Socialism and "fairness"

[Daxx]

There are several things that approach falls foul of, primarily the idea that you can establish a concrete link between observed empirical data and the formula (even methods of derivation from other formulae are again based on an internally consistent structure which is independent of the data they are based on). You see, that's an axiomatic assumption in itself. It's a useful one to make, mind you, but it doesn't escape the fact that you can't falsify anti-realism.

Whether this is true or not is made largely irrelevant by the fact that you would need a solely mechanistic universe in order to get anywhere useful from those initial premises, and it is probably not possible to infer objective ethical stances through observation. Indeed, from a meta-ethical standpoint it would be difficult to infer the existence of ethics at all due to presupposition failure.

[Daxx]

Two problems with that post.

Firstly, this is picking and choosing what you're defining as "socialism", again. If you want in some posts to call certain policies which do not demonstrably involve lots of worker ownership and control (like a public option for healthcare insurance) "socialist", you must show why this falls into the stricter definition you're using in other posts.

Secondly, the list of countries you're using is not actually useful in any meaningful way, since you're excluding countries that would invalidate your thesis on the technicality that they don't call themselves socialist (which itself is not typically a hallmark of countries where there are mixed economies and government intervenes in areas like healthcare).

This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism. Their only common feature is using the label "socialist" for themselves, under any interpretation. There are few, if any, definitions of socialism that could fit all the countries on this list. However, most definitions of socialism fit at least some of these countries at some points in their histories.

[Daxx]

How we ought to govern ourselves is surely an objective matter, no?

Absolutely not. If you walk too far down that path, you're just falling into a situation where you're dictating by ideological fiat. It is probably impossible to divine any sort of objective truth from the universe, and so therefore it's not possible to govern based on some "objective truth" unless you take that truth as an inviolate premise in your reasoning (a good example of this religious law).

Governance based on scientific study and reasoning is more likely to be effective, I'll grant you that, but at the very root of your assumption is the idea that there is a core ideological lense through which you can interpret your data.

[Daxx]

How we ought to govern ourselves is surely an objective matter, no?

Absolutely not. If you walk too far down that path, you're just falling into a situation where you're dictating by ideological fiat. It is probably impossible to divine any sort of objective truth from the universe, and so therefore it's not possible to govern based on some "objective truth" unless you take that truth as an inviolate premise in your reasoning (a good example of this religious law).

Governance based on scientific study and reasoning is more likely to be effective, I'll grant you that, but at the very root of your assumption is the idea that there is a core ideological lense through which you can interpret your data.

How is it impossible to get objective truth from the universe? (and phenomenon there in, including human actions).  E=mc^2 is not objective?  I think you either mis-spoke or you're way overgeneralizing.  Why aren't our senses and our reasoning skills good enough to be an objective non-partisan lens? Even mathematics has axioms.  Axioms and premises aren't inherently biased.  We have philosophy an logic to sort through the unprovable to find the best first principles.

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. Furthermore, philosophy and logic don't actually tell us objectively "this is true, this is not", since philosophy relies on certain base principles to be taken as axiomatic premises and logic is a system, just like mathematics. So no, I didn't misspeak.

But that's not really what I'm getting to with my point, which was to suggest that governance relies at its heart on ideological concerns. You can in theory measure everything in the economy (though in practice that is impossible), but even if you did that would not answer fundamental questions of ethics in governance. For example, is equality or equity the goal of the social planner? If they are a mix, then how is that determined? These are ethical questions, and as such aren't subject to objective reasoning based on measurement and formulae. And the fact that these ethical issues underpin virtually every concept in governance means that they reduce answers to those concepts to the natural outcomes of the ideological viewpoints that define them.

If I'm guessing correctly (by your signature), you probably describe yourself as an "objectivist" and subscribe to Ayn Rand's teachings/ideas/"philosophy". Is that true?

[Evil Hamster]

OK I'll try and answer some more points that were brought up-

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.

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.

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.

This is a political/idealogical thread so post away And I'm also concerned with ideaology. I knew when I started this thread I'd be in the minority since most people who would agree with me don't share my interests in games!

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.

Actually the knowledge exists in abundance. It's just not taught in schools and not a real interest to most people- they just go to the polls and vote for whatever party they always vote for.

Even tho politics ought to be based from ethics.. >.<

In interest of brevity I'll avoid the whole meta-thing you did there   However if ethics were required before entering politics I have a feeling we'd have no politicians at all... And yes, I realize how sad that statement is.

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.

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'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?

That is an amazingly conservative statement there And actually if you read the Constitution and founding father's writings/intentions that was their grand vision for the US. You have a centralized "federal" government that deals with national defense/preserving basic rights, and you have states, counties and cities that deal with all the other issues that are better dealt with on a local level. Take, for example, education. We used to have the best general education system in the world- as a patchwork of different schools each run by the individual states. Then the federal government jumped in with mandates, offers of cash and talk about "think of the children" and now we are left with a school system where 1/4 students don't graduate hich school- and half of those that do can't read at an 8th grade level. (from memory don't jump on me if my stats are off a bit)

[Evil Hamster]

Welfare state policies like the New Deal saved capitalism.

In reality they dragged out the great depression far longer than it should have lasted. Also- the great depression was caused by manipulation of the marketplace, not a failure of capitalism. The "boom-bust" cycle of the economy is more due to the elimination of the gold standard and manipulations of the central bank which benefit politicians, mega corporations and banks at the expense of small business.

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.

What reason? Morals, family, hope, OPPORTUNITY.

Would you agree significantly more crime is commited by people on welfare (as a percentage) than people who aren't? The major effect of welfare is to eliminate individuals desire to take responsibility for and improve their own lives. People survived and thrived before there was welfare so saying they won't without it is a fallacy. Before social security- the family was important in culture. Adult children took care of their elderly parents- now they largely don't, people depend on government and family is less important.

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.

That money comes from manipulating the market. Who's a politician going to vote laws to benefit? The small businesses in his district that make up the free market or the mega-corporations that pay him millions of dollars allowing him to keep his seat of power in Washington? What I find ironic is the politicians (bush, obama, reid, pelosi, frank, dodd) slamming "wall street" and "CEO" on TV are going off TV and sending those same people truckloads of cash.

Next: Philosophically I am against welfare. I am not contradicting myself to say that realistically I know there are circumstances that arise where some form of assistance is helpful. I think this expresses it better than I can:

I have never questioned the need to take care of people who, through no fault of their own, can't provide for themselves. The rest of us have to do that. But I am against open-ended welfare programs that invite generation after generation of potentially productive people to remain on the dole; they deprive the able-bodied of the incentive to work and require productive people to support others who are physically and mentally able to work while prolonging an endless cycle of dependency that robs men and women of their dignity. I wanted to see if we couldn't rescue some of those people from what FDR had called the "narcotic" of welfare.

[Evil Hamster]

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.

Apparently this thread has taken on a new life! My problem hasn't been not wanting to debate, but not having time. I could just throw out my opinions in a few minutes, but to put out a well thought out response takes a half hour or so! And that's not even mentioning the fact US conservatives are generally busy working so they can pay taxes to support the liberal policies of our government  

So since i have a few minutes...

To uzra on 9/11:

The point wasn't specifically about slavery- but i responded to it because it was the example you gave that you claimed was responsible for the growth of our economy. I pointed out that the US economy was relatively stagnant until after slavery was abolished.

As for lynching (a new argument you brought up) very quickly- just like abolishing slavery and civil rights legislation- the laws banning lynching were opposed by liberal democrats. They couldn't hold those laws off forever though and conservatives finally succeeded in getting the law passed.

I've heard the name Glen Beck, but don't really know who he is (did I mention I don't have cable?) and don't recall defending him. Unless there was a comment here I defended...

Also- where do you find that statement about the more socialist a country the higher the quality of life? That is not supported by the facts of human history. North Korea has a socialist economy- how great is their QoL?

Finally- as i have stated many times before- post office, military, police, fire, etc are NOT socialist institutions. they are legitamate functions of any government. Socialism is the idea of distributing "resources" equally among the population- taking from those with more to give to those with less. Providing services is not redistributing wealth, it is the reason we humans live in communities. Welfare, social security, etc are socialism because they take from people who have to give to people who have less. That is also different from charity- since charity is voluntary and not backed up with threats of violence the way socialism is. So a government run homeless shelter would be socialism because it would be funded by tax dollars and if you don't pay you go to jail (the violence), while a church-run homeless shelter would be charity supported by voluntary contributions.

As to various comments brought up yesterday (I'm not going to bother quoting them)

the reason the democrat (socialist) party does so well is they have succeeded in implementing many socialist programs. These have been in effect for so long now that people are used to them and don't even realize that they are now dependent on the government, but will vote against any threat to their trickle of money. Basically the democrat party (the party of slavery, KKK, segregation, Jim Crow, white supremacism) has figured out a new system to break the backs of minorities by pretending to help them, but making them dependent on a specific party. Welfare is the greatest evil that has been inflicted on the African American community in particular and has done something even slavery couldn't do- break up the family unit.
But enough sidetracking, back to the point. 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?

As for the Jesus/MLK topic- Jesus and MLK challenged the "money & power" institutions of their respective times so were naturally hated and reviled by those who wanted to maintain their money and power.

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.

Any particular ideaology taken to extremes is generally bad. The thing about the US- the theory behind the Constitution was to provide a framework where we were supposed to always be debating and arguing conflicting ideaologies, thus "Freedom of Speech" was the first guaranteed right. Where things went wrong- was the lock in of one particular ideaology starting with Rosevelt. He even stated once social security was implemented it would NEVER be able to be undone- that began the rise of the entitlement mentality in this country and the gradual slide into socialism.

OK there's a couple posts beyond what I've written but I unfortunately have to get back to my job...

[Evil Hamster]

If I'm guessing correctly (by your signature), you probably describe yourself as an "objectivist" and subscribe to Ayn Rand's teachings/ideas/"philosophy". Is that true?

I would say I mostly agree with her ideas. Not entirely, but who does agree 100% with anybody else?

I don't have much time so I'll just respond briefly.

Is A = A objectively true?  Whatever you say about physical laws that predict, you can also say about math.  Whenever one has a sat containing 1 object, increasing the number of objects in the set by 1 results in the set containing 2 objects. 

I think objectivism has a lot of truth but they are possibly as dogmatic as they come.  I can not honestly claim any loyalty to any ideology as of yet.  But I'm somewhere between anarchy and liberalism.  Far away from statism and conservatism.  When I respond to any of your posts I don't do so with conviction or with a conclusion in mind.  I just go over whatever unsolved questions I have and play the devil's advocate,  Attempting to falsify any side of the argument while trying to not to assert any solution =).

Just curious here- To me, liberalism means state control of our lives therefore very close to statism while conservatism means small, limited government and is therefore closer to anarchy. So how can you be between liberalism and anarchy without being close to conservatism?

   Left                                                                       Right     
<-----|------------------|----------------------|-------------------|----->
    Statism        Liberalism             Conservatism        Anarchy

[Evil Hamster]

Finally- as i have stated many times before- post office, military, police, fire, etc are NOT socialist institutions. they are legitamate functions of any government.

Calling them services when you don't want them, and calling them functions when you do want them?  They are still both and all services with a function.  You said 'etc' but please specify for school, and health care, and why those can't be legitimate services.

You missed the point I was trying to make, plus I don't understand what you mean by services/functions. I was stating that the legitimate (mis-spelled in my previous post) functions of government are NOT socialism as others have claimed. It wasn't meant to be a comprehensive list of everything the government does.

Socialism is the idea of distributing "resources" equally among the population- taking from those with more to give to those with less. Providing services is not redistributing wealth, it is the reason we humans live in communities. Welfare, social security, etc are socialism because they take from people who have to give to people who have less. That is also different from charity- since charity is voluntary and not backed up with threats of violence the way socialism is. So a government run homeless shelter would be socialism because it would be funded by tax dollars and if you don't pay you go to jail (the violence), while a church-run homeless shelter would be charity supported by voluntary contributions.

You mention some 'services' who's function is to literally give out $$$ and then say etc as to lump health care (and school?) together to try to make them somehow the same.  How is the post service different from health care? Or fire department different from ambulances?  It's amazing to me that you see tax as violence, and that is your reason for wanting to decrease spending and remove the medicare, yet you want to keep the post office.  It's violence regardless of what it's used for.  Please provide the rule that let's us know, without asking you or looking at history for each one, which 'service' ought to be funded through violence and which ought to be voluntary markets.

The difference between governmental functions and socialism lies in their purpose. We all pay taxes to fund the military, police, fire departments, schools and other services that benefit ALL people. How is that socialism? Roads are mostly maintained through license plate and drivers licence fees, even tolls in some places. That falls more into the "use" tax category- where they people using them pay for them. Post office would be another use tax- you have to pay for the stamps. How is that socialism? Unemployment is usually paid for by your previous employer- making it more of a forced insurance on companies. It is also temporary in nature and not meant to create dependence on the government. How is that socialism. Welfare, social security and medicare all take money from one group of people to give it to another. It also creates a class of people who depend on the "kindness" of their government masters- pure socialist classism.

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.

I'm proud of what that says of me. I prefer a free, classless society where every individual has the ability to succeed or fail based on their own merits to a class-based system where there are "rulers" and "everybody else" and the rulers determine every aspect of life for the rest of the population.

As for the town hall/shouting issue- When people shouted and got angry at policies Bush, they were brave courageous and exercising their first ammendment rights.

Isn't it funny how it was patriotic to raise your voice for 8 years but now if you do, you're an "angry mob"?

Also- the 40% or more tax burden on citizens in the US is destroying our quality of life and creating poverty. Not to mention the fact we tax companies into moving their production to other countries- causing us to lose jobs and opportunity and again creating more poverty.

Firstly, this is picking and choosing what you're defining as "socialism", again. If you want in some posts to call certain policies which do not demonstrably involve lots of worker ownership and control (like a public option for healthcare insurance) "socialist", you must show why this falls into the stricter definition you're using in other posts.

Secondly, the list of countries you're using is not actually useful in any meaningful way, since you're excluding countries that would invalidate your thesis on the technicality that they don't call themselves socialist (which itself is not typically a hallmark of countries where there are mixed economies and government intervenes in areas like healthcare).

1. I'm not sure I understand your statement. Government functions are necessary for society. Socialist functions involve re-distribution of wealth for no benefit of the general population, just the beneficiaries.

2. Most countries have a mix of socialist/other economic systems so a comprehensive list would take more time than I have to research and compile... The statement I was responding to was a blanket unsupported, unproven statement about how socialist countries have a better quality of life than any other country.

[Evil Hamster]

where do you find that statement about the more socialist a country the higher the quality of life? That is not supported by the facts of human history. North Korea has a socialist economy- how great is their QoL?

Did you just ignore the fact that one is not a 1st world country?  Keep them 1st world and the statement holds.  Keep them 3rd world, the statement holds as well.

I kind of figured that would be the response, so I had this answer ready 

There are currently only 5 countries that are officially socialist:

 People's Republic of China (since October 1, 1949)
 Cuba (since January 1, 1959)
 Laos (since December 2, 1975)
 North Korea (since September 9, 1948)
 Vietnam (officially in unified Vietnam since July 2, 1976, but in the north since 1954)

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries))

Which one of those is "1st world"? Maybe China- but that country is a polluted mess... In fact all other "first world" socialist countries have collapsed under their own weight.

The problem is now many other countries (including the US) are in the process of shifting towards a socialist economy- and they will inevitably collapse too once they reach a certain point.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

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.

I normally like to stay out of these things, but I thought I'd just point out that those two people were considered immoral by many, many people. Perhaps not so much now, but in their time, before, and for sometime after, they were frowned upon and even hated by some groups. =/ Not sure how that ties in with the rest, as I haven't really been following it, but it's just my two cents, lol.

[Uzra]

I don't have much time so I'll just respond briefly.

Is A = A objectively true?  Whatever you say about physical laws that predict, you can also say about math.  Whenever one has a sat containing 1 object, increasing the number of objects in the set by 1 results in the set containing 2 objects. 

I think objectivism has a lot of truth but they are possibly as dogmatic as they come.  I can not honestly claim any loyalty to any ideology as of yet.  But I'm somewhere between anarchy and liberalism.  Far away from statism and conservatism.  When I respond to any of your posts I don't do so with conviction or with a conclusion in mind.  I just go over whatever unsolved questions I have and play the devil's advocate,  Attempting to falsify any side of the argument while trying to not to assert any solution =).