Socialism does work

[Apech]

I would suggest that this is true for any form of government. This is why I advocate that governments be as small and as localized as possible, and be constantly re-evaluated for opportunities to make them smaller and more local.

 

 

Socialism is NOT about forms of government.  Socialism is a way which seeks to use forms of government for social aims, rather than revolutionary force which = communism.  The aims of both are to remove the suffering caused by people acting through individual greed without addressing the effect on others.

[Chang]

The greatest tragedy of Left Wing Liberal thought is the idea that if you improve society you will improve the individual. This is simply not the case and they have got things back to front. Only be improvement in the individual will society improve. All left wing Liberal argument is based on fallacy. A house built on sand.

[Apech]

The aim of a strong eugenics program is to create a healthy population, too -- by simply eliminating the unproductive members. Unfortunately, history shows a disturbing link between the advocates of these two ideologies. Those who believe they can manipulate society for its own good seem too often to decide the end justifies the means -- well, too often for my comfort, anyhow.

 

 

You are just throwing in a distasteful view from the sidelines to distract from the argument.  We are not discussing eugenics.

[zerostao]

I would suggest that this is true for any form of government. This is why I advocate that governments be as small and as localized as possible, and be constantly re-evaluated for opportunities to make them smaller and more local.

advocate all ya want,,govt aint gonna get smaller, some b grade actor used to advocate for small govt and then;

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/ronald-reagan-big-government-legacy

 

with the world gone global, do mean local as in each country still having its own govt?

[Apech]

The greatest tragedy of Left Wing Liberal thought is the idea that if you improve society you will improve the individual. This is simply not the case and they have got things back to front. Only be improvement in the individual will society improve. All left wing Liberal argument is based on fallacy. A house built on sand.

 

 

Liberal and left wing are not the same thing.

[Spotless]

When Og swapped one of his pointy sticks for two of Ugg's hand-caught fish, that was "trade" and both of them were happy with the deal.When Pfft established a centralized stick inspection agency and implemented fish-catching regulations, both of which required Og and Ugg to remit part of their personal energy to Pfft, they laughed at him. When he hired a couple of Cro-Magnon's to threaten to pelt them with rocks if they failed to comply, the first government was established.

 

Quite a bit off here:

 

Og started to buy up all the forests in the area and burn down other areas and ugh started to own most of the lakes in the region and the local natives and surrounding groups decided to kill the bastards and take back their territory.

 

Unfortunately we here in the USA have week minds and are still very much enthralled with black and white thinking. For such a large and powerful nation we are incredibly timid and bashful as is seen here by those who appear to be otherwise.

 

Sharing our humanity and committing to helping each other is hard for the bashful and timid - and so a missile defense surrounding that timidity and bashfulness is necessary. Of course those that have been bullied in the past often become timid and bashful and ashamed and they join the defensive - those who hate the work of constant change and growth.

 

We think all of these groups are on different sides but they support each other and always have - the blades of a saw don't cut without the troughs between them - they don't exist without the troughs. One constant is the humanity - blade or trough it is part of the same. The corporatocracy that has emerged on the world stage and that is seizing control of water and air and ocean - it has become a stepping stone to outskirt the human issue entirely - pretending at being an individual - but it has no heart.

 

The issue is heart.

[Brian]

Are you suggesting something like this actually happened?  Or are you just making up something which backs up your view?  I would suggest if you want to base theory on actuality then you need to show that for instance early man, in hunter-gatherer groups actually behaved in this way.  One thing we do know from archeology is that there was a high level of cooperation and trade between far flung places in these early communities but I would suggest that they operated very differently from any back projected anachronistic economic theory might imagine.

I watched it happen!

 

My point is precisely as you point out, Apech -- humans existed for many tens of thousands of years predominantly in relatively small groups, trading amongst themselves in a cooperative and mutually beneficial nature. Occasionally, some tyrant would arise on a local level and use fear, coercion and force to manipulate a local economy. Often, the populations would initially be in favor of it. Generally, however, the tide would turn (often with the replacement of a benign dictator with one not so wise) and the system would collapse, either back into internally managed state or falling under the control of some neighboring tyrant.

[Apech]

I watched it happen!

 

My point is precisely as you point out, Apech -- humans existed for many tens of thousands of years predominantly in relatively small groups, trading amongst themselves in a cooperative and mutually beneficial nature. Occasionally, some tyrant would arise on a local level and use fear, coercion and force to manipulate a local economy. Often, the populations would initially be in favor of it. Generally, however, the tide would turn (often with the replacement of a benign dictator with one not so wise) and the system would collapse, either back into internally managed state or falling under the control of some neighboring tyrant.

 

 

What in your view is the goal of any kind of social organisation?

[Brian]

Quite a bit off here: Og started to buy up all the forests in the area and burn down other areas and ugh started to own most of the lakes in the region and the local natives and surrounding groups decided to kill the bastards and take back their territory. Unfortunately we here in the USA have week minds and are still very much enthralled with black and white thinking. For such a large and powerful nation we are incredibly timid and bashful as is seen here by those who appear to be otherwise. Sharing our humanity and committing to helping each other is hard for the bashful and timid - and so a missile defense surrounding that timidity and bashfulness is necessary. Of course those that have been bullied in the past often become timid and bashful and ashamed and they join the defensive - those who hate the work of constant change and growth. We think all of these groups are on different sides but they support each other and always have - the blades of a saw don't cut without the troughs between them - they don't exist without the troughs. One constant is the humanity - blade or trough it is part of the same. The corporatocracy that has emerged on the world stage and that is seizing control of water and air and ocean - it has become a stepping stone to outskirt the human issue entirely - pretending at being an individual - but it has no heart. The issue is heart.

I am TOTALLY in favor of "sharing our humanity" and "committing to help each other" heck! I do it every day! I freely give my energy in the form of both labor and money, on top of what the government demands of me at the point of a spear.

 

Peter will tell you, however, that there is nothing "heart" centered, however, about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Charity cannot be compelled. Instead, charity is a virtue which should be encouraged and valued.

 

More compassion and less compulsion.

[ralis]

Free does not imply that at all. If it did we would use it in a sentence 'free to do what one likes'. We are not free to do as we like because it is inherently harmful to us to do so. That's why we have reasoning powers, we have the free will to choose how we act. It begins from the basis of private property and that is our minds and bodies. Who said the U.S. Was a free market, it isn't. There are parts which are nominally free, but to all intents and purposes it is a fascistic economic model. That's why I think the excessive of defining it is important. It gives insights than cannot be had purely by reading books on the subject. You have to define it for yourself.

 

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.

[Chang]

Liberal and left wing are not the same thing.

 

True. But I would argue that they are cousins under the skin. Take for instance the Guardian Newspaper in the U.K. A pillar of Liberal thought but read by more Socialist than Liberal voters.

[Brian]

What in your view is the goal of any kind of social organisation?

My disagreement isn't on "the goal of any kind of social organization" but on the methodology employed in achieving that objective.

 

The goal of socialism is noble; the results, however, are predictable.

[Apech]

My disagreement isn't on "the goal of any kind of social organization" but on the methodology employed in achieving that objective.

 

The goal of socialism is noble; the results, however, are predictable.

 

 

But this is the whole point.  Socialism is the goal not the method.

[ralis]

The terms "free market" and "capitalism" are intended to be divisive and misleading.

 

The truth is, the human animal trades. This is natural.

 

What is also natural is for some people to feel that they can manipulate trade to their own benefit. When this manipulation is given the backing of the force of a government's guns, bad things happen.

 

Even without the force of the government's guns, bad things happen. If they didn't there would be no need to employ force.

 

If, after a century of training people in government indoctrination programs for roughly 15 years each, people are still not entirely willing to be sheep, perhaps that is because people aren't really sheep.

 

Governmental regulation is a necessary force to implement rules for the game. E.g. contract law, electrical, building and plumbing codes, environmental laws to stop pollution, to name a few. I don't think I need to elaborate on the benefits of such requirements.

[Brian]

You are just throwing in a distasteful view from the sidelines to distract from the argument.  We are not discussing eugenics.

How many people have died of starvation inside UK health care institutions? What are the guidelines for deciding when to withhold treatment? Tell me about the program euphemistically entitled "Care Pathways?"

 

"Progressive" ideologies invariably end up including eugenics programs because there simply isn't enough of other people's money to provide everything to everyone forever, especially when everyone is being encouraged to join the public dole. Inevitably, the merry-go-round crashes down.

[ralis]

I am TOTALLY in favor of "sharing our humanity" and "committing to help each other" heck! I do it every day! I freely give my energy in the form of both labor and money, on top of what the government demands of me at the point of a spear.

 

Peter will tell you, however, that there is nothing "heart" centered, however, about robbing Peter to pay Paul. Charity cannot be compelled. Instead, charity is a virtue which should be encouraged and valued.

 

More compassion and less compulsion.

 

If charity to the homeless person is not given, then who will provide it? If no provisions are made then a homeless person will die on the streets, which is a social problem. 

[Brian]

But this is the whole point.  Socialism is the goal not the method.

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.

[Chang]

But this is the whole point.  Socialism is the goal not the method.

 

Exactly. Unfortunately the goal is not attained and mayhem is caused by those attempting to reach it.

[Brian]

If charity to the homeless person is not given, then who will provide it? If no provisions are made then a homeless person will die on the streets, which is a social problem. 

I do, ralis! Do you? Do you put your money where you mouth is or do you just advocate for putting other people's money there?

 

Did you even bother to read that post before you replied to it with that "if the government doesn't steal your money, homeless people will die" argument? Apparently not.

[Brian]

BTW, Marx was asked, after he and Engels had fled the Continent for England, what the difference was between "communism" and "socialism." His reply was to the effect that the word "communism" got such a bad rap in Europe that they had to start calling it "socialism."

 

FWIW, "progressivism" in the US got such a bad rap that they had to start calling it "liberalism," until "liberalism" got such a bad rap that they switched back to "progressivism" nearly a hundred year later and then tried to pin the label on their opposition.

[ralis]

I do, ralis! Do you? Do you put your money where you mouth is or do you just advocate for putting other people's money there?

 

Did you even bother to read that post before you replied to it with that "if the government doesn't steal your money, homeless people will die" argument? Apparently not.

 

I read you post. Yes, I do what I can to help others.

[Jetsun]

How many people have died of starvation inside UK health care institutions? What are the guidelines for deciding when to withhold treatment? Tell me about the program euphemistically entitled "Care Pathways?"

 

"Progressive" ideologies invariably end up including eugenics programs because there simply isn't enough of other people's money to provide everything to everyone forever, especially when everyone is being encouraged to join the public dole. Inevitably, the merry-go-round crashes down.

 

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. 

[Brian]

I read you post. Yes, I do what I can to help others.

Good! And you encourage others to do the same, I trust? Get it up to fifty people and they might call it a movement.

[Brian]

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. 

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.

[ralis]

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. 

 

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/