Socialism and "fairness"

[Uzra]

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

how is that inflammatory?

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.

Falsehoods aren't fallacies.  And no this wouldn't be a red herring.  Our conversation went as follows.

You: We achieved G because of F.
Me: Most of the reason you achieved G is because of S.  And S is the opposite of F.
You: Yea but this document C was such that S would go away and F would eventually exist sometime after we achieved G.
Me: Ok.. but F is still not the cause of G.  So your response did nothing for the point. In fact you have no point and clearly so.  In fact you might as well have responded with, although it's unrelated, "yea but if we mix chemical A and chemical B we get chemical C!" as it would have done just as much for the point.
You: I guess no matter what I respond to, and no matter how I respond to it I have no point!

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.

Between 1920 and 1940, the U.S. House of Representatives passed three pieces of legislation to fight lynching. Each time the legislation went to the Senate, it fell victim to a 40-vote filibuster.  Maybe freedom means something different to you than it does to me.  For me, the right to not be lynched is essential.

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.

mhm.

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

Yep, my information was wrong.

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".

ok... So do you still stand by what you said? "This is the Democrat party at work" Or is it now 'the beast'?

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.

Sure.. Is that why you defended Glenn Beck before?  I won't defend MSNBC.

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

I didn't talk about (or 'bring up') slavery.  I mentioned slavery in order to point out that "people were empowered to build their own destinies." "for 2 centuries" is false and why.
So fill in the blanks "I, evil hamster, brought up the constitution in order to show that "__(quote)___" is not the case."

So are you saying that responding to

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.

with something about quality of life index scores being relative (i don't think you would, but the point i am making still stands) you would be justified because I 'brought it up' ?

We can get back on track. If your respond at all, please at least respond to these.

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 (or implying) that it means that too much competition is not possible and all competition is fair.

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 kind of forgot about this thread. I'll post a reply tomorrow when I have time

[Daxx]

I kind of forgot about this thread. I'll post a reply tomorrow when I have time

Sorry for dredging this thread up if you'd decided to leave it alone, but having been on holiday for a while I've missed a lot of posts (and, apparently, huge amounts of drama). Hopefully I'll be able to catch up with them soon. I was just wondering if we could continue our discussion; it's rare to find a US Conservative on the internet who is actually willing to debate.

[Belthus]

It seems to me that in societies that hold free elections, socialism--to be more specific, Social Democratic or Labor parties--has done quite well over the years. Even when they are not in power, their programs are usually tweaked, not abolished. So why is it that conservatism is losing the competition in the marketplace of ideas? For example, in the US, conservatives would like to abolish Social Security and Medicare, but not many of them campaign on that platform. How many Republican seats would be lost if they all campaigned on that theme?

Most people are not ideological. They know what happens in their own lives and in the lives of their family and friends and neighbors. They know what they can do on their own and what they need help with. In the long run, addressing practical problems based on the particulars of the situation will win out over ideologies like conservatism and socialism.

[Belthus]

E=mc^2 and other various mathematical constructs are not representative of objective truths as derived from the universe, since they are constructed in such a manner as to be internally self consistent. Mathematics itself defines everything within its own system into existence - in fact, axioms are defined to be either those things which are "self evident or subject to necessary decision". As a self contained system it may be used through the use of arbitrary constants to describe the universe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you can infer objectivity outside the system.

Disagree. What you say is true for 2+2=4. It isn't true for E=Mc^2, which is a representation of physical laws - a representation that makes accurate empirical predictions.

[Belthus]

Speaking conceptually:

Fairness is a socialist concept- that everybody should be treated the same regardless of and external factors.

Nonsense. The concept of fairness predates socialist thinkers by ... just about forever. Socialists claim to want fairness, and so does almost everyone else (including Libertarians). Not many people take the Nietzschean perspective that I'll grind my boot in your face because I have the strength to do so, so fairness can lick my boot.

Competition is the foundation of freedom- the basic principle America was founded on.

An Old West shootout is a competition. If I am faster at drawing my pistol, you die. Is that OK with you? Do you see the problem in talking in such ungrounded abstractions as "competition" and "freedom" and so on?

hacking/cheating represents criminal activity- and therefore illegal/immoral.

Jesus and MLK broke the laws of their day and therefore were illegal and immoral. Right? Again with the unqualified abstractions.

[Belthus]

The reason socialism does so well in "democracies" is because welfare, social security, etc create a voting class where politicians are able to take money from one group to buy the votes of another group. When you depend on your $200/month welfare check are you going to vote for a conservative who says you should get off your ass, be free and support yourself or a liberal who say vote for me and I'll give you a few more dollars a month?

Economic interest is a significant factor in how people vote, even though your portrait of people on Social Security and Medicare says more of you than of them. What is amazing is that people often vote against their economic interest. Many of the people shouting down Congressmen in Town Halls this summer would be in poverty without those programs, despite working hard. As the Chinese proverb goes, they should be careful what they wish for; they might get it.

[Belthus]

Actually- not really. Socialism is like a virus feeding off the democratic process. Politicians start handing out gifts to a certain demographic to buy their votes- and those gifts are largely taken from other demographics that don't vote for them so they (the politicians) don't care.

Welfare state policies like the New Deal saved capitalism. When people get to the point that they can't afford a place to live, are bankrupted by medical bills, etc., what reason do they have to obey the laws? Why not just smash and pillage and kill? Or follow some radical political movement, of the left or the right? Welfare state policies represent a practical bargain. Neither side is 100% happy with the terms. Unravel that bargain, and you will see the consequences of people with no stake in the continuation of the current order.

That is the theory. In practice the political system has become corrupted due to legalized bribery (legalized by the people taking the bribes) we call "campaign contributions". And in Washington- money talks.

I agree. And that money comes from profits made in the marketplace. Successful businesses use their money to buy power, including government power. It boggles my mind that you worry about poor people getting a few hundred a month when at the same time, Wall Street and its international counterparts have crashed the world economy through financial "innovation" and speculation.

[Belthus]

In the long run, addressing practical problems based on the particulars of the situation will win out over ideologies like conservatism and socialism.

Sure.. but I don't think anyone is arguing (openly) for a specific way to do things.  I doubt that any two socialists or any two conservatives agree on every solution to every social problem.  You sort of skewed the debate into something it's not with this last statement.  Rhetorical questions are good, but you didn't seem to have any conclusions in your post.

Sorry, but I don't understand your objection. I posted my opinion. I believe it is on topic. I made some statements, with which people can agree or disagree. What more is expected of me?

[Belthus]

Sorry about that.  I'll try to be more clear.

It seems to me that in societies that hold free elections, socialism--to be more specific, Social Democratic or Labor parties--has done quite well over the years. Even when they are not in power, their programs are usually tweaked, not abolished. So why is it that conservatism is losing the competition in the marketplace of ideas? For example, in the US, conservatives would like to abolish Social Security and Medicare, but not many of them campaign on that platform. How many Republican seats would be lost if they all campaigned on that theme?

  Although you didn't state a conclusion, as soon as you do it's a bandwagon fallacy.

The OP said that socialism is all about fairness and that not-socialism (probably some conservative, market-oriented ideology) is all about competition and freedom. I showed that in fact socialism (insofar as any party adheres to some variant of socialism) does involve competition, at a higher level. And socialist parties have done well in that competition. So the not-socialist, pro-competition ideology should be embarrassed on its own terms.

Most people are not ideological. They know what happens in their own lives and in the lives of their family and friends and neighbors. They know what they can do on their own and what they need help with.

Same as above.

I was explaining how people make decisions. The OP seems to think that ideology is important. I suggest that it is not, except to the small percentage of the population that is, as I am, a political geek.

In the long run, addressing practical problems based on the particulars of the situation will win out over ideologies like conservatism and socialism.

Wikipedia describes a political ideology as "a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order."  I agree that neither conservatism nor socialism are the best ideology, but If you're saying ideologies fail by nature then I'd have to disagree.  By saying 'we ought not to use any one ideology to solve problems' you are contradicting yourself. You can't say 'to solve problems we ought not to have any set of oughts to solve problems' since you would be prescribing what you oppose.

Hope that's clearer.

I think it helps - a lot! - to have an accurate understanding of reality, of how things work, etc. To the extent that an ideology can serve as a useful guide to navigate reality toward a better society, it's a good thing. But ideologies tend to become ossified and dogmatic. So, while I may be inspired by socialism or conservatism, I am pretty sure that our knowledge of how societies succeed and fail is pretty thin, and that whatever principles exist to be discovered will turn out to be complex and situationally qualified. The devil is in the details - of health care, of wars, of finance, of environmental sustainability, etc.

[Belthus]

Ok now I see the point you are trying to make.  For your point to be valid we have to assume or show that either 1) the market place of ideas has meaning in a philosophical political context (which it doesn't) or that 2) free-market-ers consider the market place of ideas to be subject to the same process they want for goods and services.

Government is a set of services. Elected officials have jobs with salaries and benefits. Elections are their application process in the job market for that kind of job. Candidates of different parties compete to be hired, and, after hired, their job performance is evaluated by the electorate in the following election.

Subjective ideas yes, objective ideas no.  How we ought to govern ourselves is surely an objective matter, no?

People would have to agree on what is good, and they don't. There isn't even agreement on whether an action's consequences should figure into our ethical evaluation of it.

I think that refined and examined ideology would be more than harmless.  It's just the dogmatic ones that aren't amenable to reason that are less than harmless. The scientific method is a non-political ideology and is clearly flawless but why?  Because it has room for change. Scientific knowledge changes when new ideas/data surface.  It has a natural inherent mechanism that allows and promotes change when warranted.  Whatever solution is best, it will surely mirror science in this way somehow.

Science aims to be non-ideological. Scientists are human, so of course they have biases, but they strive to be aware of their biases and limit their impact on their work. The scientific method is what I have in mind when I criticize political ideologies. I have yet to see any ideology that is as open to new information and is as self-correcting as science is. I don't think that we are anywhere close to having a science of good society, though I imagine it's possible.

One, which I'm surprised you think is situational, is war.  Optional war (which most wars are and almost all have been in history) is always always wrong.

You had to qualify "war" with the word "optional," which was not in my post.

[Belthus]

Well, that is true. But is it the whole truth?  Is government just a set of services?  Are elections truly fair?  Are the members of the electorate immune to bribes and biases?  The answer to all those questions is no.  Telephone companies are a set of services but not government.  Elections depend almost entirely (although changing slowly now with internet) on the media's coverage of selective candidates and facts, and also (and getting worse) on how much campaign donations the candidates receive from corporations in return for favorable legislature if they win.  Your choice when voting isn't much greater than pepsi or coke by the time two candidates are left.

I don't claim that competition is a supremely good thing. Perhaps you are confusing me with the OP. What I said is that socialists do compete. They compete in systems that are imperfect and produce imperfect results, just as competition for discretionary income produces lung cancer as a result of cigarette consumption.

Ethics is not a subjective matter and therefor isn't subject to vote. If people didn't agree on 1+1 = 2 would that mean that you don't know what is true in this regard?  If you believe that following the practice of X is good, and following the practice of X doesn't harm anyone, should you be allowed to follow the practice of X? 'Quantify' it if you like, eventually your answer is an objective yes.

Are you one of those "A is A" people?

There may be objective answers in ethics, but in order for them to be implemented in the real world, either you have to get widespread agreement, or you have to impose your answers on others (an ethically questionable practice in itself).

As I mentioned before, one of the major branches of ethical thought, deontological ethics, says that consequences are irrelevant to whether an action is right or wrong. The other two major branches, consequentialist ethics and virtue ethics, give a prominent place to understanding the consequences of an action. So, if something as simple as a cost-benefit analysis is controversial, coming to agreement on policies is very difficult.

I'm not saying that I, or any group of people, know the solutions to all social problems.  But we know more than zero (some of which are being ignored).  The problem with current main-stream ideologies is that it's practically taboo to say 'I don't what the ideal solution to that social problem is'.  It seems we agree that people can generally figure out what's best for them, so why not let them do so in a fair way when we don't know the best solution with certainty instead of forcing them to do what we, or even the majority, think is best for them?

I agree with the first part. As far as a majority forcing a minority, what are practical alternatives that don't end in disaster? Some things lend themselves well to individual choice, and other things are much better suited to a societal choice. The challenges of environmental degradation we face now are largely the result of individual choices in a framework that didn't take into account the hidden costs.