How many of you anti-socialists bought a lottery ticket?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Like taxes? We've had taxes since shortly after the founding of the country, I guess America has been socialist all along.

The lotto is a scam. That is the American way, not just a socialist way.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I didn't say everyone.

You think everyone is entitled to enjoy the fruits of other's labors?

Name me some successful Socialist countries you'd like to go live in? The USSR is gone but North Korea would love to have you.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I am going to bow out. You win.

I do respect you as a member, we'll just have to disagree.

I will fight socialism with every breath of my aging body. I find it a regression and a weakness. Socialism breeds weakness and stifles innovation.

I know many here laud it as an ideal ideology.

I will always disagree with it, as an ideology.

There is nothing I can say to change your mind and there is nothing you can say to change my mind.

I hope you have a pleasant evening.

a reply to: abe froman

Everyone is already entitled to the fruits of other's labors through the tax code we have in place. Children don't work for anything yet they get free education with our taxes. Or are people no longer worth helping once they graduate from school?

The U.S. is going the same way as the USSR and we're capitalist. The U.S. is also not that different from NK already, we have propaganda and suppression of information as well, on an even larger scale than North Korea. At least North Korea has kept its nose out of other countries affairs, something the U.S. cannot say.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: jonnywhite

That's a pretty good comparison actually, though I'm using this argument with the anti-socialist argument in mind (people getting free stuff). If socialism is people getting stuff for free, the lottery is the most extreme form of socialism around.

Well lets examine this more closely...

With insurance, you got:
1) People put $$$ into pool on unlikely chance they get hurt
2) The money placed into the pool has to pay for hte employees/services and when people get hurt
3) The whole system relies on those who do NOT get hurt to pay for those who do
4) it's a risk reducing strategy, like sacrificing a quicker route to pass through a safer but slower one.

The lottery (and any gambling really) is:
1) People put $$$ into a pool on unlikely chance they'll get lucky (and rich)
2) The money placed into the pool has to pay for the employees/services and when people get lucky
3) The whole system relies on enough people not winning and thus paying for those who do
4) It's more of a risk-increasing strategy, although gambling doesn't necessarily demand much $$$ from you. it's similar to taking a quicker route over a (slightly) slower safer one.

I understand when you say gambling is an extreme version of getting something free. Then again, health insurance can be too. There's a rare possibility in your first couple months of having insruance you'll develop a life threatening disease. Essentially, you only put a small amount into the pool so far, but get a huge (if unlikely) payoff.

I tried to state in my original post the main difference between these and socialism is socialism is about state over individual, community over profit. These're more selfish in nature. Socialism idealizes putting others (and country) over yourself, even at the cost of freedom.

EDIT: Selfishness isn't always bad, and neither is freedom. Throwing away freedoms or selfishness impulses too liberally might have negative consequences. Selfishness and freedom can be bad, so it's a two way street. I think idealism is at the heart of many problems whether they're rooted in capitalism or socialism or communism. Idealism is like passion: sometimes blind. Yet idealism--like passion--is inseparable from us. Strive as we might to be clear headed, we might never fully attain it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Yea,

Socialism is economical (money system).

Dictatorship and communism, such as the USSR and North Korea , are political (government systems).

Unfortunately people confuse the two.

Socialism doesn't require people to work. The literal definition(Unless you argue with Google)

"Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterized by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."

'democratic control of the means of production'

So if everything is autonomous?

FYI capitalism's 'competition' is what prevents most things from being automated, to squeeze out extra jobs that aren't needed, and then people wonder why society falls apart with morons who feel useless.


Anyone who could look at the economic effects of socialism on paper and scoff, probably don't fully understand those kind of societies and what drives them. And they are normally poorly represented by enormous populations of poorer countries instead of being taken as hypothetical examples.

Why is Russia a good representation of what socialism in America would look like, with their economy verses population being much more stratified? That question is ignored by almost anyone against socialism I've seen thus far.

Norway
Germany
The UK
The Netherlands
Sweden
France
Denmark

are all generally 'socialist' by American standards but, it's also always the extremest China who takes the rap because the abuse of the state power to the limit. These countries are all in the top 20 richest countries in the world(Norway the only one higher than the United States). So then the question, is why don't people say Norway?

Because when they make comparisons to Norway, it doesn't fit the model of socialism being bad. In fact, the main argument for why Norway is so rich, sounds like parts of Capitalism mixed in, and other things we'd probably value.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Socialism is the economic philosophy that wealth should be redistributed to the people. The lottery is very socialist in its nature and is a very extreme version of socialism. People put money into a pool and that pool is redistributed to those who get lucky enough to choose the right numbers or have a computer choose the numbers for them.

There's no such thing as someone who "earned" the lottery, it is 100% based on luck. Did you buy a lottery ticket? If so, you willingly participated in the most extreme form of socialism there is. If you are anti-socislist and played the lottery, I'm afraid to say that you are a hypocrite. Not only did you participate in the redistribution of wealth, but you participated in the redistribution of wealth into the hands of a very very tiny few, you were also hoping you would be the one who won it.

So I guess that means that if you're anti-socialist and participated in the lottery, you are only anti-socialist when it doesn't benefit you in particular, meaning you are only faking being against socialism.

You're showing some fundamental misunderstandings about the meaning of the term and how it relates to a lottery.

By your reasoning investing in oil or gold, which has an inherent level of risk, makes a you a socialist because you make money for doing nothing (or losing money which is more likely). I can invest some money in gold, do nothing, and make a profit. That does not make me a socialist. People who invest in the lottery are making a poor business decision, but they still ostensibly weight risk vs. reward... which is NOT socialism. Risk is the real difference.

Socialism is shared ownership of the means of industry and resources. The risk is modified because it is shared.

You're just trolling.

The lottery just has a much higher risk, low cost, and high reward.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Not trolling at all, just drawing a parallel between anti-socialist arguments and the lottery. A lot of anti-socialists on these boards see socialism as people getting things for free, the lottery is people getting things for free.

I've already stated this multiple times in this thread, though I know you just read my OP and responded so you probably didn't know.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Not trolling at all, just drawing a parallel between anti-socialist arguments and the lottery. A lot of anti-socialists on these boards see socialism as people getting things for free, the lottery is people getting things for free.

I've already stated this multiple times in this thread, though I know you just read my OP and responded so you probably didn't know.

No, I actually did read all of the responses. It seems though, that in spite of what people have pointed out to you about what socialism is, you continue to equate it with getting something for nothing. That may be the false narrative that people who don't understand socialism and oppose socialism try to make it seem to be. That's not what it is. You can certainly argue about what other people may be falsely claiming, but you're not making an argument to people who legitimately understand and are opposed to socialism.

When somebody cultivates a false narrative based on the false narrative of their opponent I don't see it as productive and I think you're intelligent enough to see this too, which I why I say it's just trolling. You've already stated yourself that "some people" seem to think socialism is something for nothing. That's not everybody. Some people, like me, have legitimate concerns about what increased socialism will do to our country.

We can talk about socialism, how it could possibly work, and why it probably won't but that's another thread. I do this routinely when I get the chance, but this isn't about that discussion. This is about convincing stupid people that they are socialists if they bought a lottery ticket when the reality is far more complicated.

ETA: Sorry if this edit is too late and changes a response. I think one of the key flaws with socialism in modern society is that it's a failed translation of tribalism, which was a very successful way for early man to live. It has the same key components, but scale renders it ineffective in a country like America. I'm all for the key points of tribalism, but our population levels and the decimation of resources has rendered it a relic of how people could exist.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Fair enough, sometimes people's misconceptions need to be pointed out though. Socialism is not people getting things for free, it is basically the same thing as our tax code, people putting their money (taxes) toward social programs that benefit the whole instead of just a few or themselves.

While socialism can be abused by people in power, that doesn't make it any more "evil" than capitalism because capitalism can be and IS abused today in America just as socialism was abused and turned into Communism with the USSR. I'd say that our current form of capitalism is in the same ballpark as the USSR's version of socialism, an abused system that could have worked if it weren't for greed.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Fair enough, sometimes people's misconceptions need to be pointed out though. Socialism is not people getting things for free, it is basically the same thing as our tax code, people putting their money (taxes) toward social programs that benefit the whole instead of just a few or themselves.

While socialism can be abused by people in power, that doesn't make it any more "evil" than capitalism because capitalism can be and IS abused today in America just as socialism was abused and turned into Communism with the USSR. I'd say that our current form of capitalism is in the same ballpark as the USSR's version of socialism, an abused system that could have worked if it weren't for greed.

I agree, and I'm sorry again for adding an edit at the end of my post. I think the biggest problem with transitioning tribalism to socialism is scale... and I'm not sure we can handle it unless there is significant chance in resource allocation. If we were to have free energy tomorrow I think we could do it. That being fantasy at this point I'm not sure where that leaves us.

originally posted by: liejunkie01

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: liejunkie01

The lottery isnt owned or regulated by the community.

Actually, it is. Powerball is operated by the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) which is an association of 36 state lottery associations.

Powerball - About

The Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) is a non-profit, government-benefit association owned and operated by its 36 member lotteries. Each MUSL member offers one or more of the games administered by MUSL. All profits are retained by the state lottery and are used to fund projects approved by the state legislatures. Click here for links to member lotteries.

But there are 44 statesthat participate in the Powerball.

The state that I reside in, the crooked state of Illinois is not on that list. Our state just paid people for back lottery payments, they suspended payments because of budget problems, and our lottery is privately owned.

We the people do not regulate the lottery.

Then it might depend on what state. For most states, a fixed portion goes to education and yes, social programs. I am not sure how people could have missed this.

well even though i lost i say i won in spirit. i got the chance to drum up all of these creative ideas about where i see life, what i value what i would have done with the money (what i still can do with money i earn now) and add to what i would like to manifest.

so personally i got value out of playing the lottery. it got me to think.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: rickymouse

Using the argument that I've seen around here quite often, that socialism gives people free stuff without having to earn it, the lottery is socialist in nature.

Except that we spend money for a chance to win that money, the chance to win isn't given to us.

The government won't come to your door and fine you if you don't buy lottery tickets exactly when they order you to. The kind of socialism that most socialists want would have to be enforced because if you take 50 million dollars and spread it out equally to 350 million people, it stops working as an incentive. People keep playing the lottery because it doesn't cost much and despite long odds, if they win, the payout is massive.

If you're paying 80% of your income for government and 50% of the population is allowed to choose not to participate, you have no incentive to keep participating. So what socialists do is they get pissed off and insist that everyone be forced to participate whether they support the things the government is doing or not.

So what happens when you have a minority of 20 million people who refuse to obey mandatory socialism? Well, it sounds to me like eventually the majority WILL impose it's will on the minority, one way or another.

Trying to turn the socialism argument into a debate about the lottery (which is voluntary) is a twisted joke. People who advocate socialism never have wanted to be honest about what their ideology means to the people who would never go along with it.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Socialism is the economic philosophy that wealth should be redistributed to the people. The lottery is very socialist in its nature and is a very extreme version of socialism. People put money into a pool and that pool is redistributed to those who get lucky enough to choose the right numbers or have a computer choose the numbers for them.

There's no such thing as someone who "earned" the lottery, it is 100% based on luck. Did you buy a lottery ticket? If so, you willingly participated in the most extreme form of socialism there is. If you are anti-socislist and played the lottery, I'm afraid to say that you are a hypocrite. Not only did you participate in the redistribution of wealth, but you participated in the redistribution of wealth into the hands of a very very tiny few, you were also hoping you would be the one who won it.

So I guess that means that if you're anti-socialist and participated in the lottery, you are only anti-socialist when it doesn't benefit you in particular, meaning you are only faking being against socialism.

Hah! Lotterys are absolutely not inherently socialist.

Business is all about taking a risk in the hope of getting a significant return. Sure, it might be a lot more calculated and success can be influenced by hard work, but it's all still a gamble. The high returns the business owner can make are the reward for risking their own capital on the venture.

Lotteries also do exactly the opposite of the meaning of "distributing wealth" in this context. Instead of taking a large sum of money from one person and handing small sums out to the rest, you're taking small sums from everybody and giving one person a large lump sum.

if anything, lotteries are the exact opposite of socialism.

You also misunderstand a significant difference between socialism and antisocialism. It's not about what you do, it's about why you do it. Someone who is against socialism can still happily give money to charity, he just objects to the government taking it out of his pocket whether he likes it or not. Many of the great capitalists of old spent thousands and millions of their own money on creating opportunities and building great public projects for sake of society as a whole. They did it because they chose to do it, not because some useful idiot decided to vote in favour of stealing their money.

Socialism is about telling other people how to spend their money. Those who stand against socialism believe it is their right to choose how to spend it.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Chadwickus

Socialism is redistribution of wealth, the lottery is redistribution of wealth. They seem pretty similar to me. How is it not socialist in nature?

Do folk who don't buy a lottery ticket get a share of the winnings? No. Do the winners redistribute their bounty to others? no. Does the lottery redistribute the tens of billions of dollars of revenue it makes every year to the common folk? No.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

LOL. One is voluntary the other enforced. Fail....

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winna!

Socialism is coerced or forced upon the people. Its a powerful entity (government) forcefully stripping a weaker entity (an individual) of their earnings.

The lottery is purely voluntary.

The lottery is also referred to as the "poor man's tax" since there are certain segments within our population (earning below a certain threshold) who arent forced to hand over their money.