Socialism and "fairness"

[Evil Hamster]

One of the key things that is important to understand is that Socialism is not a political system. Neither is Communism an economic system. Most mainstream branches of socialism advocate for a mixed economy based on nationalisation of key industries. For example, in the United States various programs including but by no means limited to roadbuilding, national defence, firefighting, policing and some aspects of the healthcare system (Medicare, Medicaid) are nationalised and controlled by government. This is by loose definition a socialist practice, where certain industries are managed by the social planner in order to maximise social welfare.

National defense is written in our constitution as the primary purpose of the federal government and by necessity is a governmental function. Roadbuilding, firefighting and policing are supposed to be managed locally- where the people can make better decisions than a centralized massive bureaucracy. Medicare, medicaid and social security are all unconstitutional ponzi schemes compounded by decades of mismanagement and theft of resources by the federal government and as a result are all bankrupt and will fail at some point in the next few years.

Yes- government does serve a vital role in our lives. those functions that can't be performed by the private sector belong to government- either locally or if covered by the Constitution federally. The principles of limited government the US were founded are the reason we have built the largest most prosperous nation in the history of humanity. One where even the poor have a roof over their heads, more food than they need, cars, multiple cable tvs and cell phones. There is not a single socialist country you can point to that enjoys the prosperity we do here.

There is no class system in socialist philosophy. In Europe, where most governments are far further left both economically and socially than the US, there is less social disparity than there is under the US free market which could be reasonably described as plutocratic. Purely capitalist economies by their very nature stratify more heavily into those who have and those who have not, where in a system with more heavy social intervention the stratification is in fact reduced by redistribution of income and public provision.

That is the theory. But in reality socialism is the WORST kind of class system. The kind where you have two classes- the elite ruling class and the serfs. People fall into those classes by luck of birth and there are many barriers to prevent changing classes. A true capitalist system has no classes at all. People succeed or fail based on talent, education, luck, family resources and countless other factors- but EVERY person has an equal (not necessarily "fair") chance to succeed. People are generally classed according to their income- poor, middle class, rich, etc. but there are no barriers at all (in theory) to these "classes". A poor person can build a great business or come up with an invention and rocket up into the ranks of the rich or a rich person can make bad decisions and find himself penniless.

Socialism as an economic concept works, and has worked in practice for decades if not centuries. Confusing a functioning economic system, which improves aggregate welfare and provides subjectively better services than the free market, with a (historically-speaking) corrupt totalitarian political system doesn't make sense.

Improves welfare? Like  the woman who had to give birth on a sidewalk  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207151/Woman-gives-birth-pavement-refused-ambulance.html)? Or  babies left to die  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html)? Or countless other stories I don't have time to look up right now...

That's enough for one post

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine

[Evil Hamster]

I've seen that analogy before. However, the fact that total socialism will ultimately fail DOES NOT mean that some socialistic measures taken within a capitolistic society, such as non-profit organizations, homeless shelters, cherities, and so on will fail. Even universal health care would be wonderful if the kinks were worked out of it (I won't go into this as I do not want to start another argument >.>).

Non-profits, homeless shelters, et all are charities and not socialism. The government can even be a kind of "insurance" to help people get back on their feet after some catastrophe. The problem is the federal government is PROHIBITED by the constitution from serving in these roles. The country built by our constitution has a federal government which serves limited roles- providing for common defense, guaranteeing people their God given rights as human beings and serving as watchdog for interstate commerce. Every other function of government is prohibited to the federal government and instead up to individual states to decide. If you don't like the services or laws in your state you are free to move to another one that better suits you. At least that is how the constitution lays things out.

Unfortunately Washington has been ignoring the constitution for decades and as a result the country is heading for a collapse.

[Evil Hamster]

obligatory "lol maplestory"

Anyway, the whole national "idea" that capitalism is infallible and socialism is some kind of evil is pretty obviously flawed... we're starting to see the effects of "too much capitalism" now as rich individuals and greedy banks have, in their completely capitalist pursuit of profit, caused a severe economic collapse. We've also seen a constantly widening class gap for some time and a severe lag in the US' ability to keep up with education as private education charges more and more for administration costs while providing the same or less actual education (see Harvard), and public education is left to flounder as the state governments focus on things with more immediate payoffs.

As for socialism, it's become attached to "government-controlled or monitored" so heavily that it's pretty much all the right wing has to include in propaganda now to completely freeze any bill the left proposes--there's always something like this that the out-of-power party ends up pulling, but it's probably the worst now it's ever been with the current media power. Gonna make a healthcare reform that doesn't benefit every drug company and private insurer out there pretty much impossible to pass.

Socialism in and of itself is not evil. It just leads to a "class" system where there are elitist rulers who get all the riches and everybody else- who scrabble for whatever the "rulers" decide they are allowed to have regardless of merit.

The problem with the US is that since Rosevelt's "New Deal" we have been slowly but inexorably sliding into socialism- thus the widening class gap. It is harder for a person to succeed based on individual merit because the government takes 40+% of the fruits of our labor as taxes and re-distributes it to people who don't work as hard. Why should I work my tail off to earn a decent paycheck just so the government can take almost half of it and redistribute it?

I am not anti-tax or anti-government. I believe (like our founding fathers) that government is a necessary evil- but since government (and the power it has over people) is inherently evil it should be severely limited. Up until the new deal the federal government was limited to <10% of the countries GDP. Now it's over 40%. link (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html) And the current administration is on track to spend more in 4 years than all previous 43 administrations combined!

As for your comment on education- Yes the quality of education in this country is falling at an alarming rate. It's just more evidence that centralized government can not run any major program and make it work. We had a great public education system when it was run by the states and local cities which could make all the decisions based on what's their needs are. Now it is all managed by the federal government and education has been falling since. One example of where just throwing money around makes the situation worse. That's not even touching the issue of unions interfering with things. One of the (very few) good things Bush did was to start a voucher system in DC which allowed a small number of students to choose whatever public or private school they wanted to attend instead of being locked into whatever school based on where they lived. Those few students all did far better than they would have otherwise. One of Obamas first acts as president was to eliminate that program because the teachers unions demanded it AND he didn't want any "commoners" attending the same school as his daughters.

Healthcare is a whole other ball of wax I don't even feel like addressing right now. Maybe later 

[Evil Hamster]

No it's not. Competition is not always great.

Lets take multi-national companies for example. They don't give a s*** about how their actions affect us humans or our planet. All they care about in how much money they can make.

Instead of trying to compete, win or make money, we should try to improve our lives. For example right now we have the resources to feed ALL the humans living on our planet. We have the resources to end world hunger. But we are not doing it. Why? Because there's no money in it.

I believe in the distant future humans will evolve and this idea of competing and trying to beat the other guy will be forgotten. There will be no concept of money because we don't really need it. People will live in harmony and try to better themselves and help others.

That's a beautiful future you're imagining.

Too bad it's proven countless times over the course of history to be an impossible dream. Great rhetoric, high ideals and all- but impossible. You end up with food lines and rampant poverty. People standing in long lines for a few pairs of jeans or sneakers.

Here in the US- for nearly 2 centuries- the government mostly stayed out of peoples affairs and "We the People" built a society where even the poor are obese and have 2 TVs and a car- on average. Yes there are some hard-case homeless but that's a tiny fraction of the poor- and the majority of them have some form of mental illness. But we shut down all the psychiatric hospitals that used to care for them and kicked them out on the street in the name of "political correctness"

Why is it that the US grew so quickly from 13 small colonies into a world-shaping superpower? Because the people were empowered to build their own destinies. If you work hard you will get ahead. If you don't you wont. And they were free to pursue whatever life they wanted. If they wanted to help other people they could, if they wanted money- they could do that too. That's the whole point of freedom.

Here's an experiment in socialism

http://www.sodahead.com/blog/78951/an-experiment-on-socialism-how-will-it-work/

[RoKetha]

obligatory "lol maplestory"

Anyway, the whole national "idea" that capitalism is infallible and socialism is some kind of evil is pretty obviously flawed... we're starting to see the effects of "too much capitalism" now as rich individuals and greedy banks have, in their completely capitalist pursuit of profit, caused a severe economic collapse. We've also seen a constantly widening class gap for some time and a severe lag in the US' ability to keep up with education as private education charges more and more for administration costs while providing the same or less actual education (see Harvard), and public education is left to flounder as the state governments focus on things with more immediate payoffs.

As for socialism, it's become attached to "government-controlled or monitored" so heavily that it's pretty much all the right wing has to include in propaganda now to completely freeze any bill the left proposes--there's always something like this that the out-of-power party ends up pulling, but it's probably the worst now it's ever been with the current media power. Gonna make a healthcare reform that doesn't benefit every drug company and private insurer out there pretty much impossible to pass.

[Scaredgirl]

That's a beautiful future you're imagining.

Too bad it's proven countless times over the course of history to be an impossible dream. Great rhetoric, high ideals and all- but impossible. You end up with food lines and rampant poverty. People standing in long lines for a few pairs of jeans or sneakers.

Like I said it won't happen in our lifetime. I'm talking about thousands of years in the future. The fact that we've failed to create something like that now, doesn't mean we will fail to create it in the future.

Humankind is constantly evolving. Just look at the Dark Ages. It wasn't that long time ago, but when you compare society then and now, there is a huge difference.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

I've seen that analogy before. However, the fact that total socialism will ultimately fail DOES NOT mean that some socialistic measures taken within a capitolistic society, such as non-profit organizations, homeless shelters, cherities, and so on will fail. Even universal health care would be wonderful if the kinks were worked out of it (I won't go into this as I do not want to start another argument >.>).

[Uncle Jellyfish]

Perhaps the things I listed are not directly socialistic, however, they do have socialistic roots, such as providing aid for the needy to bring them upwards, closer to the middle class. Helping the less fortunate succeed by using the materials given by the more socially minded upper and middle classes is somewhat of a compromise between socialism and humanitarianism.

[Uzra]

Too bad it's proven countless times over the course of history to be an impossible dream. Great rhetoric, high ideals and all- but impossible. You end up with food lines and rampant poverty. People standing in long lines for a few pairs of jeans or sneakers.

You are thinking of communism or socialism and not social programs solely to meet NEEDS of the population.  The more socialist a country, the better the score in the 'quality of life' index.  Not exactly, but not far off. Social programs increase the average quality of life. You can easily look that up.

Here in the US- for nearly 2 centuries- the government mostly stayed out of peoples affairs and "We the People" built a society where even the poor are obese and have 2 TVs and a car- on average. ... Why is it that the US grew so quickly from 13 small colonies into a world-shaping superpower? Because the people were empowered to build their own destinies.

Oh really? So you think the slaves (1/3 of the population) were empowered to build their own destinies? Interesting proposal.  Do you know how that obese person got his car?  With a loan from the super rich.  Where did the money that was lent to him com from? From the bank's deposits? Some of the money that the bank customer's deposited was lent out for the obese guy to get his car right? WRONG. It's complicated so here's a video.

This is the result of your unlimited freedom; less liberty for most.

Here's an experiment in socialism

http://www.sodahead.com/blog/78951/an-experiment-on-socialism-how-will-it-work/

This experiment is perfectly logical.  It means that competition is good and no competition is terrible.  But you are saying that it means that too much competition is not possible.  I suppose your solution, however, is that 25% of the children in the class have a car and a paid apartment near the school, and all their needs looked after by their parents while 25% go to school via massive debts and long commutes wasting precious time, and 50% don't go because they never finished high school. (U.S. high school success rate is < 50%, almost none of who's parents are middle-class...)

Also, does that mean you want to remove U.S. medicaid for seniors? How about the postal service? should that be private? School too? I hope your answer is yes.  Because If it's no... then you will have to explain how social programs are fundamentally bad and something you want at the same time.

[Evil Hamster]

I'm going to digress into a couple off-topic points since you brought them up....

Oh really? So you think the slaves (1/3 of the population) were empowered to build their own destinies? Interesting proposal.

The vast majority of our founding fathers opposed slavery. They wrote into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution principles freedom and equal rights (the opposite of "fairness" ) that absolutely opposed the institution. Unfortunately the realities of the time worked against them. They needed a unified country to break free from England and fight the Revolutionary war. So while they put in place the principles that led to eventually freeing slaves, back-room political deals with the southern states allowed it to continue.

It took nearly a hundred years and a civil war (still by far the costliest US war in terms of lives lost in history) to end that abominable practice.

Do you know how that obese person got his car?  With a loan from the super rich.  Where did the money that was lent to him com from? From the bank's deposits? Some of the money that the bank customer's deposited was lent out for the obese guy to get his car right? WRONG. It's complicated so here's a video.

This is the result of your unlimited freedom; less liberty for most.

Actually- I agree with you to a point on this. The seeds of the destruction of our freedom and the start of the US slide into socialism were planted when the federal government broke the dollar off the "gold standard" and created the federal reserve. That has led to the situation we have today- a "virtual" slavery where the population is in debt to a few ultra-rich who will do anything to hold on to their power. Now the government is running the printing presses 24/7 creating more and more money out of thin air. But despite what Obama says- none of that is going to the people. It's all being GIVEN to Wall Street and the banks-- so they can LOAN it back to us, creating a future where we are enslaved to the "elites". This is not a free market. This is the Democrat party at work- the ultra rich get richer at the expense of the "commoner". Meanwhile what do the people do? They don't know their and their children and grandchildrens futures are being sold down the river because they're too busy chanting "yes we can"

[Evil Hamster]

I don't know where to start... 

Firstly, you say U.S.A was built into a mega power by hard work and freedom. Then I point out that most of the wealth the states gained for the first 80% of it's existence was due to slave labor. Then you agree, but argue against another point I never made.  This sort of fallacy is called a red herring and is very popular with the right wing.  But I'm not so easily fooled, back on point you have to find another example in history to show that unlimited freedom is best (not that one example shows anything anyways).

That's funny. You bring up slavery and if I respond to that inflamatory remark I'm using a red herring?

Then you claim we had slavery here in the US until 1962 ("the first 80% of it's existence"). I suppose pointing out that fallacy is another red herring.

Granted a large part of our early economy was built on slavery- and it grew more or less with the population for that period of time. It didn't really kick in until roughly a generation and a half AFTER slavery was eliminated- around the early 1900s.

Up to here it's great. Although I must correct you on a common mistake, the federal reserve sounds like it's government owned but it's not.  It's privately owned by the elite bankers.  Look it up.

I never said the federal reserve was run by the government- It was created by the government but run by a handful of ultra-rich people- who were given the power over the currency. Clearly in violation of the constitution.

This next bit is nothing more than you mindlessly spewing forth whatever propaganda you hear on faux news.

What the hell is "faux news"? I notice in many of these types of discussions people say that when they have no real defense of their statements. And for the record- I don't have cable TV.

Firstly, I don't support any government or president; Oboma included.  Bush printed, and I'm NOT saying you think it's good, bush printed 10's of trillions of dollars on his ridiculous war (most of which went to Dick Chaney's weapon manufacturer Hali Burton). Oboma nearly printed 1 trillion on big business bail outs.  How exactly is 'printing money' a democrat thing in this light?  Just to be careful, I'm not saying oboma isn't a corporate shrill, I'm saying it's not a democrate thing.  If anything it's more, by far, a conservative thing.

10s of trillions? really? not true (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home)
And guess what- Obama isn't cutting military spending just shuffling the numbers (http://www.slate.com/id/2212323/)
Not to mention- Obama will spend MORE IN 4 YEARS THAN ALL PREVIOUS 43 PRESIDENTS IN OVER 200 YEARS COMBINED

Next- Haliburton... Where to start. In the late 1990s Haliburton LOST the bidding process for the big "no bid" contract to a company called DynCorp. Bill Clinton in direct violation of federal law said no way and awarded the contract to the democrat partys pet company anyways. Granted Dick Cheny served on the board of the company before becoming vice president- but that has more to do with the fact the so-called two party system in this country would more accurately be described as one beast with two heads. The only real difference between the two parties is the democrats say "we need big-government socialism to solve every problem in the country" and the republicans say "big government socialism is ok- but just not as big as what the democrats want".

or, in the past, they hate us for our freedom, if you don't support the war you don't support the troops, terror warning is at orange, WMD, and a whole slew of chants designed to fool the public into the thing that wants $$$ printed.  What thing, exactly, does 'yes we can' support the creation of $$$ for?  Stop watching faux news for like.. 3 months.. as an experiment.. please.. just see what happens.

Also none of my points that you 'responded to' addressed the main point.  In fact you skipped all but one of the things I said that were directly about social programs.

I don't watch Fox news. In fact I canceled my cable over 2 years ago. Best decision ever. Stop watching Keith Olberman on the state-run MSNBC and repeating his ridiculous baseless claims as facts.

You're the one who brought up the side points I said in my last post I was sidetracking to address.

[Uzra]

The vast majority of our founding fathers opposed slavery. They wrote into the Declaration of Independence and Constitution principles freedom and equal rights (the opposite of "fairness" ) that absolutely opposed the institution. Unfortunately the realities of the time worked against them. They needed a unified country to break free from England and fight the Revolutionary war. So while they put in place the principles that led to eventually freeing slaves, back-room political deals with the southern states allowed it to continue.

It took nearly a hundred years and a civil war (still by far the costliest US war in terms of lives lost in history) to end that abominable practice.

I don't know where to start... 

Firstly, you say U.S.A was built into a mega power by hard work and freedom. Then I point out that most of the wealth the states gained for the first 80% of it's existence was due to slave labor. Then you agree, but argue against another point I never made.  This sort of fallacy is called a red herring and is very popular with the right wing.  But I'm not so easily fooled, back on point you have to find another example in history to show that unlimited freedom is best (not that one example shows anything anyways).

Actually- I agree with you to a point on this. The seeds of the destruction of our freedom and the start of the US slide into socialism were planted when the federal government broke the dollar off the "gold standard" and created the federal reserve. That has led to the situation we have today- a "virtual" slavery where the population is in debt to a few ultra-rich who will do anything to hold on to their power. Now the government is running the printing presses 24/7 creating more and more money out of thin air. But despite what Obama says- none of that is going to the people. It's all being GIVEN to Wall Street and the banks-- so they can LOAN it back to us, creating a future where we are enslaved to the "elites". This is not a free market.

Up to here it's great. Although I must correct you on a common mistake, the federal reserve sounds like it's government owned but it's not.  It's privately owned by the elite bankers.  Look it up.

This next bit is nothing more than you mindlessly spewing forth whatever propaganda you hear on faux news.

This is the Democrat party at work- the ultra rich get richer at the expense of the "commoner". Meanwhile what do the people do?

Firstly, I don't support any government or president; Oboma included.  Bush printed, and I'm NOT saying you think it's good, bush printed 10's of trillions of dollars on his ridiculous war (most of which went to Dick Chaney's weapon manufacturer Hali Burton). Oboma nearly printed 1 trillion on big business bail outs.  How exactly is 'printing money' a democrat thing in this light?  Just to be careful, I'm not saying oboma isn't a corporate shrill, I'm saying it's not a democrate thing.  If anything it's more, by far, a conservative thing.

They don't know their and their children and grandchildrens futures are being sold down the river because they're too busy chanting "yes we can"

or, in the past, they hate us for our freedom, if you don't support the war you don't support the troops, terror warning is at orange, WMD, and a whole slew of chants designed to fool the public into the thing that wants $$$ printed.  What thing, exactly, does 'yes we can' support the creation of $$$ for?  Stop watching faux news for like.. 3 months.. as an experiment.. please.. just see what happens.

Also none of my points that you 'responded to' addressed the main point.  In fact you skipped all but one of the things I said that were directly about social programs.