151 replies to this topic

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

except .. Communism is the oppoaite of Government controlling everything.
Or at least, that's the idea.

[Yamato]

Mr Right Wing, on 03 January 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

Socialism is based on a lie which is that all people are equals.

People are not all clones of each other they come in a wide range of ability and characteristics. When you pay them as equals (communism) those who are gifted become demotivated. The reason for that is they gain no advantage from working hard or going to university because they get paid exactly the same no matter what they do. Pretty soon the state becomes unproductive, uncompetitive, lacks innovations and folds like the USSR. A quick look at North Korea also shows they dont have two pennies to rub together.

In our country socialists invent crazy morally flawed programs where they tax the rich and spend the revenues on socialist projects for the poor. Why should our business owners, innovators and entreprenuers be penalised because lazy, dumb, incompetant fools are only good for shelf stacking and licking stamps?

Lets have a capitalist Utopia. Let the reds emmigrate and the state thats left behind will quickly rise to become the economic superpower of the world.

I'm very aware of the benefits of profit incentive.  Having no intellectual capital in a country would likely encourage immigration to one that does, so then Stalin has to kill you if you try to leave.  Communism is pathetic in practice, as well padded by theory as it is.

Utopia is just a myth people love to associate with to prop-up their political opinions.  Talk of a dream-society where everyone agrees with you economically and politically as well as these strange references to genetics stinks of fascism not a free market.  The reds already can emigrate so I don't know what "letting them" is suggesting.

[MiskatonicGrad]

arguing what political theory is best really doesn't amount to a hill of beans because they all have one big glaring problem that can't change: people. you can make any form of goverment work on  paper. make it all neat and tidy everybodies needs met, everyone happy but when it comes to pratical application the flaws appear. people are different they have different views, needs, values, thoughts, abilities, and sometimes they change. one minute your little utopian communist society is running great everybody pulling their weight the next minute half the tribe gets sick with some disease and your appointing a leader to guide the survivors to safer ground and he turns into some sort of dictator that wants to declare war on every tribe you encounter. so picking one political thought to run country ain't easy and maybe impossible. even anarchy( or lack of goverment as i understand it) is hard to accomplish when people are involved.

[Cradle of Fish]

I've learned not to debate with Raven-Hawk since he claimed that the majority of people on Earth are 'soulless', except for him of course.

There is nothing socialist about this law. It's a socially conservative way to enforce homogenity onto the people. It does absolutely nothing to redistribute the wealth, in fact it has nothing to do with economics at all.

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 03 January 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Social democracy has a better track record than what?  Communism? That's not saying much since communism's track record is disastrous.  

Why don't you discuss what you think the cons of Socialism are here (I've heard you speaking to no end about the pros already), and provide real examples of those cons in the world past or present, so I'm not getting a lot of fluffy rhetoric on political/economic theory.

This discussion started with nothing to do with socialism other than a mis-attribution. Such a discussion of socialism has no place here.

The only thing I will add is that Germany is a social democratic country and it does rather well last time I looked.


Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

MiskatonicGrad, on 04 January 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:

this is what the left and socialist leaning people do they pull the Montoya " you keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means" to confuse the issue or flat out avoid it. the whole point of this thread is goverment control call it what ever you want totalitarism, socialism, communism, or the freaking easter bunny is in charge. the point is is this something we want in this country the easy answer is hell yes look at the last 20 yrs. this country is leaning more and more towards goverment control of damn near every aspect of our lives. Is our constitution set up for a goverment that has that much control? No. can that be changed? yes will it? my answer to that is it doesn't need to be hardly anybody reads it and even fewer bother trying to get the goverment to stick to it. so the socialists out there will continue to bog you down in a definition war and try to pass off what they are selling as something else because you don't know what you are trying to say and don't understand what a socialist is.

so in the future don't ask if we want socialism ask if we want more and more goverment control of our lives. let the socialist argue what they want to call themselves and don't get bogged down.

The problem is that RavenHawk has voided the discussion from the start by using the incorrect terms. If he had have described the actual reality of the situation and avoided attributing all the world problems to socialism - we might just have the basis of a discussion. Words convey concepts and using the wrong words prevents us analyzing the underlying concepts. Its important and avoids sloppy conclusions.

This essentially boils down to a discussion of small government is good and big government is bad, which is an entirely different one to the discussion of economic systems. This is a problem which many Americans have, they have all the concepts mixed up in their heads and they have never taken the time to look at the component parts. A product of the right wing "Reds under the bed" propaganda you have been exposed to all your life.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 04 January 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

This discussion started with nothing to do with socialism other than a mis-attribution. Such a discussion of socialism has no place here.

So we have a thread entitled 'Traits of Socialism' and you want it to contain nothing to do with Socialism.   Doubtful.  If you're here to discuss things why not enlighten us with actual information about actual Socialism?  Since you're so interested in defending Socialism, what's wrong with starting a new discussion where you can provide an answer to my question?

[and then]

If the day arrives that the US actually becomes Socialist then Europe is screwed.  Oh, wait, Europe already is screwed...nevermind  

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 04 January 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

So we have a thread entitled 'Traits of Socialism' and you want it to contain nothing to do with Socialism.   Doubtful.  If you're here to discuss things why not enlighten us with actual information about actual Socialism?  Since you're so interested in defending Socialism, what's wrong with starting a new discussion where you can provide an answer to my question?

The title was using the law in Iceland which restricts choice of names as an example of socialist. The law is not socialist - the starting title and comment were flawed and not the basis for any discussion. i commented to point this flawed logic out - nothing else.

Start a thread on socialism and I may choose to enjoin, but then again they tend to be pointless and boring, so I tend to avoid them as a rule.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

and then, on 04 January 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

If the day arrives that the US actually becomes Socialist then Europe is screwed.  Oh, wait, Europe already is screwed...nevermind  

last time I looked the US was more screwed than Europe, but they hold the deeds to the reserve currency so no one wants to push the button yet.

Br Cornelius

[Jinxdom]

Why would it be bad to have a government version of privatize business that is just the basics that employ and train people who can barely make a decision for themselves?

That way they wouldn't need to regulate prices through laws but through competition. You can't price gouge that way. Can't control the market. All you need is enough people to back it. The idea isn't about taking away from the rich but just making more.

People need homes so have the government build basic homes but also have the move in to the market themselves. Have them follow regulations and free up privatized businesses to do what they want. This would actually provide choice to people and regulates companies not through crappy laws but through the actual free market itself. The invisible hand would be the invisible hand. After awhile nobody would have to live outside unless they wanted to. The basic idea works just the implementation would have to be on point and people can't be scared out of their minds about to government.

You could do it with everything that we need. transportation, communication

Since the government would be selling things they would have less reliance on taxes. Since it is a free market prices people can still get what they want.

How exactly would something like that be bad for a country to try if it was implemented correctly? More importantly would be that socialistic?

[Yamato]

Br Cornelius, on 04 January 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

The title was using the law in Iceland which restricts choice of names as an example of socialist. The law is not socialist - the starting title and comment were flawed and not the basis for any discussion. i commented to point this flawed logic out - nothing else.

Start a thread on socialism and I may choose to enjoin, but then again they tend to be pointless and boring, so I tend to avoid them as a rule.

Br Cornelius

You've pointed out that flawed logic over and over again.  If that's your only purpose you're done here.

If you don't care about socialism enough to discuss it, I hardly see why I should bother starting a new thread.  I was happy with this one, you weren't.

[Rlyeh]

Yamato, on 04 January 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

You've pointed out that flawed logic over and over again.  If that's your only purpose you're done here.

If you don't care about socialism enough to discuss it, I hardly see why I should bother starting a new thread.  I was happy with this one, you weren't.

Apparently you aren't if you can't stick to the topic presented by the OP.

[Br Cornelius]

Let me put out my position here;
There has never been a socialist state
There has never been a capitalist state
Both are Utopian ideals - unachievable and relatively meaningless in the real world.
Both are limited economic systems which are poor representation of the world we actually live in. The real economic systems we operate with are neither socialist or capitalist.

There have been many imperialist states
There have been many totalitarian states
These are the real states we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

People who couch their arguments in socialist - capitalist critiques show a profound lack of understanding of what reality they actually live in and they really need to learn a little before making statements about government.

Rlyeh, on 04 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Apparently you aren't if you can't stick to the topic presented by the OP.

Exactly

There's a phrase from Beck which seems relevant here "Tell me when the new age gets old enough to drink"

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 04 January 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Yamato]

Rlyeh, on 04 January 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Apparently you aren't if you can't stick to the topic presented by the OP.

Called 'Traits of Socialism'.   How bold of me to discuss socialism here.