ing.
1.
to distribute again or anew: The corporation will redistribute its share of the profits to its stockholders...

dis·trib·ute   [dih-strib-yoot] Show IPA
verb (used with object), -ut·ed, -ut·ing.
1.
to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.

So I don't think I changed the meaning so much as used a different one than was used in the post I quoted. I'm also not clear what could have been dishonest about this.

 

[ladyliberal]

Absolutely no one should be trying to make it more comfortable for everyone to not work

The assumption behind that statement is that there are jobs for people to work at. I believe we are rapidly approaching an economy in which that is no longer true, or not true for an increasing percentage of the people. In which case we may need to re-think things on a very basic level.

I think we are very far from an economy where no one ought to work. In any event, my declaration was about the current state of affairs rather than any possible future scenario ("should be trying", rather than "should ever be trying"). For the foreseeable future there are jobs and we should not be trying to discourage everyone from working them. Note that I use "everyone" here because I think it is perfectly appropriate to adopt policies that make it more comfortable for certain groups (the very old, the very young, the disabled) to not work.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When a charity provides support for the homeless and hungry it is redistributing wealth to provide someone a better life.

Only if you dishonestly change the meaning of "redistrubution", as used in context, from its common meaning.

"Redistribution" has multiple common meanings.

Yawn.

Everyone knows that the term "redistrinution of weath" is associated with government action. When you try to apply that term to someting other than government action, you are taking it out of the context in which the term is meant.

We cannot stop you from lying to yourself, so please - continue.

 

[Full-Auto]

Only if you dishonestly change the meaning of "redistrubution", as used in context, from its common meaning.

"Redistribution" has multiple common meanings.

Yawn.

Everyone knows that the term "redistrinution of weath" is associated with government action. When you try to apply that term to someting other than government action, you are taking it out of the context in which the term is meant.

We cannot stop you from lying to yourself, so please - continue.

Sheep fighting to cut into the line for slaughter.

 

[midcan5]

If you can seriously ask this question no sufficient answer is possible for you have already shown your cards. But for the sack of clarity, who are these 'Socialist Americans?' Please define them as I have never met one or even heard of one? Could it be your imagination? Or is this just an assumption of some sort that begs a question you think you know?

Whose ultimate goal is food and housing? These socialists? Or maybe religious people who believe that would be a proper goal of any society? Again what does this mean outside your head? Ulimate is pretty significant, don't you think?

'Offer?' I thought the goal was food and housing, when did an offer enter the equation? Either that is given or you need to rethink your query.

Most people do not work freely now? If you know of any, there are several corporations that would be interested. Walmart especially. When did 'force' come into this giving of food and housing? Are you going to force people to take the food and housing? Who is the enforcer?

Who is it that is maintaining these human rights, the socialists? If so you again you need to rethink your assumptions. Ultimate goals, offers, force, and rights are completely conflicted in your noggin, may I suggest a good logics class. Good luck.

 

[ladyliberal]

Only if you dishonestly change the meaning of "redistrubution", as used in context, from its common meaning.

"Redistribution" has multiple common meanings.

Yawn.

Everyone knows that the term "redistrinution of weath" is associated with government action. When you try to apply that term to someting other than government action, you are taking it out of the context in which the term is meant.

We cannot stop you from lying to yourself, so please - continue.

I will defer to your judgment on the common meaning of the term "redistrinution of weath", and confine my comments to the term "redistribution of wealth" (which, as long as we are focusing on semantics, is also not quite the phrase which was actually used).

You don't seem to care how words are defined in dictionaries, so it is probably of no interest to you that an encyclopedia specifically includes charity within its definition of "redistribution of wealth" (Redistribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Redistribution (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) proposes the simple definition of "redistribution of wealth" as

[A] shift in patterns of holdings over time (among some set of subjects) in response to some policy or other social mechanism

a definition that follows very closely from the dictionary definitions of the words.

You are certainly correct that many people use the phrase to refer exclusively to government action and you are correct that I was aware of this when I posted in this thread. However, this is a formulation that I don't like and that I try not to use. It violates the separate dictionary definitions of "redistribute" and "wealth", it contradicts the most common definition found in the technical literature, and it suggests without examination that there is something exceptional about governmental action in this regard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Redistribution" has multiple common meanings.

Yawn.

Everyone knows that the term "redistrinution of weath" is associated with government action. When you try to apply that term to someting other than government action, you are taking it out of the context in which the term is meant.
We cannot stop you from lying to yourself, so please - continue.

I will defer to your judgment...

Blah blah blah. More dishonesty from you.

The dicussion here revolves around the government forcibly redistributing weath from the haves to the have nots, where it takes money from people and then gives it to others. You want to equate that to the actions of charity, where people freely give their money to private organizations which then give it to others.

It is imposisble to do this with any degree of intellectual honesty - whcih explains your continued attempt to do so.

 

[ladyliberal]

Yawn.

Everyone knows that the term "redistrinution of weath" is associated with government action. When you try to apply that term to someting other than government action, you are taking it out of the context in which the term is meant.
We cannot stop you from lying to yourself, so please - continue.

I will defer to your judgment...

Blah blah blah. More dishonesty from you.

The dicussion here revolves around the government forcibly redistributing weath from the haves to the have nots, where it takes money from people and then gives it to others. You want to equate that to the actions of charity, where people freely give their money to private organizations which then give it to others.

It is imposisble to do this with any degree of intellectual honesty - whcih explains your continued attempt to do so.

I will defer again to you on the "dicussion" here about the redistribution of "weath", but regarding our discussion of the redistribution of wealth...

I am not equating government social welfare programs to private charity. I am merely pointing out that both practices fall into a common category-- that of redistribution of wealth.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Absolutely no one should be trying to make it more comfortable for everyone to not work

The assumption behind that statement is that there are jobs for people to work at. I believe we are rapidly approaching an economy in which that is no longer true, or not true for an increasing percentage of the people. In which case we may need to re-think things on a very basic level.

This is unfortunately true. We are fast approaching a situation where the extremely high work efficiency is ensuring that the number of available jobs in the economy is significantly less than the population of consumers in the economy. Once that happens you're looking at a situation where you have a permanent group of unemployed, or you have to look at some major restructuring of the civilization as a whole.

A permanent group of unemployed people is a formula for trouble though. Lots of folks like to claim that the rioting in Europe a few years back was caused by Muslims. It wasn't, it was caused by UNEMPLOYED Muslim Youths. Huge difference.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I will defer to your judgment...

Blah blah blah. More dishonesty from you.

The dicussion here revolves around the government forcibly redistributing weath from the haves to the have nots, where it takes money from people and then gives it to others. You want to equate that to the actions of charity, where people freely give their money to private organizations which then give it to others.

It is imposisble to do this with any degree of intellectual honesty - whcih explains your continued attempt to do so.

I will defer again to you on the "dicussion" here about the redistribution of "weath", but regarding our discussion of the redistribution of wealth.

Hm. -Two- bouts of Typo Nazi Syndrome.
I was willing to overlook one, but you clearly would rather concentrate on the irrelevant than discussing your dishonesty. Not a surprise, really.

I am not equating government social welfare programs to private charity.

You argue that they do the same thing, which they do not.

I am merely pointing out that both practices fall into a common category-- that of redistribution of wealth.

Only if you apply the term outside its usual meaning.

But please - continue to lie to yourself, for all to see.

 

[ladyliberal]

Blah blah blah. More dishonesty from you.

The dicussion here revolves around the government forcibly redistributing weath from the haves to the have nots, where it takes money from people and then gives it to others. You want to equate that to the actions of charity, where people freely give their money to private organizations which then give it to others.

It is imposisble to do this with any degree of intellectual honesty - whcih explains your continued attempt to do so.

I will defer again to you on the "dicussion" here about the redistribution of "weath", but regarding our discussion of the redistribution of wealth.

Hm. -Two- bouts of Typo Nazi Syndrome.
I was willing to overlook one, but you clearly would rather concentrate on the irrelevant than discussing your dishonesty. Not a surprise, really.

I am not equating government social welfare programs to private charity.

You argue that they do the same thing, which they do not.

I am merely pointing out that both practices fall into a common category-- that of redistribution of wealth.

Only if you apply the term outside its usual meaning.

But please - continue to lie to yourself, for all to see.

I'd be happy to discuss my putative dishonesty, but I'm not sure how to do so. You've claimed that my words are inaccurate and that they are dishonest. I've cited several sources to support my claim that they are accurate and identified multiple reasons that I feel that my definitions, in addition to being in common usage, are good definitions. You have repeatedly called my definitions incorrect but haven't so far as I can tell cited any evidence other than your own claim that there is exactly one usual definition of "redistribution of wealth" and that it contradicts my own. You also haven't explained why you feel that anything I have said is dishonest.