OT: It's a hardy plant, this weed of socialism

Status
Not open for further replies.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shin-Tao:
416,
You're just mean and gready.[/quote]

.....And the only compassion I feel is for the Corsican Rams I am going to hunt this weekend! There's no escaping my .375H&H when I'm on a roll! ;)
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Matt, I'm with John Rawls with this one: the worth of a society can be judged by the status of its worse-off members. [/quote]

That's a popular view, but what makes it valid? Why are the worse-off more important than, say, those at the middle of the heap, or those at the top?

I'm not arguing that poverty doesn't matter, but I am suspicious of those who argue that its existence justifies all sorts of morally questionable actions to meet "society's" supposed moral obligations.

Looking back to the dawn of history, we could argue that mankind should never have abandoned hunting and gathering, which supported small populations in relatively good health with an even distribution of wealth, for agriculture, which supported larger populations but led to disease, malnutrition and inequality. Perhaps we would be better off living like chimpanzees; the pope and I could squat naked in the dirt and grunt in satisfaction at the elimination of capitalism's evils. ;)
 
416 wrote: Call me blind if you want, but I cannot buy into your statistics and (especially) the way you interpret them

I don't think you're blind; I just think we disagree.

First of all, your comparison of America with any European country is flawed and based upon too many incorrect and untested premises. It is a typical leftist attitude to look upon societies and individuals as perfectly interchangeable and therefore subject to the same laws of social engineering.

Hmmn. Do keep in mind that I wasn't the first one who argued for the existence of universal economic principles on this thread; the very first article on this thread, which appeared to be written by a right-winger, did that. (Why is it that "leftist" is a word but saying "rightist" seems awkward?) In fact, I can think of lots of right-wingers who have written about international economic principles - just look at the Chicago school of economics, or (further right) the Austrian school. So when you say "it's a typical leftist attitude," I think you're mistaken; it's a common belief, amongst people everywhere on the political spectrum, that some economic principles can be broadly applied internationally.

The reality is that countries, cultures and societies are too different to compare. This is especially true when it comes to the U.S., this most unique of nations. So this line of thinking leads us nowhere.

I don't think this is necessarily true. That is, I certainly agree the US is unique; but that doesn't mean that we should expect basic economic principles to not apply here. If the Federal Reserve jacks interest rates up 20% tomorrow, inflation will be the result; that's just as true in the US as it is in any other first world country with a central banking system.

Secondly, you seem to fail to see the rational correlation between paying single mothers to have babies out of wedlock and out of work and that host of negative consequences we all came to know in the last 20-30 years.

I do understand the chain of logic that I've often heard connected to welfare to single mothers and various social problems. However, I can't respond unless you give me some particulars to work with; not everyone agrees on exactly what the problems are, and staying vague doesn't tell me which problems you're thinking of. What specific negative consequences are you thinking of?

No numbers in the world (there is nothing as misleading as statistics, take it from someone whose job is to use them!) can take away from this fact. Forcing taxpayers to retribute unemployed, unwed mothers with a home, a check and full benefits is not only deeply unjust for those of us who work hard for all that, but also spells disaster to "society".

Again, in what specific ways? What is "this fact" that nothing can take away from, exactly?

Third of all, there is something VERY wrong with delegating an "authority" to control a bigger and bigger slice of your income for whatever purpose. Within reason, I want to be the sole captain at the helm of my finances and consequently of my life. We are putting ourselves in the incompetent hands of this giant makeshift financial advisor that is first seducing us, than forcing us to give money to causes that are not even remotely associated with our lives.

Well, this is a matter of core beliefs. I believe that there are benefits to collective works, within reason, and so I'm happy to have part of my taxes go towards such works. In fact, I'd happily pay more taxes for some things. I mean, I wouldn't be happy to have less money, but I might think it was worth it to (for example) keep the libraries open more hours, or raise teacher salaries, or get my local school funding stabilized.

Think about it. When you find a stack of bills in your mailbox, and you instinctively wonder why you are still scraping the bottom of the barrel in spite of your flattering gross income figure, I bet that you don't console yourself with all those phony statistics. At least, I know I don't.

It must be nice to have psychic powers to tell you that stats you've never even glanced at are phony. Gee, what would you call a leftist who responded that way to your claims?

In any case, I don't think about the best place to be on the capitalism/socialism spectrum one way or the other while I'm paying bills; I'm usually just thinking of not entering the wrong numbers into the computer, because that can leave me totally messed up for months to come. :)

All I know is that I am being forced to pay for expensive, extravagant and doomed social experiments and footed with the bill and the blame when they inevitably fail. They come to me blaming my guns when the ghettos they created get violent. They come to me asking for yet more money to throw at schools when the socialistic institutions at which our kids are forced to go fail to produce any more than ignorant sociopaths.

I think we're in danger of drifting far away from the topic. :)

I don't think it's true that transfer programs inevitably fail, unless by "fail" you mean "didn't wipe out 100% of all poverty" or "stopped being effective after right-wingers defunded them." Social Security has been an enormous success in the sense of reducing poverty among the elderly; welfare, before it was defunded by the Reagan administration, led to a measurable and large decrease in poverty.

I don't blame you or your guns, but I also don't believe that the ghettos were created by left-wingers. If you want to make that claim, then I'd prefer you make it in specific terms so that I have a fair chance to respond.

And as a product of public schools, I profoundly deny that me and all my classmates are ignorant sociopaths. In fact, the American public school system has been extraordinary successful, by any fair measure; it's not perfect, but its accomplishments are huge. We now educate more people than ever before, and judging by SAT scores people are learning more, too. Although there are little dips up and down, and there's still way too much educational inequality, we're still doing a far better job of educating the lower class than the private market ever did.

Sorry, pal, but it doesn't make sense. Not here, not in Europe, not anywhere. Certain ideologies are just plain folly, and socialism is a blatant example.

Whatever happened to your claim that "to look upon societies and individuals as perfectly interchangeable and therefore subject to the same laws" is a mistake? Are you now saying that it's a mistake when I do it, but not when you do it?

In any case, there are lots of successful (not perfect, no economy's perfect, but successful) mixed-market economies in Europe that are far more socialist than we are: Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.. So I'd say that your claim is pretty obviously false, unless you come up with some arguments or evidence to support it.

Thanks for your response - I really enjoy polite debate, and hope we can continue in the same vein.

--Amp
 
" I mean, I wouldn't be happy to have less money, but I might think it was worth it to (for example) keep the libraries open more hours, or raise teacher salaries, or get my local school funding stabilized."

No, Ampersand: If you'd REALLY be happy to pay for these things you would donate thousands of dollars a year (equiv. of extra taxes) to pay for these touchy feely things - and that's how collective works would be done, through people who want them paying out of the "goodness of their hearts".

Maybe you DO do this; but most who think this way are hypocrits, murderers and liars. They do not pay this, they want TAX (i.e. everyone else) to be forced to pay for it. Remember, you don't pay your tax someone comes to take your stuff - if you resist you WILL die.


Battler.
 
Ampersand,

Spend some time over here in Japan, where you have to work three times as long to spend twice as much on stuff that is only half as good as you can get anywhere else. Altruistic theory and practice reduces people to subjugated corporate serfs at best, and parasites, cannibals, and killers at worst.

"Hey, hey, ho, ho, the welfare state has gotta go."
 
Well, Amp, this may not be too polite, but here goes.

ITS MY MONEY!

ITS MY MONEY!

ITS MY MONEY!

ITS MY MONEY!

There. I feel much better now.

I, as in me, myself, get up every morning and trade a portion of my life, which is finite, for some $$$$. That's fine, I made that bargain with the devil and I'll have to live with it.

What I can't live with is this neo-Socialist idea that A) I'm greedy and I've done something wrong and B) The intrinsic condition of poverty can somehow be eradicated by good thoughts and intentions and above all, "caring." And oh yeah, a good chunk of change from people like me.

And here's the insensitive part: even if we could eradicate poverty by wealth redistribution, I'd rather drive my 12 mpg gallon car to work over the dead, bloated bodies of malnourished infants who's mothers couldn't afford food than pay them to live on the dole. It's a wasted life either way, its just that one doesn't cost me any money.
 
Matt wrote: That's a popular view, but what makes it valid?

Depends on who you ask, I guess. Presumably, the Catholic church has a religious justification. I'm not religious; it just think it makes practical sense to me, in a utilitarian fashion.

Why are the worse-off more important than, say, those at the middle of the heap, or those at the top?

Well, by definition, those at the middle and those on top are doing better than those on the bottom. If we create a society which guarantees that the worse-off will get by okay, we've just made a guarantee that will apply to everyone, so we're not saying that any one group is more important. If, on the other hand, we make a society that only guarantees the middle-class will get by okay, that won't help nearly as many people; it's saying, therefore, that some people (middle-class and above) are more important than others.

I'm not arguing that poverty doesn't matter, but I am suspicious of those who argue that its existence justifies all sorts of morally questionable actions to meet "society's" supposed moral obligations.

Well, I can's speak to "those" people you speak of, since I'm not one of them; I don't think "all sorts" of actions are justified by society's moral obligation to reduce poverty, anymore than the right to own a gun justifies owning all weapons (like private ownership of nuclear weapons). Income transfers, like the RKBA or any other social institution, can be taken too far; but the fact that they can be taken too far (leading to you, me and the Pope squatting in the dirt :)) in no way proves that they shouldn't happen at all.

Anyhow, no doubt the pope is a fascinating conversationalist :), but going back to the trees ain't a realistic option (and anyhow, I'd miss having comic books to read). Increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit is a realistic option, which will significantly better the lives of the working poor without significantly harming the lives of the wealthy; therefore, we should do it. In my opinion.

-Amp
 
Ampersand: Read any Ayn Rand?

It's not valid. The right to life includes the right to work unhindered to sustain that right. That means no redistribution of the wealth.

Every time this discussion is thought out it turns into (when everyone gets all intellectual) over whether reality is real and exists outside of your perception, or not. (The socialist not being big on reality).

(bore)


Battler.
 
Amp

"CR, if it's true that income transfer programs discourage production, then high social spending should be correlated with low economic growth. But that's simply not true. Switzerland and the US spend less on transfer programs (as a % of GDP) than almost anyone, while Belgium and the Netherlands spend more than almost anyone; but Belgium and the Netherlands, as of 1992 (most recent data I have at hand), experienced much faster growth of GDP per capita."

Switzerland economy has a very squarish bell curve sith shallow left side. Extremely few poor and a huge amount of hard working happy people. I think the majority of the GDP of both Belgium and the Netherlands is derived from their extensive holdings outside of their countries. Both countries have a huge social drain due to massive influx of free loaders from elswhere. Go to Switzerland and you don't free load. Live in Switzerland and you don't free load.

So many of the socialist countries have a U curve rather than an economic Bell curve. Huge amounts of poverty, almost no middle class and a few rich rulers.

Sam
 
Some "simple minded" observations:

I'm all for a poor box in church. But hiring a well-muscled thug to stand watch over it, who whacks people over the head with a blackjack whenever they pass without dropping a buck in seems a little strange to me. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

How do you think the IRS would react if I were to pay only what taxes wouldn't go to social ill-fare programs? Their looting gains its authority from the implicit threat of violence.

How is this ultimately any different from the looting that went on during the L.A. riots?

The right to own $10 stems from the right to own $1. Instead, our country casts a shadow of suspicion and wrong-doing over the rich and successful. They are punished through unequal taxation, yet they've been charged with no legitimate crime. Do the needs or wants of the majority take prority over the rights of the few? If so, then there are NO rights, only privleges, which can be revoked any time should should the mob focus its attention on you.

Socialists believe the end justifies the means. Principle is expendable.

To libertarians, principled means are the ONLY thing that matters. Without them, no goal is good or pure.

I prefer to be a libertarian.

It's funny how "right" (ex. RKBA) is so easily and simply explained, yet specious arguments are justified through obfuscation at best. (How else could it be "socialy just" to punish sons for the sins of their fathers?)




[This message has been edited by Mr. Pink (edited June 13, 2000).]
 
I wasn't going to post on these forums (my main interests are in the knives/swords area), but I just registered on TFL to be able to reply.
I'm not an expert on economics, but I had enough first-hand experience with an applied socialism in the former USSR/Russia. The bottom line is - now I'm a US resident (for the last 4 years), doing well enough for myself and my family (and NO, I never asked for nor received any government help). I will hopefully become a US citizen in several years, and me and my wife will have children who will live in this great country.
How is it relevant to the discussion? That's simple: it scares me sheatless to see Americans seriously discussing merits of socialism. I hate to be rude, but I have to say this: are you MAD to even think of this? Maybe you do want USSR-like future for your children, but I sure as hell don't!

Alex.
 
Alexi; Welcome. To the land, to TFL and to the never ending struggle for freedom.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Alexi: Ditto here, live in America - same vintage, I'm from Australia so I guess I have more experience with communism than you. :)

What I see is that the populace at large has already been sold on socialism. It's called "progress", and the only aversion the people have is to the disruption that occurs from making "progress" at too great a rate.

In the future, the USSR will only be discredited for not introducing communism in smaller/slower chunks.


Battler.
 
Greetings Alexi. Good luck on becoming a citizen, sir!

On to my question. Can we please define some terms in our discussion here? Specifically, what is meant by "poverty?" Is this poverty in a literal sense or relative sense? For example, in some areas of the world, poverty means you get maybe 500 calories a day if you're lucky or end up as flyblown corpse on the side of the road if you're not. In the U.S. are we talking about an income floor (and how is that floor set?), below which we consider that poverty? Or, are we considering poverty that you have a black-and-white TV instead of a color one (or a less-than-19-inch-color TV), a car older than 12 years, poor to no "health care" (whatever that is), and a crappy efficiency apt? Is the guy who sleeps under the overpass poverty-stricken? I think we could agree yes. What, then, is our responsibility towards him? I'm just trying to get a handle on our terms since this one in paricular is thrown around a lot without really understanding what it means to each other. Can't debate without at least understanding where the other person's coming from.

[This message has been edited by Gopher a 45 (edited June 14, 2000).]
 
AlexI,
This baffling nonsence you observe shocks and confuses me as well.
You must think it odd to come to the land of the free only to find a large percentage of the people campaigning to curtail freedom.
I don't understand it. All I can say is that large numbers of "Americans" simply do not veiw freedom as important. It is actualy a contraversial stance to take, arguing for freedom. I can not fathom why these people take their own freedom so lightly.
I suppose one could compare it to someone who lives in a land of plentifull lakes and clear rivers. He doesn't understand why the desert dwellers will kill for a skin of water.

I am honestly ashamed.
 
Kak djela' AlexI!?!?

Welcome and it's a real pleasure to have you!

Ampersand,

Good points overall (although I disagree with most of them, but that's just me).

Be careful, though, not to trip upon your own logic snares.

You seem to believe that different peoples around the world are subject to the same societal laws, yet you use inflation (an economic phenomenon, not a social one) to support your point. Sure, water boils at around 100 Celsius in India just like in North Dakota, but that does not mean that, for that reason, the two families wh are boiling the water will respond identically to identical social stimuli.

You pick on my remark that socialism has not worked in any nation it has been tried. You say I shouldn't say that, since I believe that different laws apply to different societies. But then, if my theory was so out of whack, how do YOU propose that socialism work so well here when it has failed so miserably elsewhere? I thought that same societal laws apply to all societies. So if Russia's experiment with socialism hasn't exactly been a shining success, why should we expect different results in America? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Then, you ask me to enumerate the negative byproducts that single parents on welfare have produced. This means that a) you have never thought about the subject critically (which, judging by the way you articulate your posts, I do not believe) or that b) you are just trying to continue this disagreeing exercise. I'll play along.

Lack of proper parental guidance, gang activity as a way to "belong", crime, drugs, ignorance, more illegitimacy.... need I go on?

Do I have statistics to prove that? No, and I don't need them. I think that, for once, the burden of proof is on you liberals to show that these "alternative lifestyles" are making a better America. Don't give me easily-manipulated numbers. Give me a good amount of success stories showing that someone growing up in a welfare ghetto with a single parent on the dole and 10 attention-starved siblings is better off than someone living in a "traditional" family. Then, by all means I might budge. But, somehow, I bet you can't.

Then, you seem to be happy about the American public education system. More power to you. I still think, having taught school myself, both private and public, that the American public school system is bringing up a generation of ignorant sociopaths, and the more I taught, the more radicated this opinion became. Sure, you can give me SAT scores, numbers of people being "educated" and all you want. I will answer you that it all depends on what you mean by "education", which is probably very different from my understanding of what education should be. And don't resent my saying that. It is not a prejudice but an idea borne out of considerable first-hand experience. Are there exceptions? Countless. But the norm still remains.

Lastly, while I applaud your altruism, I can tell you that generosity, largesse and compassion cannot be imposed on people any more than religious and moral values can. Once again, you can't have it both ways. While nothing stops you from donating all your excess income to various causes, I resent you trying to impose that same behavior on me. Why? Because I may disagree with those particular "causes", or because I may have other priorities. I may care more about the elderly and less about the children. I may care more about defence and less about welfare programs. See the point?

I still contend that socialism is the most macroscopic example of a doctrine doomed to fail every time it is tried - and I am truly amazed of how easily people of no mediocre intellect still get seduced by it. Some of the greatest blunders of the 20th century were directly or indirectly related to this ill-conceived utopia, and if you want statistics, my friend, just look at the number of dead in WWII and get an idea.

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited June 14, 2000).]
 
AlexI wrote: I hate to be rude, but I have to say this: are you MAD to even think of this? Maybe you do want USSR-like future for your children, but I sure as hell don't!

I'm not defending the USSR - the folks who ran it were scum, and it was a horrible (not to mention monsterous) government. But from my very first post on this thread, I've been discussing successful mixed-market economies in the first world - which doesn't include the Soviet Union, former or otherwise. Anyone who thinks I've been advocating the Soviet system has been reading things in my posts I never said or meant.

What I am talking about is the spectrum of available ways of running a mixed-market economy. Mixed-market economies (a catogory which includes all first world economies, including the US) have elements of both socialism and capitalism. The US is, relative to other countries, positioned much nearer to the "pure capitalism" point on that spectrum.

On the other hand, there are successful first-world economies that have much more socialism in the mix than the US does. Do I have to be "MAD to even think" that there are things about pre-1980s Sweden, or France, or Germany, or the Netherlands, that aren't bad? All of these countries are much further towards the "socialism" end of the mix-market spectrum than the US or Austrailia.

--Amp
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top