Conservatives are Socialists

[USNavyVet]

Using government to benefit everyone equally is not limited to socialism and that's where the problem lies. Pretending that helping everyone is only socialism is not true and for the most part is not really part of socialism. The general welfare clause of the Constitution when it was written meant to that laws and regulations should benefit everyone, not a select few. Our founding fathers were not socialists and neither are most things socialists claim to own.

But you are not "using government to benefit everyone equally" because government has no earned income. You are using the income tax revenues and assorted other gains from the individuals of society to do things which benefit the collective. Sorry, but that IS socialist. The general welfare clause, whether you believe the liberal or conservative definition, is a socialist concept. You are almost getting to my point when you argue that laws and regulations (or general welfare) shouldn't benefit only a few. I agree with this 100%.

This is precisely why Socialism as an ideology fails. There is virtually no way to ensure an equal distribution of anything to the collective. Some will always benefit more while others benefit less. A socialist idea can be an efficient way to ensure specific needs are met for the society as a whole. The problem is, liberals have conflated need with want and desire. Instead of the socialist idea merely providing for a need, it is expected to provide for wants and desires, and that isn't possible in a capitalist free market society. This is why the socialists attack capitalism.

I know a lot of conservatives. I don't know any who think we shouldn't have social safety nets of some kind to help those in need. I don't want poor people to starve or disabled vets to suffer. And I don't have a problem with a socialist system to address those needs. What I am opposed to is Socialism: The Ideology, where wants and desires replace needs. I have an obligation as good citizen and upstanding member of society, to contribute tax revenues so that our government can provide aid for those in need. Sure, it's socialist, but that's okay. The thing that is not okay, is the ideology which seeks to take my money to provide for the wants and desires of others. That's not government's place nor is it mine.

Sorry dude but since you don't even know what socialism is this thread is moot.

 

[Boss]

Using government to benefit everyone equally is not limited to socialism and that's where the problem lies. Pretending that helping everyone is only socialism is not true and for the most part is not really part of socialism. The general welfare clause of the Constitution when it was written meant to that laws and regulations should benefit everyone, not a select few. Our founding fathers were not socialists and neither are most things socialists claim to own.

But you are not "using government to benefit everyone equally" because government has no earned income. You are using the income tax revenues and assorted other gains from the individuals of society to do things which benefit the collective. Sorry, but that IS socialist.

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

The general welfare clause, whether you believe the liberal or conservative definition, is a socialist concept

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

Well, I posted the Wikipedia definition which confirms in essence; anything equitable that is commonly owned or state owned and used to benefit the collective, is socialist. The federal reserve is definitely not a private entity and it is used to benefit the collective.

Look... You and I, along with John, Jane, Jack and Jill, all pitch in $5 to buy pizzas. We are all hungry, we need to eat and we all want pizza. We all partake of the pizza. This is a socialist concept. That's fine, it's a good way for our group to handle our needs without overdue burden on any one individual. But let's say that you and I are not hungry... Socialism: The Ideology says, we still have to pitch in our $5 to feed the others because they want pizza. It's no longer about our collective needs, it's about the wants and desires of some, which is contrary to our want and desire to keep our $5.

 

[Boss]

Sorry dude but since you don't even know what socialism is this thread is moot.

Well, no... actually, I think that I do know and it is you and others who don't know. What I have been trying to explain to the hardheaded, is the difference between socialistic concepts and the ideology of Socialism. You want to try and claim that socialistic concepts are something else, but they're not.

 

[Clementine]

It's always the libs here who rush to mention roads, hospitals fire and police depts. when defending socialism. I guess many aren't aware that those things existed before local governments started controlling and funding them. The OP did a great job of pointing out that while government must oversee some things, it would not be possible to have them at all if not for capitalism. Wealth has to be created before it can be confiscated and spent. Government does not create wealth and we need a strong private sector to do that.

It's the libs who deny they are socialist, yet claim socialism is good because it gives us the above mentioned.

 

[percysunshine]

Next logical thread....'Will Obama run for Governor of Texas as a Tea Party candidate?'.

 

[Boss]

It's always the libs here who rush to mention roads, hospitals fire and police depts. when defending socialism. I guess many aren't aware that those things existed before local governments started controlling and funding them. The OP did a great job of pointing out that while government must oversee some things, it would not be possible to have them at all if not for capitalism. Wealth has to be created before it can be confiscated and spent. Government does not create wealth and we need a strong private sector to do that.

It's the libs who deny they are socialist, yet claim socialism is good because it gives us the above mentioned.

Wow, so someone DOES actually get the point I was making? Bravo!

 

[Boss]

Next logical thread....'Will Obama run for Governor of Texas as a Tea Party candidate?'.

I have a better one than that.

Liberals Believe in Trickle Down Economics

Reason being: ALL economics trickle down. If you believe in ANY economic system, you believe in trickle down economics because that is what happens as the result of ANY and ALL economic activity.

 

[edthecynic]

Next logical thread....'Will Obama run for Governor of Texas as a Tea Party candidate?'.

I have a better one than that.

Liberals Believe in Trickle Down Economics

Reason being: ALL economics trickle down. If you believe in ANY economic system, you believe in trickle down economics because that is what happens as the result of ANY and ALL economic activity.

So then Socialism is Trickle Down which makes Reagan a Socialist.
Thank you.

 

[Boss]

Next logical thread....'Will Obama run for Governor of Texas as a Tea Party candidate?'.

I have a better one than that.

Liberals Believe in Trickle Down Economics

Reason being: ALL economics trickle down. If you believe in ANY economic system, you believe in trickle down economics because that is what happens as the result of ANY and ALL economic activity.

So then Socialism is Trickle Down which makes Reagan a Socialist.
Thank you.

No, Socialism isn't trickle down, but Reagan was a conservative so he was socialist. Read the OP again. I know, I know... you are tripping over your own mind right now.

 

[Politico]

I had to look and make sure this wasn't in the humor section.

 

[Boss]

I had to look and make sure this wasn't in the humor section.

Nope... not humor. We could call it Dispelling Liberal Myths 101. Or Boss' Journey to Conservative Enlightenment. But there is certainly nothing funny about politics these days, it has become an all out war of words. I'm just attempting to introduce some clarity.

 

[Sallow]

Conservatives are Theocrats and Fascists.

 

[Politico]

Leave it to sallow to make it even more ridiculous.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But you are not "using government to benefit everyone equally" because government has no earned income. You are using the income tax revenues and assorted other gains from the individuals of society to do things which benefit the collective. Sorry, but that IS socialist.

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

The general welfare clause, whether you believe the liberal or conservative definition, is a socialist concept

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

Well, I posted the Wikipedia definition which confirms in essence; anything equitable that is commonly owned or state owned and used to benefit the collective, is socialist.

Ok... and now, transition your exceptionally and deliberately broad defintion of socialism to the general welfare clause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Conservatives are Theocrats and Fascists.

Liberals are "useful idiots", happy to remian willfully ignorant so that they might better serve their ideological masters.

 

[Boss]

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

Under what defintion, and how is that definition valid?

Well, I posted the Wikipedia definition which confirms in essence; anything equitable that is commonly owned or state owned and used to benefit the collective, is socialist.

Ok... and now, transition your exceptionally and deliberately broad defintion of socialism to the general welfare clause.

Well first of all, it's not MY definition. It's what Wikipedia says, I just reposted it here. Words mean things, and we conservatives need to get on the ball with this and stop allowing liberals to control dialogue. We can't effectively argue against their Marxist agenda while they are allowed to run around claiming Conservatives are opposed to fire departments because that is a socialist concept and Conservatives reject socialism. We need to honestly accept words for what they mean and then we can rationally debate.

Socialist... the root word is SOCIAL. It means, whenever society adopts a plan to do something for the collective by everyone contributing. The general welfare clause is a prime example of this. It allows our government to establish certain collective initiatives with the individual contributions of all. There is nothing wrong with that, in of itself.

Conservatives have become so sensitive to the word "socialist" that we cringe every time it is mentioned, then we immediately recoil and protest. It's silly, this is just a word to describe something, it won't kill you. The problem with socialist ideas are the ideologues.

Certain socialist ideas are fine, they are an effective and pragmatic way to deal with a problem. The military is a good example. It serves the collective and is funded by the collective, and in many respects, it is completely operated as a closed socialist system. Everyone in the military has to go through the same basic training, they eat at the same mess hall, they are treated the same, given the same uniforms, haircuts, etc. It is totally controlled and "owned" by the government. There is no free market capitalism in the military. Soldiers aren't allowed to engage in free enterprise competition, they are expected to conform to a universal standard. And this is fine for the military, it works best.

Again, my delineation is between the ideology of Socialism and simple socialist systems. The ideology seeks to use socialists systems as a means to address wants and desires instead of universal needs. Wants and desires are better handled through free market capitalism and not socialism. In fact, the best way to provide for the wants and desires of many is through free market capitalism, free enterprise, competition, and individual liberty.

 

[Boss]

Conservatives are Theocrats and Fascists.

Wow, I never pegged you as a Conservative.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I posted the Wikipedia definition which confirms in essence; anything equitable that is commonly owned or state owned and used to benefit the collective, is socialist.

Ok... and now, transition your exceptionally and deliberately broad defintion of socialism to the general welfare clause.

Well first of all, it's not MY definition. It's what Wikipedia says,

You said:

...anything equitable that is commonly owned or state owned and used to benefit the collective, is socialist.

That's YOUR definition, which differs from...

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Words mean things...

Yes... and your definition is deliberately over-broad so that anythng any government does, so long as is commonly.state owned and befeits the collective equally falls under it - that is, you've come up with a definition to fit your premise; in having done so, your premise fails.

The general welfare clause is a prime example of this.

How is the general welfare clause an prime example of an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy?

 

[American4Americ]

Could Boss have possibly lost his mind? What the hell, man? How can he possibly explain this argument? It appears to completely fly in the face of conventional wisdom and is a contradiction of terms. How can Conservatives be Socialists? Well, this is what we shall examine in this OP.

First, let's clarify a few things. Socialism as we know it, is an ideology. It is the notion that top-down government control of things is more beneficial to the people than private sector control. Conservatism is not an ideology, it is a way of thinking, a philosophy rather than ideology. It is the belief in pragmatic time-tested solutions which have proven to provide results. Therefore, a Conservative can indeed believe in pragmatic socialistic remedies for particular problems, if the socialistic remedies are effective and work.

We often hear liberals chortle about roads, police, fire departments, snow plows... all being "socialist" yet widely supported and embraced by all in society, including Conservatives. This is true, and I will add a few more things as well; our military, Supreme Court, Congress, and the Constitution itself. All of these things are "socialist" in that, they deal with the collective as opposed to the individual or private sector.

So what is the Conservative beef with Socialism? Well, it's the ideology itself. It is the false belief that any and all things are better under a socialistic system. Some things are better but some things are not. Many things, particularly regarding our freedom and economy, are better handled through private enterprise, free markets, respectful of individual liberty. Conservatives believe this because history has proven them to be true. Some socialist measures work precisely because free market capitalism enables them to work.

Let's take the fire departments for example. Governments don't just assume the role of providing protection against fires. Communities get together and raise revenue through mutual taxation to fund a fire department. There has to be private sector capitalism happening first, to enable a tax base by which a portion can be used to fund a fire department. If there is no private sector capitalism happening, where does the money come from to pay the firemen or buy equipment?

The same thing can be said of roads, police, schools and snow plows. Without the capitalist engaging in free market trade, there is no tax revenue to fund these things. So a purely socialistic society cannot work because governments have no means of income production. We know this is true because of history, it was attempted under Chairman Mao Zedong in China. He believed that society could share the burden of production for a centralized government who would ensure everyone was cared for adequately without the need for capitalism. The experiment resulted in dismal failure and the deaths of over 50 million people.

What happens is "human nature." Without capitalism, the people who are supposed to be providing the means of production become demotivated. There is no reward for working harder. It becomes the motivational goal to simply do what is required and remain alive. Because there is no capitalistic push or drive, this eventually results in shortfalls and the people discover there is not enough to go around. Meanwhile, those who are in charge of distribution have full access to resources and they tend to look out for number one. Over time, the system devolves into two classes: The Ruling Class Elite and the Peasant Class.

As people, we have needs and wants. A "need" is something that is required, a "want" is something that is desired. They are two different birds. A free market capitalist free enterprise system, which the Conservatives believe in, can provide the financial underpinning for those things which general society needs. This is where "general welfare" comes in. Those things which we can all agree are needed by all, that benefit all of us in society, and we can use tax revenues to collectively pay for and handle without much burden to the individual. Yes, that is socialistic, but there is nothing wrong with it.

The problem is when socialistic ideology spills over from our "needs" to our "wants" and attempts to provide cradle-to-grave entitlement. It's the pollyannish thinking that we can somehow give everyone everything their hearts desire and the wealthy can somehow pay for it all. Since the wealthy obviously have a finite amount of wealth, this road has a dead end at some point. Besides, the wealthy are mostly motivated by capitalism, and when you begin providing everyone with everything their hearts desire, you effectively kill capitalist motivation. Why work hard and earn wealth when everything is being given to you? If your needs have been met and you have no wants, then there is little to motivate you.

Conservatives are Socialist, in that they do believe in certain measures to ensure societal needs are met, but they believe this is better accomplished through free market capitalism, generating economic prosperity and growth, producing capitalist revenue which can be used collectively to handle those needs. It is through the freedom of capitalism that we believe it is possible to have limited socialist systems to cover these needs. Not only do conservatives believe it is better, we believe it is ultimately the only thing that works.

Have you lost your mind?

 

[Boss]

Ok... and now, transition your exceptionally and deliberately broad defintion of socialism to the general welfare clause.

Well first of all, it's not MY definition. It's what Wikipedia says,

You said:

That's YOUR definition, which differs from..."Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you failed to post the remainder of the definition:

"Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

As you can see, this added criteria covers my definition.

Then there is this:

There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

Again, my bases are covered here.

Words mean things...

Yes... and your definition is deliberately over-broad so that anythng any government does, so long as is commonly.state owned and befeits the collective equally falls under it - that is, you've come up with a definition to fit your premise; in having done so, your premise fails.

But I have shown you where the definition is not deliberately over-broad. I didn't come up with the definition, it's from Wikipedia. My premise is supported and you've failed to prove it isn't. Now this confuses me because I take it you are a conservative like me, so we have the same overall goals... why are you attacking my attempts to enlighten you? Are you comfortable remaining rigid and defiant while allowing liberals to bash your brains in at every turn? Personally, I had rather take back the language and do some bashing myself. Perhaps you can reevaluate my commentary and attempt to understand my context better?

The general welfare clause is a prime example of this.

How is the general welfare clause an prime example of an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy?

Does society "own" government under the Constitution? Does the government produce initiatives of "general welfare" for the collective? Do we vote, thereby making us duplicitous in the cooperative management of this economic system?

You and I can do a Kabuki dance around this for days, but you are simply trying to hear me saying something I haven't said, or want to pretend I am making some irrational argument that you can't show is being made. Again, if we are both Conservatives, why do you want to be so recalcitrant and difficult?