Socialism does work

[ralis]

Everybody dies, Jetsun. The rich in countries with mandatory public healthcare just travel somewhere else to spend their money before they die and the poor and not-so-rich are left to die together.

 

A little cold hearted!

[Chang]

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"I think the situation is far worse in countries with a focus on private healthcare, the poor die and the rich can afford to live."

-----

 

Iatrogenic Harm from "health care" is the #1 cause of death right now.

 

There's never been a better time to not be able to afford it.

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Brian]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

 

It is perfectly acceptable, understandable and perhaps even noble for Ezekiel Emanuel to hope to die by age 75. It is, in my opinion, neither noble nor acceptable for him to architect a government plan to impose this upon others.

[Brian]

There are millions here in the U.S. that are unable to afford high quality health care. The free market Libertarians are convinced that health markets are in the best position to decide health care choices. Insurance companies just move money around and decide what is payed while taking massive amounts for CEO pay and are more concerned about profit than human need. Stephen Hemsley of United Health was paid 48.8 million for one year. Absurd amount of money for a CEO.

 

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/stephen-hemsley-of-unitedhealth-group/

You are aware, I trust, that the broken third-party payer system in which the government and insurance companies have run amok and blown up the healthcare system is a direct result of Progressive manipulation? Break the system and then claim to be the only ones who can fix it? Sounds familiar. Also sounds a lot like Cloward & Piven...

[Brian]

A little cold hearted!

What? The fact that people die or the fact that people will circumvent an oppressive system if they can?

 

You know people die, right? I mean, like ALL of us?

[Karl]

Most have little use for powers of reason and will vehemently deny such and resort to arguments based on emotion. Critical thinking skills are on the decline here in the U.S. 

 

The use of historical information in books is absolutely appropriate whereby one is comparing and contrasting academic analysis and historical fact. Personal opinions have no basis in such discussions.

 

OK it is true that reasoning powers have been deliberately suppressed because it suits the state to prevent thinking, yet how does that feed into your argument ?

 

History IS opinion and not simply facts. It's easy to find revisionist histories in all contexts. This is why praxiology is used by mises in economics. This was my analogy to that of geometry. A praxiological analysis isn't dependent on graphs, charts, histories or measurements. All that is required are the basic rules and the rest follows. I agree that personal opinions are not required, this is what Mises set out to do and succeeded. Of course that's my opinion, but based completely on logical reasoning and I can see no serious flaws. It's sound logic. If you work with logic then it won't take long to see the validity of it. It's really quite inescapable.

[Brian]

There are millions here in the U.S. that are unable to afford high quality health care. The free market Libertarians are convinced that health markets are in the best position to decide health care choices. Insurance companies just move money around and decide what is payed while taking massive amounts for CEO pay and are more concerned about profit than human need. Stephen Hemsley of United Health was paid 48.8 million for one year. Absurd amount of money for a CEO.

 

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eggh45jef/stephen-hemsley-of-unitedhealth-group/

What amount of money would you permit? Would doing so solve anything other than appease your personal sense of fairness? If we paid him nothing but still required him to do his job and we used his 48.8 million to fund the healthcare of the company's employees, that would amount to less than $300 per employee per year. That's not even enough to pay the increase to their premiums as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

[gendao]

I have someone close to me who espouses hard-left political ideals. During one of our last politics/economy conversations, I started listing the examples of socialism ending in heartache and misery. Her response was (I am paraphrasing but this was pretty close), "Yes, but it is such a good idea, we have to keep trying!"

 

Ummm... No. No, we don't.

How is her relationship with her father?

No, that's not what I asked. I don't need to know what you have read. I'm interested in your own personal definition of fascism and socialism/communism. You do the work because otherwise we are getting nowhere fast. I could put up two definitions, but it's better if you make the effort to define them and go through the process which reveals much. The process is all. It's not easy to do. See if you can beat the current efforts.

Well, pseudointellectuals can only name-drop & copypasta dogmatic rhetoric...(what David Icke would term "repeaters"). They can be considered a crude form of artificial intelligence and are the crucial "mob psychology" minions to Bernaysian agitprop by global dictatorships.

 

Only the minute minority of true intellectuals are capable of independent thinking required to formulate their own theses - and see through the Matrix. They are much smaller in number though likely because they were routinely purged throughout history - thus leaving the mass sheeple as the predominant majority.

Edited July 20, 2015 by gendao

[ralis]

OK it is true that reasoning powers have been deliberately suppressed because it suits the state to prevent thinking, yet how does that feed into your argument ? History IS opinion and not simply facts. It's easy to find revisionist histories in all contexts. This is why praxiology is used by mises in economics. This was my analogy to that of geometry. A praxiological analysis isn't dependent on graphs, charts, histories or measurements. All that is required are the basic rules and the rest follows. I agree that personal opinions are not required, this is what Mises set out to do and succeeded. Of course that's my opinion, but based completely on logical reasoning and I can see no serious flaws. It's sound logic. If you work with logic then it won't take long to see the validity of it. It's really quite inescapable.

 

You are discussing the use of logic out of context. So far you have made generalized statements based on opinion with no deference to Mises. So far you narrative has no basis. If you have a need to defer to logic, then put your dialectic in proper logic form. Further, the use of a priori arguments are moving away from the discussion regarding socialism as a working system in the real world.

[ralis]

OK it is true that reasoning powers have been deliberately suppressed because it suits the state to prevent thinking, yet how does that feed into your argument ? History IS opinion and not simply facts. It's easy to find revisionist histories in all contexts. This is why praxiology is used by mises in economics. This was my analogy to that of geometry. A praxiological analysis isn't dependent on graphs, charts, histories or measurements. All that is required are the basic rules and the rest follows. I agree that personal opinions are not required, this is what Mises set out to do and succeeded. Of course that's my opinion, but based completely on logical reasoning and I can see no serious flaws. It's sound logic. If you work with logic then it won't take long to see the validity of it. It's really quite inescapable.

 

 

History is opinion? That denotes an absolute untenable statement. For instance, the historical fact that the U.S. Navy while docked in Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec. 7th 1941 is a fact and not opinion. 

 

In what way did Mises presuppositions succeed?

[Apech]

Show me an example in which the two have been divorced, in which socialism has been implemented by public acclamation rather than though political force, and let's examine how it has fared 100 years later.

 

Socialism has not yet existed and so that is impossible.

[gendao]

will discover that socialism does not = the government does everything.

 

Socialism is the idea that the goal of political organisation is social good for all and should be compared with the Adam Smith idea that the selfish pursuit of the individual is the key to general happiness.

Unfortunately, psychological studies (see diffusion of responsibility & tragedy of the commons) have shown that most Westerners will choose individual self-gain over the greater good.

“The tragedy of the commons is basically a dilemma between doing what’s good for you as an individual versus doing what’s best for the group” the prof said. “Now it stands to reason that people behave selfishly. But if too many people behave selfishly, the group will suffer…and then everyone in the group individually will suffer.”

Selterman says he started asking the question to his classes back in 2008. So far, just one group of students has received the extra credit. He thinks most of the students opt for six points with FOMO (a.k.a “fear of missing out”) or “go big or go home” mentality.

So in these cases, Socialism is actually driven by greed, rugged individualism and selfishness...because it allows the individual to unaccountably reap what others sow and enjoy the fruits of their labors.  ...And what is more selfish than stealing?

[Apech]

Unfortunately, psychological studies (see diffusion of responsibility & tragedy of the commons) have shown that most Westerners will choose individual self-gain over the greater good.

So in these cases, Socialism is actually driven by greed, rugged individualism and selfishness...because it allows the individual to unaccountably reap what others sow and enjoy the fruits of their labors.  ...And what is more selfish than stealing?

 

 

Well, you say 'unfortunately' which suggests you would prefer it to be otherwise.

 

... and in your second quote this is about people making choices and not about socialism or otherwise.

 

Let me be clear ... I have no interest in converting anyone to socialism I just want people to get an idea what it actually is.  then they can reject it if they want.  The trouble with America is as my second vid amply illustrates people have been denied the opportunity of knowing what it is through state propaganda originating in the Cold War.  So you are not free to accept or reject.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Apech

[ralis]

OK it is true that reasoning powers have been deliberately suppressed because it suits the state to prevent thinking, yet how does that feed into your argument ? History IS opinion and not simply facts. It's easy to find revisionist histories in all contexts. This is why praxiology is used by mises in economics. This was my analogy to that of geometry. A praxiological analysis isn't dependent on graphs, charts, histories or measurements. All that is required are the basic rules and the rest follows. I agree that personal opinions are not required, this is what Mises set out to do and succeeded. Of course that's my opinion, but based completely on logical reasoning and I can see no serious flaws. It's sound logic. If you work with logic then it won't take long to see the validity of it. It's really quite inescapable.

 

Is the Von Mises model based on statistical analysis with short and long term probabilities? Or, inferences based on a priori arguments? From reading your narrative, the latter is what you are basing your belief system on. 

[ralis]

Unfortunately, psychological studies (see diffusion of responsibility & tragedy of the commons) have shown that most Westerners will choose individual self-gain over the greater good.

So in these cases, Socialism is actually driven by greed, rugged individualism and selfishness...because it allows the individual to unaccountably reap what others sow and enjoy the fruits of their labors.  ...And what is more selfish than stealing?

 

You referenced what I wrote in a previous post and made it appear that I stated something different which I did not state! (Socialism is actually driven by greed, rugged individualism and selfishness.) That is dishonest and possibly against the rules of this forum. 

Edited July 20, 2015 by ralis

[Karl]

You are discussing the use of logic out of context. So far you have made generalized statements based on opinion with no deference to Mises. So far you narrative has no basis. If you have a need to defer to logic, then put your dialectic in proper logic form. Further, the use of a priori arguments are moving away from the discussion regarding socialism as a working system in the real world.

 

And yet they are absolutely needed to dispute Maxist theory. I'm not going to point to a passage or phrase Ralis. What's the point ?

'Man acts' that's all that is required to end any philosophical discussion on socialism. Apriori is what the universe is built on. You simply want to win the argument by any means possible, but you will have gained nothing.

 

If you are as bright and educated as you say then try producing a definition for socialism and one for fascism. If you learn that these two ideologies are twins then you have discovered something you didn't know before. I personally can't see the point in discovering what I think I already know. I might as well stick my head in a bucket and shout 'I'm right' to myself over and over. I like to discover I'm wrong, it's a fantastic feeling because I peel back a bit of the onion and get a shiny new bit.

 

What's the worst you that can happen if you discover socialism is incompatible with humanity ? Nothing will break. You aren't going to get beaten, or laughed at. Nothing will happen at all, you will have gained a valuable insight.

 

I'm not as educated as you are, so possibly I have less ego invested in that belief. I can just be a Klutz and pay no mind to it. I've been proven wrong before, I like it :-)

[Karl]

Is the Von Mises model based on statistical analysis with short and long term probabilities? Or, inferences based on a priori arguments? From reading your narrative, the latter is what you are basing your belief system on. 

 

All apriori.

 

I don't have a belief system as such, mises put into words what is already known to you, if you would only look. It's the same thing everywhere. I didn't get it from a book, although sometimes it's necessary to discover the words that must be used in order to communicate. There is really no need, we gaze on exactly the same stream, we are built from it, everything comes from it. Yet we must engage in word play and concepts like a pair of wonky radios.

 

That's why I said you should make the effort to define socialism and fascism for yourself without reference to books or other work. That way you have to dig really deep and the deeper the better. Of course you probably won't, but such is life.

 

 

[ralis]

And yet they are absolutely needed to dispute Maxist theory. I'm not going to point to a passage or phrase Ralis. What's the point ? 'Man acts' that's all that is required to end any philosophical discussion on socialism. Apriori is what the universe is built on. You simply want to win the argument by any means possible, but you will have gained nothing. If you are as bright and educated as you say then try producing a definition for socialism and one for fascism. If you learn that these two ideologies are twins then you have discovered something you didn't know before. I personally can't see the point in discovering what I think I already know. I might as well stick my head in a bucket and shout 'I'm right' to myself over and over. I like to discover I'm wrong, it's a fantastic feeling because I peel back a bit of the onion and get a shiny new bit. What's the worst you that can happen if you discover socialism is incompatible with humanity ? Nothing will break. You aren't going to get beaten, or laughed at. Nothing will happen at all, you will have gained a valuable insight. I'm not as educated as you are, so possibly I have less ego invested in that belief. I can just be a Klutz and pay no mind to it. I've been proven wrong before, I like it :-)

 

A priori is what the universe is built on? That seems to imply a creationist theory. What does that mean or have anything to do with this discussion.

 

If you care to know what my views on fascism are, then why not read the thread that I referred to. My definition is based on historical evidence combined with my understanding of fascism. I am not inclined to do your thinking for you. Although, I will provide a short abstract later on. However, the subject is extensive and complex.

[ralis]

@Brian,

 

Are you going to weigh in on this situation from a few posts ago? To misrepresent what I wrote is wrong.

 

http://thedaobums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=636248

[Brian]

How is her relationship with her father?

<snip>

She had a good relationship with him, actually. He had encouraged her to enter a field other than social work but she'd had her heart set on "saving the world" (her words) since she was eight years old. He paid for her to go to a university and get her degree in social work and she spent the next twenty years or so working primarily with the chronically mentally ill (and some time with job-training for low-functioning adults, some time working with violent youth offenders, some time working with the homeless, etc.) She had to help her mother make the hard decision to take him off a ventilator following a last-chance operation from which he never awoke and she sat at his bedside holding his for 13 hours while she waited for him to take his last breath (the doctors said it would probably take no more than a few minutes...)

[Karl]

History is opinion? That denotes an absolute untenable statement. For instance, the historical fact that the U.S. Navy while docked in Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec. 7th 1941 is a fact and not opinion. 

 

In what way did Mises presuppositions succeed?

 

I can't keep up with this landslide of posts :-)

 

As I said 'fact' and 'opinion'. I haven't ever found a history book written like a list of facts. Why was pearl harbour bombed ? is the question that history tries to answer. You know all that anyway so I've no idea why you started off like that.

 

In what way did Pythagoras theorem succeed ? Do you need to measure every triangle on every planet in the universe to know it is true? Some things are apriori by deductive reasoning. It does not mean it leads to accurate forecasts of quantities or time frames.

 

Socialism fails because it requires violent force to make it happen. Capitalism requires no force, it's as natural as breathing. Are you for force Ralis ? Do you think people should be forced to do things that are not natural to them-for what you believe is for their own good? Are you trying to impose your version of order because you fear the alternative is chaos ? If you believe in critical thinking and rationality would it not be better to try and help people gently expand their conscious awareness instead of shackling them to a totalitarian ideology.

 

Your here on this forum, surely your aim here is not to spend your life trying to oppress people ?

[ralis]

She had a good relationship with him, actually. He had encouraged her to enter a field other than social work but she'd had her heart set on "saving the world" (her words) since she was eight years old. He paid for her to go to a university and get her degree in social work and she spent the next twenty years or so working primarily with the chronically mentally ill (and some time with job-training for low-functioning adults, some time working with violent youth offenders, some time working with the homeless, etc.) She had to help her mother make the hard decision to take him off a ventilator following a last-chance operation from which he never awoke and she sat at his bedside holding his for 13 hours while she waited for him to take his last breath (the doctors said it would probably take no more than a few minutes...)

 

I know names are not included in this, but to ask about parental relationships such as what gendao seems to be obsessed with is unethical. And to indulge his curiosity for what end?

[Karl]

A priori is what the universe is built on? That seems to imply a creationist theory. What does that mean or have anything to do with this discussion.

 

If you care to know what my views on fascism are, then why not read the thread that I referred to. My definition is based on historical evidence combined with my understanding of fascism. I am not inclined to do your thinking for you. Although, I will provide a short abstract later on. However, the subject is extensive and complex.

 

No, not a creationist. I know you would like to pigeon hole me for your mantle shelf or wall of stuffed trophies, but I'm a far more elusive creature to bag :-)

 

The universe is, that's all. Through it, through us runs reality. What is, what is. This isn't something that you are unaware of, but you are not situated in self, so you close your eyes to it. Reality is what we seek if we are adventurous enough to approach it.

 

I don't want your views on fascism. I want to know how you define fascism and socialism in order that the differences can be exposed and the similarities noted. Come on Ralis, experiment a bit. It was you who said they were entirely different, so now you should prove me wrong. I'm game :-)

[gendao]

Well, you say 'unfortunately' which suggests you would prefer it to be otherwise.

 

... and in your second quote this is about people making choices and not about socialism or otherwise.

 

Let me be clear ... I have no interest in converting anyone to socialism I just want people to get an idea what it actually is. then they can reject it if they want. The trouble with America is as my second vid amply illustrates people have been denied the opportunity of knowing what it is through state propaganda originating in the Cold War. So you are not free to accept or reject.

I meant unfortunately "for your theory"...

 

Personally, I see pros and cons to any position, including both selfishness and unselfishness. While the former is more popularly demonized (yet widely-practiced), the latter can also be very harmful to the individual (and more routinely seen amongst the "spiritual" crowd).

 

Current State prop in the US as disseminated by the mass media is also actually Socialist - ergo the repeat election of Obama, Obamacare, etc.... So, it is far from blacked out - but actually the American establishment status quo now.

 

That said, I am not opposed to the idea of pooling resources or any regulation either, in absence of common decency or sense amongst the consumer majority population. But, it must be done carefully under conducive circumstances and conditions to be fair & successful.

Edited July 20, 2015 by gendao