Do you support socialism with government or without government?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Hey, you can always advocate my socialist utopias. My plan is to use as much automation as possible to not only fill in the "efficiency deficit", but to create an overabundance of goods and services! As in, the larger it gets, the more the economy of scale increases the surpluses. Of course, once the surpluses get get large enough, the resources and automation can be shifted over to another purpose.

Obviously this idea still has its kinks. But I think robotics and automation can finally make large scale socialism work without requiring everyone to chip in.

The "kink" is that the idea is absurd.

The problem is that innovation and productivity are only done because there is something to be gained by doing so - namely more profits. Once you remove the profit motive, innovation for the most part will come to a stand still.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah, in a capitalist mindset. But believe it or not, not all people are greedy and think of only their own benefits. There are people in every demographic on Earth who already place a collective above their personal gains. That collective can be their own families, their communities, or even their country. In fact, isn't that one of the reasons we're always told to honor our citizens in the military? Because they're making massive sacrifices so we can enjoy our freedoms and way of life?

So what makes you think people aren't willing to innovate for the sake of others? Do you even look into things like open source software, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, or open source initiatives like the "Liter of Light"? Or do those not count because they don't fit your narrative?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

So your goal is to have a human workforce that makes little-to-no money, yet think that amount of taxation can support a government that needs a lot of money to build and maintain sophisticated robotics?

Sorry, but that's a kink that's way too big to advocate.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The "kink" is that the idea is absurd.

The problem is that innovation and productivity are only done because there is something to be gained by doing so - namely more profits. Once you remove the profit motive, innovation for the most part will come to a stand still.

Well, except for innovation in the field of mass destruction (war), because that will be the only way that the country could make enough money to sustain itself at that point.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually, no. I've stated plenty of times that my end goal is to use automation and robotics to drastically the reduce the need for manual and menial labor. I want a high tech society that can fulfill the needs of its population with minimum labor. Then people can be free to use their time however they want, including for business or slothful reasons.

Parents and extended families can dedicate more time to loved ones while others can dedicate themselves to martial arts societies, sports societies, scientific advancement, religious development, mastering culinary forms from around the world, etc. In other words, I think this primitive environment where everyone has to work just to survive is outdated and obsolete. I want a truly advanced society where everyone has access to the best medical procedures, educational opportunities, and more.

If there were advanced intergalactic cultures, I'm guessing they'd resemble my vision. It wouldn't make sense to have 60-70% of a population doing sustenance farming and having to make fabrics and utensils by hand. That's not advanced or civilized at all. Some higher tech 3D printers and automated systems could do it faster, cheaper, and far more efficient.

Edit to Add: I guess a simplified way to explain it that I think we should nationalize society's needs and have a well regulated form of capitalism for our wants. Then advanced automation and robotics can make the nationalized infrastructure incredibly efficient, thus reducing the need for a large labor pool which further reduces the costs.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I do not and will not support the idea of socialism in any form. Ever!

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Edumakated

So what makes you think people aren't willing to innovate for the sake of others? Do you even look into things like open source software, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, or open source initiatives like the "Liter of Light"? Or do those not count because they don't fit your narrative?

All of that happens voluntarily. Not by government coercion.

double post.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Totally agree with scale-able services if you opt out of taxation.

What do you think about worker owned coop's competing against privately owned corporation?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Robotics and computer automation is probably going to make some form of "socialism" necessary because there simply won't be enough jobs to provide income.

To some extent your proposals make sense. The problem with all this is that so many US Americans are highly resistant to the idea of anyone being boss of them. I know I am and the problem is aggravated by the current failure of so-called Representative Republic as Democratically elected. A statistically significant number of US Americans no longer feel they have any voice whatsoever in this Governmental system and frankly, I don't see anything changing that going forward, in fact I only see that getting worse.

originally posted by: TheBandit795

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Edumakated

So what makes you think people aren't willing to innovate for the sake of others? Do you even look into things like open source software, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, or open source initiatives like the "Liter of Light"? Or do those not count because they don't fit your narrative?

All of that happens voluntarily. Not by government coercion.

My point was that there are people in all demographics that are willing to innovate for the greater good instead of just for profit. Just because those examples are done voluntarily doesn't mean they can't be done through government means, as well. In fact,t here are different local government initiatives right now that replace proprietary software with open source software, especially in school systems (these are government entities, too).

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually, no. I've stated plenty of times that my end goal is to use automation and robotics to drastically the reduce the need for manual and menial labor. I want a high tech society that can fulfill the needs of its population with minimum labor. Then people can be free to use their time however they want, including for business or slothful reasons.

Parents and extended families can dedicate more time to loved ones while others can dedicate themselves to martial arts societies, sports societies, scientific advancement, religious development, mastering culinary forms from around the world, etc. In other words, I think this primitive environment where everyone has to work just to survive is outdated and obsolete. I want a truly advanced society where everyone has access to the best medical procedures, educational opportunities, and more.

If there were advanced intergalactic cultures, I'm guessing they'd resemble my vision. It wouldn't make sense to have 60-70% of a population doing sustenance farming and having to make fabrics and utensils by hand. That's not advanced or civilized at all. Some higher tech 3D printers and automated systems could do it faster, cheaper, and far more efficient.

Edit to Add: I guess a simplified way to explain it that I think we should nationalize society's needs and have a well regulated form of capitalism for our wants. Then advanced automation and robotics can make the nationalized infrastructure incredibly efficient, thus reducing the need for a large labor pool which further reduces the costs.

I get what you are advocating and it is a pipe dream (please pass the blunt).

Innovation, productivity, wealth, class mobility, etc are all born out of man's desire to better themselves individually. Free markets allow people with ideas and determination to advance. This inherent desire is born out of greed for lack of a better word that incentivizes people to develop innovative businesses, technology, processes, services, and other goods that the rest of society finds valuable enough to pay for. Even in situations where some inventor may be altruistic, it is often the greed of others that makes it possible to bring said product or idea to market.

The robots you claim will free man from working will have to be developed. No one is just going to develop these robots for the hell of it. Who is going to finance them? Who is going to purchase them? Who is going to fix them? What if someone comes up with an even better robot?

The problem with socialism is that you have to spend other people's money to make it work and you will eventually run out of it. You cannot take money from the productive class and expect them to continue being productive. At some point, they will decide working hard is not worth it.

Sure, you can probably point to some hippie commune or some backwater savages who seem to be living in harmony. However, these ideas simply do not work on a large scale like capitalism.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Totally agree with scale-able services if you opt out of taxation.

What do you think about worker owned coop's competing against privately owned corporation?

My extended family and I actually purchase from both, depending on the need and availability of specific things. Usually it's for food related things though. As in, we buy some meats from Halal and Amish communities and buy produce from co-opts, but still also buy hings from large retailers (note: I'm a vegetarian though).

I'd also have no problem with a socialist utopia's agencies buying some things off the market or from private businesses, since it's unrealistic for small communities to be completely self sufficient. For example, a small commune may have adequate land and food supplies but not enough cement or timber. The ideal situation would be to trade its surplus goods for the items it needs, but things rarely work out perfectly in practice. Simple answer: It's fine as long as the company doesn't have a monopoly over an essential service or goods. The essential things like healthcare and infrastructure should belong to the community and be available to all members.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well then answer this: Who determines a "need" in lieu of a "want?"

Not every person's necessity is another's necessity as well.

ETA: And if your need isn't my need, why should I help collectively pay for yours?

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Do you think all taxes should be totally voluntary?

They already are. If there's one thing to learn from the Panama Papers, it's the amount of legal offshore tax-avoidance shemes.
And given the fact, that our beloved gubbermints legalized that crap, we better work on more direct democracy.

a reply to: Edumakated

Hmmm, trying to explain how to answer this. You're completely missing what I'm saying, as if you keep defaulting to a perspective that I'm not advocating. I guess that means I'm not explaining it well. Because in reality, we're already much closer to my vision than most of you seem to think.

For example: roads and potholes. Most roads in our country are publicly owned. Taxes and fees are already collected to build them and maintain them. So the automation in this situation could be something as simple as a website or an app that allows drivers to notify it of a pothole. The app or website then dispatches a modified driverless vehicle that goes to the location and fills in the pothole. Apps like this already exist; driverless vehicles are already famously in the testing phases; and many systems can already run self diagnostics. Eventually the technology would get so advanced that it may not even need humans for the basic repair work on the vehicle itself (and it can "fill up" at a separate, automated station).

Another example: Most government departments where people visit for forms, fees, licenses, etc. Why can't an ATM-like machine replace a human teller for most of these jobs? It would be cheaper and could run 24 hours a day. Even things like driver's license tests could be done through a system of sensors that test the driver's accuracy when doing certain maneuvers. Mix that with a specialized test car that checks eye movement for looking through mirrors, makes sure blinkers are used before turns, the car comes to a complete stop when it approaches a stop light or sign, etc, and you wouldn't even need the human "test giver". Most of this technology already exists in some form right now.

Third example: taxpayer subsidies to already existing industries. Taxpayers already pay large amounts to energy companies, major agricultural companies, research and development for health-related trials, and the such. In other words, the costs are being partially socialized through subsidies but the profits are kept private. That's BS. Taxpayers literally help pay for the development and maintenance of these things through subsidies but still have to pay for the services and goods afterwards.

In my vision, taxpayers are still subsidizing these things but they share in the profits and/or receive the goods for "free". After all, it's not free if they paid for it in the first place. All I'm doing is taking the profiteering out of it and actually doing things at cost (if it's for the public). And if the end products/services are being traded/sold to a foreign market, the profits will just be shared among the taxpayers or used to increase the efficiency of the industry.

As in, the public subsidizes the power stations. The public then gets the publicly subsidized electricity at cost or for "free" since they're paying for its creation. But if the electricity is sold to a separate market, the resulting profits are either given to its taxpayer base or are reinvested into automation & robotics. That new technology makes the power generation even more cost effective. This will further reduce prices while increasing efficiency and power generation. Any resulting profits are reinvested into improving its automation, increasing its productivity, and streamlining itself, which continues the loop of improvements and cost savings.

Ironically, this actually isn't new. Major companies and multinationals already do this in their factories right now. But they don't pass the savings onto the customers because they pocket the savings to increase their quarterly profits. I'd simply be passing the profits onto the investors (taxpayers) and/or reinvesting the profits into continually streamlining the process. This type of stuff takes time.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

People surely are not complaining about all the tax money which is being spent on the military, foreign aid, bailing out banks and corporate welfare. I think the majority of people wouldn't mind paying taxes if they felt a direct benefit from it. Maybe if we cut back or eliminate some of this wasteful government spending, taxpayers can benefit directly from their tax dollars. Our country was founded on the basis of Government for and by the people. Not by Government for Corporate, Wall Street and Foreign interests!

Totally agree

Currently, corporations are benefiting from a technically skilled and educated public to manage their businesses, improve their products, quality and profit margins. They don't pay a dime toward helping to finance college education yet reap the benefits from all of it. Back in the day, corporations always stressed company loyalty. Today, they could care less about their employees and will jump at the chance to increase their profit margins by sending manufacturing jobs to Mexico and overseas for cheap labor and poor quality.

Worker owned cooperatives could force convential corporations from outsourcing services/goods because they will produce higher quality goods and create jobs. They will force the outsourcing corporations to compete with higher quality domestic product.

Businesses are paying a lot more on healthcare because healthcare premiums and costs are set by the insurance industry. Doctors can't even treat patients without the approval of Insurance companies! My doctor complains about it all the time! Private individuals think having to pay higher taxes to cover healthcare would be more than if they were stuck paying $300 - $700 a month on premiums? I don't think so. Capitalism does not solve the high cost of healthcare nor does it provide a basic right for people to preserve their own life. Although some people don't think preserving and saving's one's own life is not a basic right. Their thoughts are, they should just kick people to the curb when they don't have health Insurance coverage. That's the uncaring truth of capitalism. Socialism is caring for your fellow man.

Private healthcare can drive the prices down because of competition. Government issued healthcare would increase the prices because of guaranteed income from the tax player and little to no competition.

The U.S. already employs socialism and capitalism! The socialism programs such as Social Security and Medicare are extremely popular. Without social security, most workers would not even have a pension? Have you ever had a mother of father in a nursing home? Without Medicare and Medicaid, nobody would be able to afford to take care of the elderly! Costs can range anywhere from $3,000 to over $10,000 a month for personal care!! Unless you're sitting on million dollar nest egg, you're screwed without Medicare! My mother is currently going through her life savings before Medicare kicks in. She's been in assisted living since 2011 and had a lot saved and invested. This will be her last year before her funds run out. Capitalism does not come close to solving this problem!

Why not have a private social security retirement fund operated by small businesses that is not apart of government and is subject to market competition

Welfare is also a social program that serves as a safety net for everyone. Nobody knows when they're going to fall on tough times. How many people in this country have filed for bankruptcy? It's nice to know, you have some help while you can get back on your feet. Sure there are people who take advantage of it, and the laws should address that. The government should also be getting something back for that money in the form of working along side city, park and street crews.

Welfare can be operated by competing small business with the aid of public charities without the need for government.Probably for a lot less with less abuse and more oversight

Many people want to compare Socialism with Communism, but it's really nothing but fear mongering. Socialism is an economic system which can exist with any political system. It can exist along with Capitalism. Socialism maintains the concept of personal property ownership, while communism removes it. Communism is both a political and economic system, Socialism is not. Also, Socialism maintains personal choice when it comes to education and religion. Socialist programs have proven themselves to be beneficial for many European and Scandinavian countries.

Actual socialism is the worker's ownership of the means of production. Government enforces this and that is what I don't agree with.Capitalism is anyone with capital can own the means of production with Government protecting the right to own it.Government is not necessary to protect private property.Guns are.Private security is a good idea.

I have a relative who was once a U.S. citizen and than married a Canadian and now is a Canada citizen. He loves their healthcare system and says all the bad press about it in the U.S. is simply propaganda. I would rather believe someone who has directly experienced both systems than people who are just trying to protect the Insurance companies.

Private healthcare can offer better services for cheaper and higher quality.

No taxes should not be voluntary, because they benefit all. Just because you may be sitting on a nest egg, doesn't mean you or your children may need to take advantage of it. Taxes for healthcare benefits all, including the rich. I just don't get people who act like the weight of taxes is a bear only on their shoulders. We all pay into it and it's there to help out all citizens! The tax system just needs to be restructured and government waste eliminated. We also need to hold government accountable for embezzling funds from programs that directly benefit citizens. There should also be a balance budget law.

I agree to disagree. I don't believe in government robbing people for social programs. Why not have people donate to a social services fund? Why not have a optional social services tax on people's water/rent/waste disposal bill to the local municipality?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Well then answer this: Who determines a "need" in lieu of a "want?"

Not every person's necessity is another's necessity as well.

Societal needs are pretty basic, though they can increase as the society improves its standard of living. A basic food supply, shelter, healthcare, emergency services, and infrastructure. Some will argue education systems and public transportation too, which I honestly have no problem with.

Society would provide basic versions of these, though people can work on their own to get non-government versions. As in, the Department of Automation will 3D print massive dorms for the public. But if you want a house from the private market, you have to work to get it (though you and others can also buy land and build it yourselves). And nearly fully automated industrial farms would produce enough basic foods for the population (milk, wheat, corn, beans, fruits & veggies, etc). But you would have to work to get Burger King.

ETA: And if your need isn't my need, why should I help collectively pay for yours?

2 answers for that. 1, I already said in a previous post that I agree with the ability to opt out. But if you opt out, you opt out completely and will probably need to purchase a temporary pass to enter and use our socialized system. Of course, the more productive we become, the less a "pass" or "ticket" may matter (I guess that can also be left up to a vote).

2, Let me ask you that same question. In our current political system, why should socialists have to collectively pay for the programs we don't care about? I sure as heck don't want my taxpayer dollars going towards profiling minorities, a bloated criminal justice system, no-bid defense contracts, more military interventions, propping up the nuclear energy industry, subsidizing Wall Street, etc. And I sure don't care about most of the crap I've heard the Republican Party advocate for either.

So do we also get to opt out of the policies we disagree with? Or is this a one way street?

originally posted by: intrptr
That too.

"No", what? There was no progressive permanent taxation except in war time and then only ten percent. There was no fiat currency either, or "federal" Reserve but thats another long gone tenant (like the notion of limited government) of the original established constitutional government.

Fiat currency has existed since 1668. Also, the US was founded on fiat currency. All 13 colonies had their own form of fiat currency and under the Articles of Confederation the standardized currency, the Continental was also fiat.

What a random assortment of disjointed questions.

Is the OP a set up for a soapbox?

My answers (if it matters):

Do you support socialism with government or without government? No and no, except see the next response

If you support socialism you realize socialism cost money/resources/time. How do you fund a socialist economy?as a people we generally agree that we don't want to have to see people laying in the street dying, or have folks piled up in the gutter of our streets dead. We also don't want the people who may provide for civil defense, or public leadership, tomorrow to suffer from deformities of malnutrition today. So with that, some basic social services seem to be in order. It would seem that a good way to fund this kind of thing would be via locally collected taxes, whereby a people can help their neighbor (and areas with no resources don't collect a large number of people that "ghettofies" a region).

If I don't pay taxes will you send an armed posse to jail me because I won't pay my extortion/"insurance" money? Well, yes. They will. And this was so from the very beginning. Remember our great savior, Washington? He killed plenty of Americans over their tax revolt in The Whiskey Rebellion. While you may lodge a phlosophical argument here....you cannot deny that paying taxes is as American as it gets. So long as we are equally represented (which we are not)

Can I opt out of paying the socialist mob cut if I want to or not? Well, if Washington would kill you for it, seems good enough for me....but see my addition below
If I own a business why do business in a country that robs me of 39% of my income?Because the business isn't being screwed over as bad, or the busienss still realizes a return on their investment regardless. Someone has to serve burgers. If not Ronald McDonald, then someone else. Even if the margins are slim....businesses job is to figure out how to widen those margins (which is another complaint for another thread)

Do you think all taxes should be totally voluntary? No. That's just silly

My addition: you are talking about income tax here, for the most part. Income tax is a tyranny. The taxes should be raised via commerce, tariffs, and licensing. Not income.

We should also look at having some ratio limits on our spending codified into our laws. Spending what we do on defense is just stupid.