Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism

reply to post by dizzie56

As far as skipping a meal every now and then, yes it was a good idea. Remember the old saying, what doesnt kill you makes you stronger? That still holds true today. We cant alleviate everyman's problems because that would make us a society of brats and whimps and we would easily be able to be taken over by another country. Having hardships in ones lives gives us character and a sense of self. When we overcome those hardships we recieve a sense of accomplishment that gives us stronger confidence in ourselves. Socialism is just something that is going to remove that sense of accomplishment and make us rely on the state. What sense of accomplishment will you get if you are a sewage worker that gets paid more than a shrink?

Depriving yourself of food does not make you stronger. It makes you unhealthy and if anything, weaker. Ask a family that has to go without food a night or two a week if they prefer it that way because of all the character it builds. This argument is nothing more than an incredibly thinly veiled excuse not to care about the less fortunate.

Are you now trying to argue that sewer workers would prefer to be paid less? Being paid an equal amount makes your work feel as valuable as the next guy and for most jobs out there, they are just as valuable as the next one. Nearly every job in America is a vital cog in the machine. Some cogs might be bigger than others, but the machine wouldn't work without one.

How does getting paid less give you a sense of accomplishment? I guarantee you if you interview every sewer worker in the country they would all prefer to be paid more than to receive your ass backwards sense of accomplishment.

If their only incentive was to become a doctor then many wouldnt become a doctor.

They would still be paid almost 50k/year if our gdp was redistributed evenly per capita. That's still a pretty good incentive.

Whenever the state has the most power, freedoms become null and void by people that are corrupt. History proves this and it will only repeat if we allow the state to hold the most power.

You think you have any more freedom being a slave to a corporate consumer culture? Your argument is only against absolutist state socialism. What about Libertarian socialism where the ultimate power is held by the workers?

And were the bonuses given to people that made the company go under? No.

Actually yes they were. The CEOs had executive decision making power and were therefor responsible for the companies mistakes.

Bottom line is, I "opt out" of the collective. Does your utopia provide for that? For example, I vehemently opt out of government run health care. I'll not pay anything into it, nor take anything out of it, and will not accept any form of "penalty tax" for doing so.

Sure you can go live in a capitalist community in the wilderness somewhere but don't expect you use our highway systems, fly in an airplane, call the police, the fire departments or use our sewer systems if you refuse to pay taxes.

I'm not a part of the "collective". I'm a man, dammit, not a number. Government has no business at all forcing me to take care of myself as THEY see fit. I'll take care of myself as I see fit.

Actually we are all part of the collective. A collective of individuals. We are all cosmopolitans whether you want to admit it or not. And the public option is called that for a reason. It is an OPTION. If you want private insurance go for it, but don't go without insurance and expect our tax dollars to pay for your hospital trip.

Selfishness is all any of these arguments comes down too. If we have socialism in this country it will be by the democratic process. If you don't like where my generation is steering this country, you can always move somewhere else. Otherwise, you better learn to deal with it.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

I think, we can say that there are several reasonable arguments that Socialism suffers practical issues in application, but the arguments which suggest Socialism is some insidious conspiracy to create totalitarian government and attack civil liberties are essentially scarecrows. They might be exciting to poke at, but they are a distraction from the real issues worthy of debate.

Excellent point. What do you consider to be some of the practical issues with the application of Socialism or certain socialist policies? I think it's important to keep in perspective that capitalism or corporatism both have their share of issues as well, and that a few practical problems aren't exactly a reason to condemn an entire spectrum of political philosophy.

I think that several socialist policies are viable and in application all over the world, so I'll stick with criticism of Socialism is an entree instead of a la carte policy. I would even go so far as to say that for someone schooled in the subject, it's very difficult to argue that Socialism is a bad thing. The trouble comes when we try to calculate a course from "here" to "there". Marx worked very hard on planning the project of Socialism with an arc that led from upset masses to revolution to quasi-despotic heads of state to a Socialist utopia. The problem, frankly, is that once you get quasi-depostic heads of state, you need a brand new revolution just to get away from them. Lenin, Castro, blah blah blah.

So we can very easily criticize the full-bore pursuit of Socialism we've seen in the world today. Modern China is not to be envied. They are powerful and efficient. Also, controlled like animals. The USSR was similarly an awful regime to live under. In both places, the same thing happened. The revolution occurred, the quasi-despotic heads of state gained control, and there they stayed. You seem familiar with Chomsky so I am willing to venture that you probably understand most of my criticisms of these implementations without me spelling them out. Suffice to say that a full implementation of Socialism has been tried. More than once. Each time, the roadmap leads to ditch.

That doesn't mean that where these people are trying to go is to be blamed. To employ an ironic example: if you're a persecuted resident of Cuba who wants to immigrate to the United States for political freedom, is the United States a bad place to go because the path is clearly fraught with peril? Should we shun the United States and suspect anyone who invokes it as a beacon because so many who try to reach it's borders drown in the sea? I think the absurdity of that argument should be clear to most people. In my mind, the key to the matter is deconstructing the propaganda scarecrows so meticulously constructed during the McCarthy era. People weren't afraid of Russian Socialism because Socialism is necessarily bad. Not really. They were afraid that Russian Socialism would compromise the hard-earned place at the superpower table the United States won for itself with it's action in World War II. This was a hard case to make because on paper, Socialism really sounds very good. So lies and oversimplifications were invented, amplified, or both. This is bad for the rest of us post-facto bastards because some Socialist ideas really were very good, but those of us living in Capitalist countries were systematically deprived of the right discuss them or debate them in public. More irony, there. C'est la vie, I suppose.

That's about all I have to say in critique of Socialism -- if one could safely get there, they'd probably enjoy their life "there" more than they do "here". The course of such change is fraught with great peril and no one will wish to hazard it until the ship they're on is clearly sinking. On the bright side, Capitalism has done great good in addition to it's great evils. It's not so bad. The depressing part is that we, as human beings, could do so much better. And perhaps we really can do better incrementally, if we can convince our suspicious brothers and sisters that the destination is not where the peril lies.

reply to post by The Transhumanist


I just wanted to point out that socialism or any other major change cannot happen democratically through a political process. It would take, simply put, the proletariat revolution. It cannot be handed down from above. Even then, we walk a thin line: read Anthony Sutton on the connections between Wall Street and the Bolshevik revolution or how the current Maoist rebels are corporate funded. Makes you wonder why all the revolutions collapse into statism...

That said, I believe in certain socialist principles - leftist libertarianism is the best way to describe it.

Population: 303,824,640 and rising...

Sample: Probably 1000 people from Detroit.

Come on people, look past these BS stories and pick real events with real action! Not some biased, crappy poll.

The only real way is to sample the entire country...even if you sampled half, I am sure you could pick the "left wingers" more frequent than the latter.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

Depriving yourself of food does not make you stronger. It makes you unhealthy and if anything, weaker. Ask a family that has to go without food a night or two a week if they prefer it that way because of all the character it builds. This argument is nothing more than an incredibly thinly veiled excuse not to care about the less fortunate.

Are you now trying to argue that sewer workers would prefer to be paid less? Being paid an equal amount makes your work feel as valuable as the next guy and for most jobs out there, they are just as valuable as the next one. Nearly every job in America is a vital cog in the machine. Some cogs might be bigger than others, but the machine wouldn't work without one.

How does getting paid less give you a sense of accomplishment? I guarantee you if you interview every sewer worker in the country they would all prefer to be paid more than to receive your ass backwards sense of accomplishment.

If their only incentive was to become a doctor then many wouldnt become a doctor.

They would still be paid almost 50k/year if our gdp was redistributed evenly per capita. That's still a pretty good incentive.

Whenever the state has the most power, freedoms become null and void by people that are corrupt. History proves this and it will only repeat if we allow the state to hold the most power.

You think you have any more freedom being a slave to a corporate consumer culture? Your argument is only against absolutist state socialism. What about Libertarian socialism where the ultimate power is held by the workers?

And were the bonuses given to people that made the company go under? No.

Actually yes they were. The CEOs had executive decision making power and were therefor responsible for the companies mistakes.

First, can you please tell me how to multi quote? I have yet to figure this out on this forum. On the other ones i visit, its as easy as hitting a button or two. here it is a mystery.

If you are deprived of food it does make you stronger, mentally. Your right, nobody wants to have to go without it. But, if you have to go without one meal or two a week it aint that bad in the long run as long as you keep your goals in mind. This isnt a thinly veiled way of saying I dont care about the less fortunate. Ive missed meals due to lack of money, and yes, it did make me stronger in the long run. The reason being is because I never wanted to skip a meal again. You learn from your mistakes and become stronger for that. If you remove that capability of learning from your own mistakes by proping up failure (ie the bailouts), then you give no motive for having to not fail again. This is a simple truth throughout life in every aspect. You must learn from your mistakes in order to better yourself. What you want to do is remove the consquences of making a mistake and put a soft pillow under somebody when they land. If they dont feel it, then they will have no desire to move up in the world and better themselves. Why would I work harder if I knew I would be getting exactly the same amount of pay as everyone else in my country? 50K no matter what I do. That is no incentive to actually work harder, especially at a job that you dont like doing in the first place.

And where did I say sewer workers would prefer to make less money? I said that you would take away from their sence of accomplishment if you just give them same money as you give everyone else. There no longer is a reason to move up and out of the crappy sewer job. Getting paid less doesnt give you a sense of accomplishment. Working your way up the ladder gives you a sense of accomplishment. Just giving handouts to people doesnt give them a sense of accomplishment. Do you feel like you accomplished something after you are done receiveing gifts on your birthday? Or do you feel accomplished after you just finished up that major project that you had at the office and you know that you did a very good job on it? Id say the latter.

Why would I go be a doctor to only receive 50k? Essentially, I could sweep the floors somewhere and get the 50k so why would I go to school for so many years and work my but off just to be mediocre like the rest of the country? Yes, the people that really want to become a doc will, but it will end in shortage. If you want to know how that goes, see the rest of my post on the previous page.

In unions the ultimate power is held by the workers. But everything in life must come down to one man in the end. There must always be that one man that stands out in front of the rest of people to lead the country no matter what kind of gov you have. Eventually, as history as shown us time and time and time again, it turns into something of a monster of itself. Read Machavelli's Discources. Its a very interesting read and mentions the different forms of gov and the many cycles of which.

Again, the bonuses were not given to the people in AIG that made the company fail. There are many parts of the company that make up AIG as in many seperate smaller companies that made it up. The people that did the houseing bubble and insurance crap didnt get anything. The people in the other sections that actually made money (although as a whole it didnt count because the whole company itself went bankrupt) got the bonuses because they performed due to their contract that congress okayed to begin with. Then they went back on their word. They are awesome hypocrits.

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist


We do this, it's called voting.

There's no way to gauge an entire nation by polling, you'll always have to extrapolate. This is why it's important to keep the politicians in check by voting, and by contacting them.

I for one always ask people to vote, even if they vehemently disagree with me. If everyone would vote, and stay active in their political discourse we'd have a better understanding of what people truly want.

We shouldn't have to guess or poll people, the actions should dictate in which direction the country wants to proceed.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
Depriving yourself of food does not make you stronger. It makes you unhealthy and if anything, weaker. Ask a family that has to go without food a night or two a week if they prefer it that way because of all the character it builds. This argument is nothing more than an incredibly thinly veiled excuse not to care about the less fortunate.

That sir, is incorrect. I lived that way for much of my youth, and no harm was done. As a matter of fact, I can see where good was done. I can now survive nearly anything, and I look around me and see people whose world will absolutely end if they don't have the latest trinket, another candy bar or twinkie. Far as I'm concerned, that's a weakness, especially if what I think may be coming actually hits. Folks who just can't survive if they have to eat hamburger instead of steak.... what will happen to them when there's only beans, or nothing at all for a couple of days?

The weak will be culled out, that's what. Because of that, I see YOUR standpoint as a poorly veiled excuse to not care about the less fortunate. Your argument is to let them rot, mine is to strengthen them to survive.

Are you now trying to argue that sewer workers would prefer to be paid less? Being paid an equal amount makes your work feel as valuable as the next guy and for most jobs out there, they are just as valuable as the next one. Nearly every job in America is a vital cog in the machine. Some cogs might be bigger than others, but the machine wouldn't work without one.

How does getting paid less give you a sense of accomplishment? I guarantee you if you interview every sewer worker in the country they would all prefer to be paid more than to receive your ass backwards sense of accomplishment.

"Feel" as valuable? "Sense" of accomplishment? The world don't run on emotion.

Of course EVERYONE wants to be paid more. Myself, I'd like to make at least 20 times what I do, if you'd be so kind as to arrange that for me. FEELING as valuable as the next guy and actually BEING as valuable as the next guy are two different things. If we're to pay folks what THEY think their value is, I'd like that 20 fold raise by next Friday, please.

And here is one of the inherent weaknesses of socialism - when folks are allowed to vote their own raises, as occurs in "utopian" socialism (as opposed to real world socialism), eventually they will break the bank. Just check on Congress, and various board members on Wall Street.

No way that you can give each person "their full share of per capita GDP" AND, at the same time, pay for all the wasteful social programs that are on the Progressive's agenda. Well, maybe if you just print more money to cover all of it. See where that's gotten us under the Neocons?

You think you have any more freedom being a slave to a corporate consumer culture? Your argument is only against absolutist state socialism. What about Libertarian socialism where the ultimate power is held by the workers?

ALL socialists CLAIM ultimate power is held by "the workers" in their own particular brand of socialism. It NEVER shakes out that way in the real world.

Absolutely, I have more freedom. In my so called "slavery to the corporate consumer culture", I can opt out. I don't have to consume if I don't want to. I'm allowed, in such "slavery". to go where I please, do as I please, and make decisions for myself as I please. Not so with socialism. In socialism, I'm forced to do what someone higher up the ladder determines is best for the "collective". In my current example from the good ol' United Socialist States of America, the ridiculous "health care" agenda is to be forced on everyone. In other words, they intend to force me to consume that which I have a strong distaste for, all for the good of the collective. Bummer.

Your notion, and Noam Chomsky's notion, of "libertarian socialism" is patently absurd. The very linkage of the terms into one is an oxymoron.

Bottom line is, I "opt out" of the collective. Does your utopia provide for that? For example, I vehemently opt out of government run health care. I'll not pay anything into it, nor take anything out of it, and will not accept any form of "penalty tax" for doing so.

Sure you can go live in a capitalist community in the wilderness somewhere but don't expect you use our highway systems, fly in an airplane, call the police, the fire departments or use our sewer systems if you refuse to pay taxes.

I don't do those things now, and still have to pay taxes. Since you disallow me the potential use of what I've already paid for, when can I expect to get my refund?

Well, to be honest, I am connected to the sewer system, which I pay an exorbitant fee for every month. Evidently it isn't included in my taxes. As far as my use of your other services goes - Police? nope. Fire? nope. Highways? nope. airplanes? HELL nope. What, btw, have airplanes got to do with taxes, anyhow? Last time I flew anywhere, I had to pay for it. Government didn't give me any freebies on the taxpayer.

On the positive side, I've already bought the land for my capitalist community. Since I'm not making any use at all of government services, can I stop paying taxes on that too?

See, your argument against my ability to travel etc, is a ridiculous over-reach as well. I already PAY taxes. I really don't need bigger government hunting down even MORE ways to shake me down for things I don't use, and never will. I already give them enough money for that. All they, and you, are doing is desperately searching for a problem to justify their Final Solution. And of course they intend to make even more money off of it.

I'm not a part of the "collective". I'm a man, dammit, not a number. Government has no business at all forcing me to take care of myself as THEY see fit. I'll take care of myself as I see fit.

Actually we are all part of the collective. A collective of individuals. We are all cosmopolitans whether you want to admit it or not. And the public option is called that for a reason. It is an OPTION. If you want private insurance go for it, but don't go without insurance and expect our tax dollars to pay for your hospital trip.

I note with some degree of mirth how easily individuals are relegated to outcast status, simply because your collective can't withstand individualism. As evidence, I exhibit your own words: "Sure you can go live in a capitalist community in the wilderness somewhere" and "If you don't like where my generation is steering this country," (i.e., into a socialist collective) "you can always move somewhere else."

Collectivism seeks to destroy the individual. A "collective" is a collective, not a herd of individuals. In collectivism, individualism is severely dealt with.

I am anything BUT a cosmopolitan. The public "health care" OPTION is not an OPTION at all. Either choose to be fleeced by companies A,B,C, or D, or the government. If it were truly an OPTION, there would be another choice, i.e. "none of the above", a choice not to be fleeced at all. That's like the Romans giving the christians in the arena the OPTION of whether they would prefer to be eaten by lions, or tigers.

Some OPTION.

I have never, do not now, and never will expect taxpayers to pay for my medical care. I take care of that myself. I used to carry insurance, but when I needed it, I couldn't use it. That's how I discovered what a racket it is. Now the government wants their share of that racket, too, and to make sure they get it, they'll force everyone to buy into it.

I think it's time to develop a streak of disobedient behavior.

Selfishness is all any of these arguments comes down too. If we have socialism in this country it will be by the democratic process. If you don't like where my generation is steering this country, you can always move somewhere else. Otherwise, you better learn to deal with it.

Could be. I think it's pretty selfish to expect me to keep paying for things I never use, just so YOU can use them without having to pay full price. THAT sounds pretty selfish to me.

There are also a couple things "your generation" needs to learn to deal with. One is that since America is NOT a democracy, the "democratic process" has no bearing on a collapse into socialism.

Another is that if "your generation" doesn't like our opposition to your steering the country into a ditch, YOU can always move somewhere else.

My generation was here first. We have claim of primacy.

Us get used to it? You sound pretty confident for a young man. They used to call that "cocky", but you're probably not old enough to remember that.

The things you'll need to learn to "deal with", unfortunately, I don't think you will be able to.

[edit on 2009/11/2 by nenothtu]

So we can very easily criticize the full-bore pursuit of Socialism we've seen in the world today. Modern China is not to be envied. They are powerful and efficient. Also, controlled like animals. The USSR was similarly an awful regime to live under. In both places, the same thing happened. The revolution occurred, the quasi-despotic heads of state gained control, and there they stayed. You seem familiar with Chomsky so I am willing to venture that you probably understand most of my criticisms of these implementations without me spelling them out. Suffice to say that a full implementation of Socialism has been tried. More than once. Each time, the roadmap leads to ditch.

I agree with you that attempts as socialism have too often led to despotic rule. However as you said, there are many good ideas in socialism and it is certainly no reason to condemn the entire spectrum of thought. There are also many elements of capitalism that prove its success in the real world. Rapid innovation is possibly one of the best result of those elements put into practice.

I am highly reluctant to move to absolutist state socialism. I don't think America will ever get there and it shouldn't. Putting too much power in representative government is just as dangerous to liberty as investing it in private hands.

Libertarian socialism has the same potential for misplaced power, but that potential would ultimately lie in the people, who would hopefully be progressive enough to learn from their mistakes more quickly than a state would. I think there are some things the state does very well however such as the military and the highways that should probably continue to be run by the state in the long term.

In the short term, the average worker would benefit from socialized higher education and health care, while most of the rest of the market is perhaps best left alone, at least for a while.

First, can you please tell me how to multi quote? I have yet to figure this out on this forum. On the other ones i visit, its as easy as hitting a button or two. here it is a mystery.

I'm not exactly sure, I manually hit the button and copy paste into the box every single time.

50K no matter what I do. That is no incentive to actually work harder, especially at a job that you dont like doing in the first place. And where did I say sewer workers would prefer to make less money? I said that you would take away from their sence of accomplishment if you just give them same money as you give everyone else. There no longer is a reason to move up and out of the crappy sewer job.

I am not proposing equal wages, just relatively equal wages. Wages should be based mostly on performance and output however rather than by what the actual job is. I don't really see a problem with a baseball player that has excellent statistics making say, 10k more than the next guy, but making 25 million more than the next guy is ludicrous.

I am guessing no one wants to be a sewer worker period, at least not for their whole lives, but the incentive shouldn't just be in another job, it should also be within his own job, giving him an incentive to work as hard as he can in that job until something more desirable comes along.

Why would I go be a doctor to only receive 50k? Essentially, I could sweep the floors somewhere and get the 50k so why would I go to school for so many years and work my but off just to be mediocre like the rest of the country? Yes, the people that really want to become a doc will, but it will end in shortage. If you want to know how that goes, see the rest of my post on the previous page.

Perhaps there are some doctors that would prefer a less challenging job like janitorial work, but the vast majority would probably remain a doctor out of interest and incentive to be the best doctor they can be. After all, they knew they wanted to be challenged when they enrolled in med school. That in itself, coupled with a merit based reward system would provide most of the incentive to be a doctor.

In unions the ultimate power is held by the workers. But everything in life must come down to one man in the end. There must always be that one man that stands out in front of the rest of people to lead the country no matter what kind of gov you have. Eventually, as history as shown us time and time and time again, it turns into something of a monster of itself. Read Machavelli's Discources. Its a very interesting read and mentions the different forms of gov and the many cycles of which.

Obviously we can't send an entire unionized work force or an entire country oversees to deal with another country or a company. Representative government is very practical in some cases. But what makes a representative more qualified to decide ethical issues such as euthanasia than a McDonalds employee? Furthermore what makes either a representative or a McDonalds employee qualified to make objective scientific decisions on things like environmentally engineering a green economy? I believe there is a role for direct and representative democracy, as well as technocratic decision making in legislation.

Much like socialism and capitalism, I believe we could benefit from a balance of representatives, direct democratic decision making and technocrats in a government rather than an authoritarian technocracy, a republic or anarchy. I believe that absolute state socialism is no better than anarcho-capitalism and that America will eventually discover the benefits of a delicate balancing act.

reply to post by nenothtu

The weak will be culled out, that's what. Because of that, I see YOUR standpoint as a poorly veiled excuse to not care about the less fortunate. Your argument is to let them rot, mine is to strengthen them to survive.

I don't know how you possibly interpreted my stance that way. I am advocating providing the basic human rights of food, shelter, healthcare and higher education to ALL citizens. How is that not caring about the less fortunate? If they want to drive cars instead of using public transportation, or they want to live in a giant house instead of a public housing unit, I leave that up to their personal ambition to drive them to get a job and work hard at it. No one would be required to live in public housing or to go to a state school, but they are options to those who can't afford otherwise.

In other words, they intend to force me to consume that which I have a strong distaste for, all for the good of the collective. Bummer.

You are not forced to use a public option. It is an option. You are only forced to subsidize it for those who can't afford it.

Well, to be honest, I am connected to the sewer system, which I pay an exorbitant fee for every month. Evidently it isn't included in my taxes. As far as my use of your other services goes - Police? nope. Fire? nope. Highways? nope. airplanes? HELL nope. What, btw, have airplanes got to do with taxes, anyhow? Last time I flew anywhere, I had to pay for it. Government didn't give me any freebies on the taxpayer.

Just because you havn't had to call the police doesn't mean you will never have to call them. And you benefit from them indirectly every day in keeping you safe from being mugged at every turn.

On the positive side, I've already bought the land for my capitalist community. Since I'm not making any use at all of government services, can I stop paying taxes on that too?

Honestly if it were up to me, I would be happy for you to stop paying taxes for services you apparently never use or benefit from. Take that up with the IRS, not me. I am suspicious of the fact that you have never used a road before however.

In collectivism, individualism is severely dealt with.

In China maybe. I don't see people being persecuted in Denmark for being themselves.

I am anything BUT a cosmopolitan.

I must have missed that you are posting from Mars. Last time I checked, everyone on ATS was a citizen of the world.

The public "health care" OPTION is not an OPTION at all. Either choose to be fleeced by companies A,B,C, or D, or the government. If it were truly an OPTION, there would be another choice, i.e. "none of the above", a choice not to be fleeced at all. That's like the Romans giving the christians in the arena the OPTION of whether they would prefer to be eaten by lions, or tigers.

One day, perhaps your last day on earth, you will end up in a hospital. And if you don't have either private or public insurance, that burden falls on the rest of the taxpayers.

I think it's time to develop a streak of disobedient behavior.

I am a supporter of civil disobedience. Let me know how that works out.

There are also a couple things "your generation" needs to learn to deal with. One is that since America is NOT a democracy, the "democratic process" has no bearing on a collapse into socialism.

See we are a republic. We vote for representatives who make promises to vote a certain way. It's not direct democracy but it's still a form of democracy.

The things you'll need to learn to "deal with", unfortunately, I don't think you will be able to.

I am a very dynamic person. Maybe one day I will become more fiscally conservative but until then, I am going to stand up for my beliefs and I have a right to do so, as do you. I have some practical ideas and so do you. The collision of opposing practical views is what keeps the country in check.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

There (lies) your problem the youth have been indoctrinated toward Socialism

and liberalism in the class room and the study of capitalism and free enterprise

have been left out of the curriculum. ^Y^

I haven't been indoctrinated with socialist views any more than you have been indoctrinated with capitalist views. My AP economics teacher and my AP American history gave excellent, unbiased summaries of both sides of the argument. I made a choice as an individual to fight for socialist policies that provide necessities that ought to be fundamental human rights. I wasn't brainwashed by some socialist indoctrination program. My school was largely apolitical.

reply to post by amari


Could it also be societal drift?

They teach a lot of things in schools, we don't believe all of it, why should the youth? Do you think people just vote how their teachers tell them to? If this were so it would not explain the fact that we still have many spectrums of the political landscape represented.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
reply to post by nenothtu

 

The weak will be culled out, that's what. Because of that, I see YOUR standpoint as a poorly veiled excuse to not care about the less fortunate. Your argument is to let them rot, mine is to strengthen them to survive.

I don't know how you possibly interpreted my stance that way. I am advocating providing the basic human rights of food, shelter, healthcare and higher education to ALL citizens. How is that not caring about the less fortunate? If they want to drive cars instead of using public transportation, or they want to live in a giant house instead of a public housing unit, I leave that up to their personal ambition to drive them to get a job and work hard at it. No one would be required to live in public housing or to go to a state school, but they are options to those who can't afford otherwise.

Because, providing these things instead of having the recipients EARN them teaches complacency, that there will be a "safety net", and that just isn't so. In teaching them to be good little collectivists, that everything will be provided them, no one gets prepared for the adversity that will surely eventually come, as it always has, and the unprepared always suffer the most, before they die.

Not only are they unprepared for adversity, they never learn how to withstand it. That translates directly into suffering and death.

In other words, they intend to force me to consume that which I have a strong distaste for, all for the good of the collective. Bummer.

You are not forced to use a public option. It is an option. You are only forced to subsidize it for those who can't afford it.

You'll note that I didn't say "use", I said "consume". I will be forced into consumerism in that marketplace by being forced to participate, as in "pay for". Use? No. They'll never again get me inside one of those "healthful" places alive again. The funny thing is, I'm not gonna pay for anyone else to go their either. TPTB THINKS they can force me to participate with punitive measures, but strictly speaking, that isn't so. It depends entirely on how much punishment one is willing to withstand to avoid a compromise of his principles.

No, I won't use it. I'm not going to subsidize it either. Financial support of a wrong does not suddenly make it a right.

Just because you havn't had to call the police doesn't mean you will never have to call them. And you benefit from them indirectly every day in keeping you safe from being mugged at every turn.

You misunderstood me. It's not that I've never "had" to call the police, it's that I DON'T call the police. No need to. I've yet to run into anything that, if I can't handle it myself, will sit there and wait 40 minutes for a police response. They are entirely useless to me, but I pay taxes to support them all the same. Neither do they keep me safe from "mugging at every turn". I do that myself, as I can't really wait long enough for someone to notice the mugging, call the police, and then wait for a response. Muggers are not noted for that kind of patience either. Fortunately, they rarely ply their trade in full view of police, which means the police rarely ever notice a reprisal here and there either.

No sir, the main occupation of the police hereabouts is to set up roadblocks to harass the citizenry, always needing to see their driver's licenses for some reason, probably just to justify the roadblock is what I'm guessing. It's my opinion that we have an overabundance of them, and so as a whole they just have too much time on their hands, not that their bad folks.

Honestly if it were up to me, I would be happy for you to stop paying taxes for services you apparently never use or benefit from. Take that up with the IRS, not me. I am suspicious of the fact that you have never used a road before however.

Huh? I said I don't use them NOW. Never said I've NEVER used one. Of course, I still have to pay taxes for them, same as I always have, whether I use them or not. Of course, there really isn't any justification for the Federal government to involve themselves in roads, but for some reason they do anyhow. I don't have a problem paying for things I want, whether I use them or not. I have a problem being FORCED into paying for things I don't want, don't need, and will never be able to afford.

Like useless health insurance, and corporate bailouts. I have problems with BOTH of those recent miscarriages of justice.

In collectivism, individualism is severely dealt with.

In China maybe. I don't see people being persecuted in Denmark for being themselves.

You really need to settle on one viewpoint or another. Is Denmark a socialist country, or does it just have "some socialist policies"? Is Denmark now a collectivist nation?

I am anything BUT a cosmopolitan.

I must have missed that you are posting from Mars. Last time I checked, everyone on ATS was a citizen of the world.

You probably didn't get the memo. I renounced any alleged "World Citizenship" right here at ATS. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a "Citizen of the World".

I am a United States Citizen, and hold no dual citizenship.

One day, perhaps your last day on earth, you will end up in a hospital. And if you don't have either private or public insurance, that burden falls on the rest of the taxpayers.

NOT-GONNA-HAPPEN.

But curiously enough, if it did, and I had opted for the "public option", the burden would fall on the rest of the taxpayers anyhow. So I see no benefit to the taxpayer either way. The government benefits by picking my pocket of their share of insurance premiums, or failing that, a taxation in which I am not represented.

I don't believe for a second that the government will be any more honest in covering health care costs to subscribers than those racketeering health insurance companies are.

They're ALL thieves.

I think it's time to develop a streak of disobedient behavior.

I am a supporter of civil disobedience. Let me know how that works out.

I don't believe I mentioned anything about it being "civil". They will eventually come for me when they notice I'm not engaging in their collective, in order to enforce their socialist edicts.

Nope, I don't see anything "civil" happening there at all. Lucky you, though, it also means I'll bypass the hospital on my way to the graveyard, so I won't be a strain on your sociopolitical healthcare system. Lord knows, it won't stand too much more strain.

See we are a republic. We vote for representatives who make promises to vote a certain way. It's not direct democracy but it's still a form of democracy.

Right, which means "democratic process" will have nothing to do with the collapse, as I said.

A "form" of democracy? Democracy either is or is not. People either have direct say, or they do not. Republicanism is a "form" of democracy in the same way that syphillis is a "form" of cancer, since the former are both governing systems, and the latter are both diseases.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Now THAT I'm with you on 100%. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Originally posted by amari
There (lies) your problem the youth have been indoctrinated toward Socialism

and liberalism in the class room and the study of capitalism and free enterprise

have been left out of the curriculum. ^Y^

True, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. That unhappy circumstance falls squarely at the feet of us elders, for not paying close enough attention, and not being involved enough.

we've sown the wind, and now may reap the whirlwind.

You don't really get the concept of comsppolitanism. You are a citizen. And you live on earth. You are therefor a citizen of the earth. It isn't something you can renounce without leaving the planet.

I am unclear of what you mean by uncivil disobedience. Are you willing to take up arms to defend your individualism? Well good luck. I won't be a part of the upcoming violence if it actually does occur on either side and if it does, I hope you make it out alive.

You are under the delusion that everything about the state is evil. I on the other hand see the benefits as well as the negatives of a free market just as I see that the state, despite it's many, many flaws, also has it's fair share of benefits and for the sake of the laws and it's ability to enforce them, is ultimately a good thing.

I'm not really sure where you stand politically, but you seem to be an anarcho-capitalist. I don't think anarcho-capitalism will EVER occur in this country. I believe we will always have a state in some form, even if it is a minarchist state.

As for the collapse, well I guess an individualist's collapse may be a collectivist's paradise. If it truly is a collapse in the objective sense, well I hope you are there to tell me "I told you so." Until that happens, I will continue my pursuit that I consider to be noble, and you continue yours.

There has never been a system of either governing or commerce that has not been exploited by a few to obtain and control power and wealth. (We've never seen purity in any known system. They're all good on paper.) Those few in control continually shift isms to quell the mob, giving we the mob timely illusions of progress. The capitalist bankers just milked us dry and their lackeys in the government shifted isms or at least threatened to shift isms to soothe our griping. "This would never be allowed under socialism. Capitalist pigs would be slaughtered!" If our current government was on the level it would be hunting down the bankers and stringing them up. Those representatives that promote the socialist programs should be leading the charge. Do you see any of that? This was the greatest crime in the history of the world! Any justice being served? Hell no! Instead, our focus has now been conveniently shifted from those that did the milking to those that threaten further milking via a socialist shaped "health care bill". Our country is like a 7-11 in a continuous state of being held up. The masked men are lined up around the block. It's hard to identify the last guy when the next guy has a gun in your face. And so with that in mind, is anyone other than government officials concerned that they don't have "health insurance"? There's a huge difference between having "health insurance" and having health care and when the smoke clears you will have "health insurance". You can frame your policy. Feel better?

We will continue to be bounced between the wealthy and their government chumps so that a concerted effort to reclaim what has and will be taken will never come to fruition. Divide and conquer.

Tomorrow a number of states will hold elections. A few D's and R's will shuffle and for a brief moment many will think that the system works once more. This system, any system, always works for those that have the power and wealth. But you think we can rise up and take it all back. The wealthy and powerful can be overthrown and justice served. And when we look back over history at the examples of that happening, what has followed? Another ruling class milking the masses. At least we have the illusion it's another group. We never see the heads of power. We only see their lackeys and they at times are expendable. And so tomorrow there will be a shuffling of the lackeys and more discussion of what ism we can live under. And those at the top don't care what ism we live under, so long as we live under it.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Hemisphere]

Originally posted by The Transhumanist
You don't really get the concept of comsppolitanism. You are a citizen. And you live on earth. You are therefor a citizen of the earth. It isn't something you can renounce without leaving the planet.

Since I obviously wasn't getting your meaning, I looked it up in the wiki zones. This is what was there, as a political philosophy:

Cosmopolitan may refer to:

Internationalism

* A city/place or person that embraces its multicultural demographics
* World citizen, one who eschews traditional geopolitical divisions derived from national citizenship
* Cosmopolitanism, the idea that all of humanity belongs to a single moral community
* Cosmopolitan Society/Cosmopolitan City, where people of many ethnicities, religions and cultures meet and live in close proximity (especially applied to busy sea ports)

Source

My notion of "cosmopolitan" always carried the connotation of the 1st and 4th definitions above.

Yours, as evidenced by your "citizen of the world" outlook, evidently carries the meaning of the second. I do not fall under that category, as I explicitly stated that I am a U.S. citizen, a citizen of a nation, within various geopolitical divisions. There is no world governing body (not yet, anyhow) and so there are no "world citizens" under that definition.

The 3rd is patently ridiculous, since there are as many different "moral communities" as there are separate systems of morality, rather than a single one.

Be that as it may, I thank you for causing me to educate myself in something I was ignorant of.

I am unclear of what you mean by uncivil disobedience. Are you willing to take up arms to defend your individualism? Well good luck. I won't be a part of the upcoming violence if it actually does occur on either side and if it does, I hope you make it out alive.

I have before, and doubtless will again. Anything worth fighting for at all is worth dying for. That philosophy keeps needless brawling to a minimum. I'm getting too old, slow, and physically infirm to harbor any illusions that I will come out of it alive. That, however, by itself doesn't absolve me of the responsibility to fight when necessary.

You are under the delusion that everything about the state is evil.

Not strictly so, but if it were, I would see a certain degree of governance as a necessary evil. What I DO believe is that an overabundance of governance naturally lends itself to abuse, and THAT is what I view as evil. You may find it easier to believe that I view all forms of bureauocracy as evil. An increase in size and scope of government necessitates an increase in bureauocracy to run it, and that's where the "evil" gets it's toehold. That toehold eventually becomes a stranglehold on liberty.

Without individual liberty, there is no liberty at all. The entirety of self cannot be subjugated to a collective and remain self. The identity of the individual is merged into the collective, which is far too cumbersome and unwieldy to have any degree of liberty. The trade gained in such transactions are the "well being" of the individual, with concommital loss of that individuals identity, a loss of the self's "soul", in favor of the self's corporeal well being, which benefits only the collective.

Well, except for the "queen bee" in the hive, that is.

I on the other hand see the benefits as well as the negatives of a free market just as I see that the state, despite it's many, many flaws, also has it's fair share of benefits and for the sake of the laws and it's ability to enforce them, is ultimately a good thing.

True enough. All systems have their plusses and minuses. The laws of the state ARE a benefit, up to a point. Beyond that point, excesses are perpetrated, to the detriment of the governed. A government run amok, too far into the collectivist spectrum, exists only to perpetuate it's own existence, and fails the people by living off of them parasitically. All things in moderation.

I'm not really sure where you stand politically, but you seem to be an anarcho-capitalist. I don't think anarcho-capitalism will EVER occur in this country. I believe we will always have a state in some form, even if it is a minarchist state.

I've been told that politically, I'm just to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Anarchy is as bad a thing as a hive-like collective. Again, all things in moderation. Too much liberty, of the anarchic variety, is as damaging to society, AND the individual, as none at all. In both cases, nothing of value is able to grow and flourish, and so nothing is gained by society, the collective OR the individual.

As for the collapse, well I guess an individualist's collapse may be a collectivist's paradise. If it truly is a collapse in the objective sense, well I hope you are there to tell me "I told you so." Until that happens, I will continue my pursuit that I consider to be noble, and you continue yours.

Rampant collectivism, as well as rampant anarchy, are both things I would consider a "collapse", for the damage done to society and the individual in both cases.

I won't be saying "I told you so", even if by some miraculous happenstance I do manage to survive. However, if it comes to that, and you see some scrawny cat huffing and puffing to reload while picking off the wolves at your door, that scrawny cat would be me. You are as valuable as I, individually, in the grand scheme of things, and I would die just as fast defending you as I would defending myself.

Besides, if I let them get you, who would I have conversations like this with?

The only true free society has been reached in the past. I am sure it happened many times. It was usually in the form of tribes with true individuality. As far as your socialistic utopia that you strive for, it will destroy everyone, because the individual cannot exist in your utopia. Which means that the utopia cannot exist.

What our forefathers tried to setup is one of the best forms ever to be setup. You, the OP, just do not see the fallacy of your own argument. What has occurred over the past 70 years has slowly rotted the life of our country.

What you stated about not joining the fight is a perfect example of why your utopia will never exist. Because you as an individual will not fight for your own beliefs, but you will expect someone else to, I am sure.

And make no mistake, their are more that believe in the rights of the individual, over the rights of your COLLECTIVE BULL#.

When the whole becomes more important than the individual, atrocities become not just common place, but necessary to keep the PEACE. Look at your future in the State of China. Millions of slaves and prisoners used as the source for transplants.

Yes, the socialism of our country will fail. As every other socialist state fails, as all despotic forms of government fail.

Originally posted by The Transhumanist

50K no matter what I do. That is no incentive to actually work harder, especially at a job that you dont like doing in the first place. And where did I say sewer workers would prefer to make less money? I said that you would take away from their sence of accomplishment if you just give them same money as you give everyone else. There no longer is a reason to move up and out of the crappy sewer job.

I am not proposing equal wages, just relatively equal wages. Wages should be based mostly on performance and output however rather than by what the actual job is. I don't really see a problem with a baseball player that has excellent statistics making say, 10k more than the next guy, but making 25 million more than the next guy is ludicrous.

I am guessing no one wants to be a sewer worker period, at least not for their whole lives, but the incentive shouldn't just be in another job, it should also be within his own job, giving him an incentive to work as hard as he can in that job until something more desirable comes along.

Why would I go be a doctor to only receive 50k? Essentially, I could sweep the floors somewhere and get the 50k so why would I go to school for so many years and work my but off just to be mediocre like the rest of the country? Yes, the people that really want to become a doc will, but it will end in shortage. If you want to know how that goes, see the rest of my post on the previous page.

Perhaps there are some doctors that would prefer a less challenging job like janitorial work, but the vast majority would probably remain a doctor out of interest and incentive to be the best doctor they can be. After all, they knew they wanted to be challenged when they enrolled in med school. That in itself, coupled with a merit based reward system would provide most of the incentive to be a doctor.

In unions the ultimate power is held by the workers. But everything in life must come down to one man in the end. There must always be that one man that stands out in front of the rest of people to lead the country no matter what kind of gov you have. Eventually, as history as shown us time and time and time again, it turns into something of a monster of itself. Read Machavelli's Discources. Its a very interesting read and mentions the different forms of gov and the many cycles of which.

Obviously we can't send an entire unionized work force or an entire country oversees to deal with another country or a company. Representative government is very practical in some cases. But what makes a representative more qualified to decide ethical issues such as euthanasia than a McDonalds employee? Furthermore what makes either a representative or a McDonalds employee qualified to make objective scientific decisions on things like environmentally engineering a green economy? I believe there is a role for direct and representative democracy, as well as technocratic decision making in legislation.

Much like socialism and capitalism, I believe we could benefit from a balance of representatives, direct democratic decision making and technocrats in a government rather than an authoritarian technocracy, a republic or anarchy. I believe that absolute state socialism is no better than anarcho-capitalism and that America will eventually discover the benefits of a delicate balancing act.

I thank you for trying to explain to me the multiquote.

But the wages thing is really killin me. Even if they are relatively equal (one could make slightly more than the other) it still doesnt make much of an incentive to do something that is difficult for the majority of the people. Granted, if we just snap our fingers ow and switch over, ill agree with you that the majority of the people will stay in their same line of work since it is what they know allready. But, the future will be dim. Like I said, there is no reason for me to work my butt off thru 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, and then a residency for a couple of years just to make slightly more than the next guy. There will be a shortage and to balance out that shortage to intice more people into becoming newer doctors you will have to lower the standards of care. It will eat itself up in the long run.

What honestly makes a scientist more qualified to engineer a green economy? If you read anything about science today, it is constantly flip flopping. Im not even going to delve into the climate change stuff. But how about that old argumenet of whether butter or margarine is better for you? Years ago it was butter, then margarine, then butter. It goes back and forth constantly. There are few things that you can get scientists to actually agree on for the long term (gravity comes to mind).

As you wish we will beome a delicate balancing act, I hope we go for not being a balancing act. Essentially, Im an anarchist at heart. I have my morals and ethics and am kind enough to people and willing to give almost everybody the benefit of the doubt untill they prove otherwise. Essentially, I can rule myself, protect myself, clothe myself, feed myself, etc. That being said, I realize that not everybody can do those things and we need some form of government...but I believe it to be a limited form of government. I dont believe that we should have laws that dictate every little thing that we do (like now). I believe that government only has a couple of situations as to where it is needed like police and firemen, military, FEMA (its a good idea, just poorly executed), and some limited welfare for people that need a little hand up for a limited amount of time. I do believe that our federal government has over stepped its boundries and create laws just to show their districts that they have done something so that they can get re-elected. The system we have now is set up well, but just like any other system, its the people that are in charge that become corrupt and it needs to take a bath essentially. I believe that if we spread the wealth, we are just propping up bad ideas. Under that idea, even if somebody is a failure or is lazy, they will still get the same amount of money as everybody else that works way harder. I just dont believe it can or will work.

We never see the heads of power. We only see their lackeys and they at times are expendable. And so tomorrow there will be a shuffling of the lackeys and more discussion of what ism we can live under. And those at the top don't care what ism we live under, so long as we live under it.

By your argument we might as well all just give up. I agree that the few consistently find a way to exploit the many, but that doesn't mean that will happen in any system or that it won't happen more in one system than another. Ultimately, I think we can all agree we essentially have four choices, being ruled by corporations, being ruled by the state, being ruled by democracy or being ruled by self: true autonomy.

A society works because of social contracts and dependency on one another. Without a state or at least a corporate police force or a democracy to enforce those contracts, the society falls into the state of nature: every man for himself. I'm reading Hobbes' Leviathan in my political philosophy class. You should check him out. I'll warn you, he's a statist, but I think you will share in his cynical view of human nature.

Anarchist's that prefer to live on their own or in a small commune is fine with me, just don't blow up buildings and attempt to rip apart our society.

As far as handing over the reigns to a handful of benevolent overlords, anarcho-capitalism and absolute state socialism are about as dangerous as you can get. Handing over the reigns to your coworkers isn't a lot lot better, but at least you all have equal responsibility. Handing over the reigns at least partially so, to technocrats is about as close to benevolent rule as you can get without the Philosopher King from Plato's Republic.

Not strictly so, but if it were, I would see a certain degree of governance as a necessary evil. What I DO believe is that an overabundance of governance naturally lends itself to abuse, and THAT is what I view as evil. You may find it easier to believe that I view all forms of bureauocracy as evil. An increase in size and scope of government necessitates an increase in bureauocracy to run it, and that's where the "evil" gets it's toehold. That toehold eventually becomes a stranglehold on liberty.

I pretty much agree with you.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

-Thomas Paine

Were we differ is in what those limited responsibilities of the government should be. I essentially think it should be responsible for keeping us safe, keeping us alive, and keeping us educated. I don't think we are all that far away from each other as far as being libertarian goes. Take the test on www.politicalcompass.org... Here is where I am www.politicalcompass.org...

Anarchy is as bad a thing as a hive-like collective. Again, all things in moderation. Too much liberty, of the anarchic variety, is as damaging to society, AND the individual, as none at all. In both cases, nothing of value is able to grow and flourish, and so nothing is gained by society, the collective OR the individual.

I think we agree here. A balance is necessary.

Rampant collectivism, as well as rampant anarchy, are both things I would consider a "collapse", for the damage done to society and the individual in both cases.

I don't think we will have either in this country. I think it will be more of a balance with some socialist policies while most of the rest of the goods and services come from the free market.

Besides, if I let them get you, who would I have conversations like this with?

Good point. Same goes for you. I just don't plan on things ever escalating to that point. Martial law is a frighteningly powerful tool for bringing about order.

The only true free society has been reached in the past. I am sure it happened many times. It was usually in the form of tribes with true individuality. As far as your socialistic utopia that you strive for, it will destroy everyone, because the individual cannot exist in your utopia. Which means that the utopia cannot exist.

Care to get into specifics of how it will destroy everyone? What about a balanced free market state with some socialist policies? No one in western europe seems to be periodically destroyed. The worker controlled anarcho-syndacalist economy of Spain in the 1930s didn't destroy anyone. Franco did however.

What you stated about not joining the fight is a perfect example of why your utopia will never exist. Because you as an individual will not fight for your own beliefs, but you will expect someone else to, I am sure.

Ballots not bullets. I will only fight if it becomes absolutely necessary to carry on my chosen way of life. I don't ever see capitalists coming to my door and putting a gun up to my head however. I guess I am just a little less bloodthirsty than some of you.

Yes, the socialism of our country will fail. As every other socialist state fails, as all despotic forms of government fail.

What makes you think America will ever be despotic? Ever here of democratic socialism? Again, the EU which consists of many states with a higher degree of socialist policies aren't failing. Most are doing quite well. And again, Spain , 1930s, look it up. The anarchists only failed because a dictator got tank support, crushed them and executed some 200k of them.

What honestly makes a scientist more qualified to engineer a green economy?

If you look at the ludicrous number of czar appointees, it shows Obamas increasing dependency on technical specialists. The trend shows that it is only up from here with political decisions becoming increasingly technical. Who else besides an environmental engineer do you propose handles the environmental engineering in our country?

I believe that government only has a couple of situations as to where it is needed like police and firemen, military, FEMA (its a good idea, just poorly executed), and some limited welfare for people that need a little hand up for a limited amount of time.

We aren't too far off. Political compass pegged me as a social libertarian. I believe in limited government as well, just a slightly less limited government than you do.