Socialism and "fairness"

[Uzra]

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.

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.

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.

[Uzra]

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.

[Uzra]

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.

  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.  I don't think you can make a case for either.  If you are talking about ideas like... marriage VS not-getting-married or diet VS non-diet then sure.  But if you are talking about 2+2 = 4 VS 2+2 = 5 or killing is wrong VS killing is good then no.  Subjective ideas yes, objective ideas no.  How we ought to govern ourselves is surely an objective matter, no?

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.

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.

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.

I disagree to some extent.  The information out there to be researched and collected on how societies function is more abundant than any other kind of information I can think of.  That might not mean that it's complete, but it's enough to make first steps.  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.  I'm not about to prove so (although I accept that It's my obligation) because I'd rather not go into ethics.  Even tho politics ought to be based from ethics.. >.<

[Uzra]

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.

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.

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.

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.

  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.

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.

  The bit about science is true, but again it's not the whole truth.  Science is inherently non-biases in spite of biased individual scientists because whatever they propose is verified several times over by other independent scientists often from every corner of the globe.  Also to be a scientific statement it must be falsifiable.  Which means that a condition or hypothetical observation must exist that if observed would falsify the statement.  Which is no different from logical statements.  If we deal with ethics we can work in a logical framework and we might, sometimes, have to refer to the real world for observations to clarify specific ethical problems and potential solutions but there's no reason for any branch of philosophy to be subjective.

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?

[Uzra]

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.

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.

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.

[Belthus]

(http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.50&soc=-8.77)

[Belthus]

@Evil Hamster:

There is more than one kind of American conservative. Some would agree with your positions on issues such as stem cells and homosexuality, but many more would disagree. Social conservatism has roots going back a long way in American history. If all Americans calling themselves conservative took a vote on those social issues you mentioned, your positions would lose.

[Belthus]

Even though the conceptual space is two-dimensional, major politicians and parties in the US and Canada (and probably most of the developed countries) fall along the diagonal that goes through the green and blue quadrants. In other words, we see a single dimension ranging from Authoritarian-Right to Libertarian-Left.

There are historical examples of Authoritarian-Left (e.g., Stalin). Any examples of major Libertarian-Right politicians? There are Lib-Right intellectuals (e.g., Rothbard, Hayek, etc.), but who are the Lib-Right presidents, legislators, etc.?

[Belthus]

I came across an interesting study about small businesses (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/int-comp-small-business/) in several developed economies.







It seems that social democracies are more friendly environments than the United States for small businesses.

[Daxx]

That's an excellent summary, uzra. The link I posted has more details and some interesting graphs which illustrate how this works in real life, including for example distribution of US states by their congressmen, historical world leaders, various countries, and so forth.

[Daxx]

The entire American political spectrum is fairly right wing compared to the rest of the world. Obama would have difficulty getting elected in many places in Europe if he ran on the same campaign platform as he did in the US, simply because it's very conservative - his administration's stances on many social issues would be regarded as quite frankly backward in many other countries. Of course the Republican party would just get laughed off the political stage. Relatively speaking, the Democrats are left wing compared to the rest of the mainstream candidates in the US, but compared to other countries they rank pretty right wing and pretty authoritarian; claiming that everyone in the US is so far left wing and not properly "conservative" just makes you look silly, because the internet has a broad variety of views from across the political spectrum, and you come across as a fringe-dwelling kook when you criticise the republican party for being too "liberal".

You suggest that "Your definition of conservative is way off from what most conservatives believe" but I believe it's actually just way off from what you want conservatism to be. The conservative movement in the US is a collection of different groups not defined by a specific ideology as such but by their relative position to the rest of the political spectrum - hence the traditional meaning of the word as supporting tradition or the status quo. The Republican party are conservatives in the same way that the Democrats are liberal - that is, the way those terms are applied are the traditional labels of American political discourse and not necessarily useful terms outside your country.

Perhaps it would be more helpful if you talked about the type of conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Types) you're talking about. What you appear to be describing is extreme liberalism (known in the US as libertarianism) as the position you would like conservatism to occupy. I suspect you would in fact subscribe more heavily to Libertarian Conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism). I am very very curious as to your political compass outcome, because it seems quite at odds with the views that you've previously stated in these threads.

Examples of the issues, and the conservative/liberal stance:

Stem cells- Conservative: NOT a government function. Keep the government out of it. If a person or company wants to reserach then fine."

Many religious conservatives are opposed to stem cells on ideological (read: religious) grounds. In fact, they are in opposition to the progressive (political term) applications of science, which is reasonable grounds to call them conservative. It also represents a big change in societal values and institutions, which means that classical conservatives are often opposed to it.
On the other hand, liberal progressives promote choice on the issue, because liberalism (as well as libertarianism) tries to promote personal rights and freedoms. They don't, as you so crudely tried to insinuate, try to force the issue in any moral direction, just allow people to practice their research. This is similar to issues on abortion - remember in this situation that conservatism is reactionary; Pro-Choice advocates aren't promoting forced abortions, they promote the ability to choose. Again, it's classic conservatism that is reactionary on that issue.

Homosexuality- Conservative: You have the right to pursue happiness. If that's what you want to do then fine. Keep the government out of our bedrooms.

Again, this is an odd interpretation of "conservative". In fact, conservative positions almost always come down against homosexuality or gay marriage because it "threatens the sanctity of marriage" and the belief that homosexuality is a sin or deplorable behaviour - classic conservatism defending traditional societal values and institutions.
Again, liberalism (and libertarianism) promotes choice, information and equality. Unfortunately in the US any sort of education about homosexuality is to be defended against by reactionary conservatives as part of the "commie liberal bundle of sticks agenda".

TL;DR summary: you are clearly a Libertarian Conservative. The Conservative movement is much wider than you're trying to portray it, and for the most part does not agree with you on social issues on which you would actually align more closely with Liberals.

[Daxx]

Wow, there is so much there that could be responded to I don't know where to start. It's actually crazy. Pardon me if I don't correct every single error, as this could take all day. I'd rather focus on the core issues.

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.

You're drawing arbitrary distinctions again. You're not giving any actual argument as to why we should use this arbitrary distinction, nor are the criteria by which you suggest we can divide a "government function" from a "socialist function" useful, because the single criterion you do give is actually so incredibly wrong it's not funny. Socialism has at its heart the concept of increasing general welfare. Government intervention to correct market failure is a central part of welfare economics. I've explained the economics of this in two separate posts now. I don't know if you keep missing the explanations or deliberately ignoring them, but as I said before I'm happy to explain them if you don't understand. Please don't just ignore them, however.

Here's a list that is more useful (though not entirely, for its own reasons) that was linked from the article you posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International
As you can see there, there are many first world countries in that list who have excellent qualities of life (many of them ranked higher than the USA), whose governments you should consider socialist (if you're willing to call a public healthcare insurance option "socialist") due to their socialist tendencies and high proportion of government intervention.

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

This is a view of politics very endemic to the US. Elsewhere in the world Liberalism is associated with economic and social freedoms, whilst conservatism is associated with authoritarianism (though doesn't say much about economic freedoms). Have you seen this website? I find it very useful as a measure of political scale.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

On a side note, this is becoming difficult to keep track of in two threads, can we have one locked? It seems to be the exact same conversation being repeated.