It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question for critics of Socialism

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Before ditching capitalism for socialism, I would need to see government at all levels demonstrate that they would invest in the people wisely and with full transparency and honesty.

I don't want to put any more money or power in their hands until they can demonstrate that. Fix corruption first. No, I don't expect zero corruption, but we could do a lot better.

It needs to be done now, not later. I don't know why this isn't the priority. We certainly can't wait for anyone in government to bring the issue to the forefront.


Don't get me wrong now. I don't want to ditch one and go to the other. I feel that mixed balance of both is a great idea. This is currently how our country works, and I think it isn't a bad thing. Sure there is some excessive bloat, but I certainly don't have anything against the social safety net. Nor do I have anything against someone being able to pursue any amount of wealth they desire.




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think you understood what I said.

We could take a elements of capitalism, combine social programs from socialism, strengthen individual rights with wording from libertarian theories, and prohibit corporate government take-overs with communist seasoning.

Just a quick, down and dirty rough sketch -- not really to serious about that mash up. I wanted to illustrate a point though, all systems have something of value...we'd be stupid not to pick and chose the ones that have been proven to work and seem best suited for a country as diverse as America.

We have some providence -- we've seen how miserable communism worked out when put into practice. We've seen how runaway capitalism turns into crony-capitalism...we don't have any working examples of a libertarian utopia though, but we can try to implement some of its ideas.
edit on 10-11-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harvin

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Harvin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So you are saying that we do have social safety nets? So we are already socialist?



What do you call welfare, SNAP, unemployment benefits, Social Security, and other programs of their nature?


That was my point. So your question is to those who want to stop those programs or countries that do not have those programs?


Yes.


Another election in the U.S is not going to stop those programs. We have a problem since too many countries are not on board with that. These problems are much larger than throwing the word socialism around. Just preaching to the choir here. Those countries will never come around.


Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to guess how the next generation will move when they take the reigns of control of the government from their parents. I bet there was a time in our past when people opined that we, as a country, would never be free of slavery because of the fierce resistance to getting rid of it.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For me it is a matter of comparing socialist states to non-socialist states. The empirical results far outweigh the theoretical ones. Of course one might say the Nordic model is socialism, and indeed they do apply socialist programs and the welfare state, but they no less do so within the framework of capitalism.


Which results are they? Can you name a sole capitalist country that is currently out performing all socialist states? I can't even think of any totally pure capitalist countries, let alone talk about them doing better empirically than socialist ones.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I too am awaiting the mythical philosopher king that can manage such a system benevolently or the incorruptible auxiliary class dedicated to the state. Corruption seems to go unaccounted for when people bring up socialism or empowering the state.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree on that. I would just like to see a broad overhaul of our current social welfare programs with a focus on individual achievement, rather than throw money at the problem of wealth inequality without investing in the people.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I too am awaiting the mythical philosopher king that can manage such a system benevolently or the incorruptible auxiliary class dedicated to the state. Corruption seems to go unaccounted for when people bring up socialism or empowering the state.


But then again all discussions of Libertarianism ignore that people tend to be greedy assholes and are more than willing to take advantage of the looseness of the rule of law to collect more and more power.

Though I'VE certainly addressed the corruption concern in regards to Socialism several times in this thread.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree on that. I would just like to see a broad overhaul of our current social welfare programs with a focus on individual achievement, rather than throw money at the problem of wealth inequality without investing in the people.


Well that's Democratic Socialism. It's a little rocky due to the anti-Socialist opinions in politics, but at the core of our country, we ARE a Democratic Socialist country.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think you understood what I said.

We could take a elements of capitalism, combine social programs from socialism, strengthen individual rights with wording from libertarian theories, and prohibit corporate government take-overs with communist seasoning.

Just a quick, down and dirty rough sketch -- not really to serious about that mash up. I wanted to illustrate a point though, all systems have something of value...we'd be stupid not to pick and chose the ones that have been proven to work and seem best suited for a country as diverse as America.

We have some providence -- we've seen how miserable communism worked out when put into practice. We've seen how runaway capitalism turns into crony-capitalism...we don't have any working examples of a libertarian utopia though, but we can try to implement some of its ideas.


Interventionism promotes cronyism, not the unimpeded free market.

The question boils down to the definition of the law and what its purpose is.

"The Proper Function of the Law

And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law — which necessarily requires the use of force — rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution — so long searched for in the area of social relationships — is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law — that is, by force — this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization — justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?"

-Frédéric Bastiat



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't think you understood what I said.

We could take a elements of capitalism, combine social programs from socialism, strengthen individual rights with wording from libertarian theories, and prohibit corporate government take-overs with communist seasoning.

Just a quick, down and dirty rough sketch -- not really to serious about that mash up. I wanted to illustrate a point though, all systems have something of value...we'd be stupid not to pick and chose the ones that have been proven to work and seem best suited for a country as diverse as America.

We have some providence -- we've seen how miserable communism worked out when put into practice. We've seen how runaway capitalism turns into crony-capitalism...we don't have any working examples of a libertarian utopia though, but we can try to implement some of its ideas.


Who is "we"?

How in the world is "we" supposed to know what the best combination is?

Politics is a con job. Those who would get the power share it out to their supporters.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes and statist systems just rewrite laws to suit their agenda. The difference is in a libertarian society there is a greater freedom of association and ability to gain influence or capital. There are more players to balance things out as opposed to the one sided communist/socialist models. You seem to think greed is only limited to capitalist societies but the soviet oligarchs would beg to differ.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree on that. I would just like to see a broad overhaul of our current social welfare programs with a focus on individual achievement, rather than throw money at the problem of wealth inequality without investing in the people.


Well that's Democratic Socialism. It's a little rocky due to the anti-Socialist opinions in politics, but at the core of our country, we ARE a Democratic Socialist country.


Yes, we are. And the problem with it is oversight and a failure to invest in the people. But, I agree, in order to have a healthy competitive capitalistic economy, we need to invest tax dollars into creating a work force that can compete. I accept that there should be a social welfare component.

The oversight reforms needed to make that happen have to come first though.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes and statist systems just rewrite laws to suit their agenda. The difference is in a libertarian society there is a greater freedom of association and ability to gain influence or capital. There are more players to balance things out as opposed to the one sided communist/socialist models. You seem to think greed is only limited to capitalist societies but the soviet oligarchs would beg to differ.


Of course I don't think that. I acknowledged that corruption exists in Socialist countries too. Corruption is inherently fueled by greed. Therefore, by extension, I am acknowledging that greed exists in Socialist countries as well.

You say that in a libertarian society there is a greater freedom of association and ability to gain influence or capitol, but that doesn't appear to hold true in practice. Most people end up associating with the people they desire to associate with and refuse to even talk to anyone else and as businesses get more successful, they tend to gravitate towards monopolies by buying out or underselling the competition.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But then again all discussions of Libertarianism ignore that people tend to be greedy assholes and are more than willing to take advantage of the looseness of the rule of law to collect more and more power.


Without government there is no power to collect.

Money buys only influence and promises without the government to offer legal deadly force power to the money men.

Without government there is no legal deadly force anywhere at any time except in self defense.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree on that. I would just like to see a broad overhaul of our current social welfare programs with a focus on individual achievement, rather than throw money at the problem of wealth inequality without investing in the people.


Well that's Democratic Socialism. It's a little rocky due to the anti-Socialist opinions in politics, but at the core of our country, we ARE a Democratic Socialist country.


Yes, we are. And the problem with it is oversight and a failure to invest in the people. But, I agree, in order to have a healthy competitive capitalistic economy, we need to invest tax dollars into creating a work force that can compete. I accept that there should be a social welfare component.

The oversight reforms needed to make that happen have to come first though.



Well there is only so much we can accomplish while not infringing on the first amendment. The naysayers have every right to lie about Socialism or Socialist policies and the populace has every right to believe those liars. It's not like Socialism wants to promote silencing these people so that it can more efficiently enact its Socialist policies. That would be Communism. Socialism strives to convince people of its merits through logic and reasoning, not force of will.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But then again all discussions of Libertarianism ignore that people tend to be greedy assholes and are more than willing to take advantage of the looseness of the rule of law to collect more and more power.


Without government there is no power to collect.

Money buys only influence and promises without the government to offer legal deadly force power to the money men.

Without government there is no legal deadly force anywhere at any time except in self defense.


Deadly force isn't the only way to demonstrate power you know? In fact, I'd say that wealth and money is a MUCH more powerful demonstration of power than violence is.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You say that in a libertarian society there is a greater freedom of association and ability to gain influence or capitol, but that doesn't appear to hold true in practice. Most people end up associating with the people they desire to associate with and refuse to even talk to anyone else and as businesses get more successful, they tend to gravitate towards monopolies by buying out or underselling the competition.


The official socialist political histories say that.

There has never been a free market monopoly, in the sense of higher than fair prices.

All of the monopolies that the government "saved " us from were selling at a lowest price and still making a profit.

The anit-trust laws took advantage of the a p p e a r e n c e of monopoly and sold a con about control fro the common good.

The bad monopoly can't happen because new completion will take business away from unfair sellers.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We agree on that. I would just like to see a broad overhaul of our current social welfare programs with a focus on individual achievement, rather than throw money at the problem of wealth inequality without investing in the people.


Well that's Democratic Socialism. It's a little rocky due to the anti-Socialist opinions in politics, but at the core of our country, we ARE a Democratic Socialist country.


Yes, we are. And the problem with it is oversight and a failure to invest in the people. But, I agree, in order to have a healthy competitive capitalistic economy, we need to invest tax dollars into creating a work force that can compete. I accept that there should be a social welfare component.

The oversight reforms needed to make that happen have to come first though.



Well there is only so much we can accomplish while not infringing on the first amendment. The naysayers have every right to lie about Socialism or Socialist policies and the populace has every right to believe those liars. It's not like Socialism wants to promote silencing these people so that it can more efficiently enact its Socialist policies. That would be Communism. Socialism strives to convince people of its merits through logic and reasoning, not force of will.



If we are speaking on Socialism in the broadest sense, then I disagree. Many of the issues I see with the federal government indicate that it is driven by the wealthiest and most elite socialists -- Fabian socialists. In the case of Fabian socialists, they use infiltration and propaganda to meet their objectives. To me, it seems both parties have been infiltrated by some wealthy, elite element using propaganda and divisive partisan politics to push us in a socialist direction.

That's not giving people free will to choose their destiny.

No one talks about the Fabians because they are infiltrators. If the federal government has been infiltrated by a global network of elite Fabian socialists, they aren't going to announce their arrival.

But I think the evidence points to it.

ETA: Their symbol says it all, the wolf in sheep's clothing--





edit on 10-11-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You say that in a libertarian society there is a greater freedom of association and ability to gain influence or capitol, but that doesn't appear to hold true in practice. Most people end up associating with the people they desire to associate with and refuse to even talk to anyone else and as businesses get more successful, they tend to gravitate towards monopolies by buying out or underselling the competition.


The official socialist political histories say that.

There has never been a free market monopoly, in the sense of higher than fair prices.

All of the monopolies that the government "saved " us from were selling at a lowest price and still making a profit.

The anit-trust laws took advantage of the a p p e a r e n c e of monopoly and sold a con about control fro the common good.

The bad monopoly can't happen because new completion will take business away from unfair sellers.


Wait are you saying that the big monopolies from the turn of the century were all good things and the state was actually PICKING on those poor millionaires when it broke those trusts up? Thus the history books are all lying and we shouldn't have broken those trusts up because it was anti-capitalist?

Have you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair? Do you believe that corporate owned towns are a good thing? Do you believe that workers working below even Wal-Mart wages was a good thing with no safety regulations or medical compensation when they got injured in their HIGHLY injury prone occupations? Do you think that the sweat shops in China should come stateside and be sweatshops here?

I ask all these questions, because each of those things are outcomes of a Libertarian society. And please don't say that the last one isn't true because China is communist. We damn well did have sweatshops in our country back before we had labor laws on the books.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join