Anyone here consider themselves non-socialists?

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm a troll.

Yes you are. I know this since it takes one to know one.

Dick weed. I wish you wouldn't bother others with your self hate.

I bet it's easy for you to answer the op though - privatize them all, if people need these services, they'll find a way to pay for them - and if they're starving, fuck'em.

Self Hate Dems have that cornered too with electing BHO. Hell it made them just feel better about themselves.

actually, no.....it was because the republican party gave us the worst president in our history

Damn, and for all these years i thought FDR was a Democrat.

 

[biostud]

voting in politicians is such a bore, buy them instead.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Since we're playing loose with the definitions, I'm referring to someone who opposes all socialism, rather than the hybrid system we have.

Is there anyone here who supports ending:

- All taxpayer-funded education - Abraham Lincoln got some books and taught himself the law.

- All public fire departments - if you want fire protection, hire a private contractor. (Ben Franklin started the public system).

- All public libraries - the private bookseller sells books. (Ben Franklin again).

- The standing US Military - Jefferson was against one, and today, there are more private contractors hired by the government in Afghanistan and Iraq than military forces.

- All public roads - if there's a demand for a road, someone will build it and sell access.

- All emergency medical care paid for by the state - people when the country was created didn't have government paid emergency rooms.

- Putting a man on the moon - not the government's job to go around spending tax dollars to thrill the public. One of these days, the private sector can develop it.

- Federal regulation of the economic system. If you want to invest in a stock, why should the government tell you and the seller what rules you have to follow? That's not freedom.

There should be any number of competing stock markets, and the free market will ensure with competition that adequate safeguards are in place, or people won't spend there.

Why should the government have a monopoly with the dollar - private parties and states can set up whatever currencies they want.

- Federal consumer protection. If Kraft starts selling food that kills, people won't buy Kraft - the free market ensures adequate protection - we don't need red tape inflating prices.

- PBS/NPR. Potential to become 1984-like tools of government media dominance. If the people want excellent documentaries, the private sector will make all they need.

- America's Army computer game. Besides the unfair competition (free) for private shooter games, we won't need it to recruit for the no-longer standing army.

- Government-collected data. If people want economic data, they can pay a private firm to collect it.

- Police. Criminal courts will still be provided to prosecute crimes if sufficient evidence is brought to prosecutors, but the police won't invesigate for free. Hire a police service.

- Medical research sponsored by the government. The private sector researches, and that's all that we should do.

- Social Security. Before it the elder poverty rate was 90%, but the constitution is the constitution.

- Medicare. Ending Medicare will reduce the number of elders in poverty. Not the percent, but the numbers.

- Welfare. Will reduce the number of poor similarly to the Medicare effect.

- EPA. Where there is sufficient demand, the private sector can clean up pollution.

- National Parks. If people want them, private companies can buy the land and sell passes.

Does anyone here agree with opposing all socialist programs?

You can't brand everything the government does as socialism in action.

It shows that you, just like everyone else here, myself included, don't really know what socialism is.

 

[Turin39789]

Property is theft

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: dphantom
The only purpose of this was to troll as that the OP has not returned in over a day after the initial post.

I don't understand why people think his original post and questions are illegitimate trolling. They look like legitimate and rather thought-provoking questions to me in response to the other thread about whether anyone considers themselves to be socialists. It's easy to say that you wish we had true laissez-faire capitalism until you consider what exactly that means.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Property is theft

Guess you stole your body then, huh?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Atreus21You can't brand everything the government does as socialism in action.

It shows that you, just like everyone else here, myself included, don't really know what socialism is.

Anything the government does other than to have a police, a military, and courts is socialist-like in principle. Just about everything on Craig's list is socialist. If money is being taken from people by force--in taxes--to be spent on something other than the police, military, or courts (which are supposed to protect individual rights and prevent the initiation of physical force) then it's socialist. If the money is being taken from some people for the purpose of redistributing its value to other people, it's socialist in nature.

So, for example, having public roads, public libraries, and public parks are socialist and in principle all property would be privately owned. Just because you might like libraries and parks does not make it non-socialist. Someone had a gun put up to his head and a hand put into his wallet to pay for it so that others could benefit.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
Property is theft

Do you own a pc?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
...
You can't brand everything the government does as socialism in action.

It shows that you, just like everyone else here, myself included, don't really know what socialism is.

I agree. Sometimes, when defining something, it helps to state what it's not. Which of the above list is not and are there others?

 

[tk149]

If by "socialism" you mean "not anarchism", then yes, I am in favor of some aspects of "socialism."

However, as long as we're "playing loose with the definitions," if by "socialism" we mean "I'd like to 'socialize' with a bunch of Playboy Playmates 'til I'm sore", then yes, I am strongly in favor of "socialism."

Neither your definition nor mine defines socialism properly.

 

[totalnoob]

I think most people don't have a problem with public goods like police/fire/EMS/roads/libraries, etc. The main complaint against "socialism" is the $1 trillion++ welfare state. That is the elephant in the room..the big kahuna..the thing that DWARFS every little pet project the OP is calling "socialism". I think confiscation and direct redistribution of wealth from one person to another..and not as a payment rendered for services (military/nasa etc) but as an unearned "entitlement". This is what most people have in mind when they complain about it. Very few people complain about the things listed by the OP, because they benefit everyone indirectly..and are not goods expropriated from one class of voters to be given (unearned) to another. Things like roads, courts, etc are a far cry from direct welfare state transfer payments via checks, benefits, or "free" services (like health coverage) provided to certain citizens at the expense of others. Direct redistribution of wealth to achieve a equality of outcome what the left worships.. This is true socialism in the eyes of most people...and this is where the complaints originate. It is disingenuous to try and tie those who oppose multi trillion dollar programs that take up more half the federal budget with opposing things like public libraries, police, or other functions that are either incredibly tiny parts of the federal budget or else handled entirely by state and local governments.

 

[GoPackGo]

The problem I have is when people take from the system and never give anything back.

I like safety nets, but don't like when it becomes a bean bag.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
The problem I have is when people take from the system and never give anything back.

I like safety nets, but don't like when it becomes a bean bag.

Or, "There's a difference between a safety net and a hammock."

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Atreus21You can't brand everything the government does as socialism in action.

It shows that you, just like everyone else here, myself included, don't really know what socialism is.

Anything the government does other than to have a police, a military, and courts is socialist-like in principle. Just about everything on Craig's list is socialist. If money is being taken from people by force--in taxes--to be spent on something other than the police, military, or courts (which are supposed to protect individual rights and prevent the initiation of physical force) then it's socialist. If the money is being taken from some people for the purpose of redistributing its value to other people, it's socialist in nature.

So, for example, having public roads, public libraries, and public parks are socialist and in principle all property would be privately owned. Just because you might like libraries and parks does not make it non-socialist. Someone had a gun put up to his head and a hand put into his wallet to pay for it so that others could benefit.

The difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism. There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society. I personally don't even have a problem with many forms of public aid, my problem is that they are abused, and instead of being used as a means to an end, that end being the person receiving them eventually gets off and stands on their own two feet, they are instead used as a crutch for their entire lives. People scheme and scam to stay dependent on welfare dollars, and the system itself breeds a dependence. This abuse, and misuse sprials the cost, and the need for expansion too far beyond it's entended means, and over time as we have seen infects society with an entitlement mentality. Some people don't look at it as help, but instead see it as their RIGHT to get YOUR money. Fuck that.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Atreus21You can't brand everything the government does as socialism in action.

It shows that you, just like everyone else here, myself included, don't really know what socialism is.

Anything the government does other than to have a police, a military, and courts is socialist-like in principle. Just about everything on Craig's list is socialist. If money is being taken from people by force--in taxes--to be spent on something other than the police, military, or courts (which are supposed to protect individual rights and prevent the initiation of physical force) then it's socialist. If the money is being taken from some people for the purpose of redistributing its value to other people, it's socialist in nature.

So, for example, having public roads, public libraries, and public parks are socialist and in principle all property would be privately owned. Just because you might like libraries and parks does not make it non-socialist. Someone had a gun put up to his head and a hand put into his wallet to pay for it so that others could benefit.

The difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism. There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society. I personally don't even have a problem with many forms of public aid, my problem is that they are abused, and instead of being used as a means to an end, that end being the person receiving them eventually gets off and stands on their own two feet, they are instead used as a crutch for their entire lives. People scheme and scam to stay dependent on welfare dollars, and the system itself breeds a dependence. This abuse, and misuse sprials the cost, and the need for expansion too far beyond it's entended means, and over time as we have seen infects society with an entitlement mentality. Some people don't look at it as help, but instead see it as their RIGHT to get YOUR money. Fuck that.

The scamming deal is a huge issue...its a known deal that people collect welfare in my state and at least two other states under false names / aliases.

The governments dont seem to want to fix it.

 

[Elias824]

Well obviously some government intervention is good, so therefor everything the govt does is good lets let them run everything! My logic is awesome!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: xj0hnxThe difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism.

I would characterize what we have right now as a Mixed Economy--a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements.

There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society.

Yes, but the difference is in degree and not in principle. I'm sure that both you and I would agree that public libraries and public roads are a good thing or at least OK. However, having public libraries and roads is socialist. In order to have the public libraries and roads, the government has to take money from some people by force and redistribute it into libraries and roads. The government decides that the will of the individual is to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. There are very serious, principled capitalists out there who would vigorously argue that public roads and libraries are socialist and immoral. Now, I like the public roads and libraries and don't have a problem with the government taxing people (within reason) to build them, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't socialism and a violation of individual rights just because I find the word socialism to be odious. Just like you don't want your tax money going to support lazy people on welfare, other individuals don't want their money going for roads and libraries that they won't use. It's the same thing.

I agree with the other poster who said that he's a cafeteria socialist and a cafeteria capitalist. We, as a society, need to grow up and stop debating whether or not all socialism is bad and all capitalism is good and instead focus on what economic policies maximize the people's wealth and well-being.

 

[xj0hnx]

Like I said, the government doing a few things that can be considered "socialist" in nature, it is very different than the government being socialist. Using public funds for public projects is not the same thing, not even close, to try using it as a gotcha against people that oppose our government turning into a socialist one is intellectually dishonest at every level.

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: xj0hnxThe difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism.

I would characterize what we have right now as a Mixed Economy--a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements.

There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society.

Yes, but the difference is in degree and not in principle. I'm sure that both you and I would agree that public libraries and public roads are a good thing or at least OK. However, having public libraries and roads is socialist. In order to have the public libraries and roads, the government has to take money from some people by force and redistribute it into libraries and roads. The government decides that the will of the individual is to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. There are very serious, principled capitalists out there who would vigorously argue that public roads and libraries are socialist and immoral. Now, I like the public roads and libraries and don't have a problem with the government taxing people (within reason) to build them, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't socialism and a violation of individual rights just because I find the word socialism to be odious. Just like you don't want your tax money going to support lazy people on welfare, other individuals don't want their money going for roads and libraries that they won't use. It's the same thing.

I agree with the other poster who said that he's a cafeteria socialist and a cafeteria capitalist. We, as a society, need to grow up and stop debating whether or not all socialism is bad and all capitalism is good and instead focus on what economic policies maximize the people's wealth and well-being.

Ignoring the radicals out there who believe that somehow people would be better off without government/very limited government, there is pretty much only 1 aspect of "socialism" that people are opposed to. Publicly funded programs that can only be used by a certain selection of the population.

Anyone can use a road, library or park.

I cannot go use food stamps, welfare, or other social services.

I do not believe that these are inherently evil programs, but in there current state, they breed corruption and greed.

I personally contribute to a form of "welfare" within my church, but it is limited, and people are responsible to an authority. The goal of the program is to get people off of the program as soon as possible, whereas the govt program admins are rewarded for having more people on the program.

Back to the topic at hand, people typically do not have a problem with programs that benefit society as a whole. The arguments usually come in when programs are only allowed to be used by sections of the general population.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: spidey07
.... People would organize themselves and take care of it.

As in creating a government to make sure it gets done??

The problem is the right wingers want to paint a black and white picture about socialism but completely ignore the fact that we already have a lot of socialist elements in place. Most of which they take for granted.

There happens to be a large difference between organization itself and government. One occurs voluntarily, and one uses force to maintain "order".

Any organization that deals with common property resources will inevitably apply coercion to some extent. These organizations have to deal with Pareto inefficiencies resulting from the free rider problem.

People agree to be part of these organizations or not. This does not happen with government. My participation is dependent on the place of birth with current government.

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: xj0hnxThe difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism.

I would characterize what we have right now as a Mixed Economy--a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements.

There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society.

Yes, but the difference is in degree and not in principle. I'm sure that both you and I would agree that public libraries and public roads are a good thing or at least OK. However, having public libraries and roads is socialist. In order to have the public libraries and roads, the government has to take money from some people by force and redistribute it into libraries and roads. The government decides that the will of the individual is to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. There are very serious, principled capitalists out there who would vigorously argue that public roads and libraries are socialist and immoral. Now, I like the public roads and libraries and don't have a problem with the government taxing people (within reason) to build them, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't socialism and a violation of individual rights just because I find the word socialism to be odious. Just like you don't want your tax money going to support lazy people on welfare, other individuals don't want their money going for roads and libraries that they won't use. It's the same thing.

I agree with the other poster who said that he's a cafeteria socialist and a cafeteria capitalist. We, as a society, need to grow up and stop debating whether or not all socialism is bad and all capitalism is good and instead focus on what economic policies maximize the people's wealth and well-being.

Ignoring the radicals out there who believe that somehow people would be better off without government/very limited government, there is pretty much only 1 aspect of "socialism" that people are opposed to. Publicly funded programs that can only be used by a certain selection of the population.

Anyone can use a road, library or park.

I cannot go use food stamps, welfare, or other social services.

I do not believe that these are inherently evil programs, but in there current state, they breed corruption and greed.

I personally contribute to a form of "welfare" within my church, but it is limited, and people are responsible to an authority. The goal of the program is to get people off of the program as soon as possible, whereas the govt program admins are rewarded for having more people on the program.

Back to the topic at hand, people typically do not have a problem with programs that benefit society as a whole. The arguments usually come in when programs are only allowed to be used by sections of the general population.

No program can directly affect the entire general population. Your only disagreement is the extent to which certain programs target specific groups or in other words, I like certain programs and i don't like certain programs. You've given no principles by which to identify what a good program is and a bad program. A road can only be used by people traveling through or in the local area. A road across the country cannot directly help your day to day commute.

I also like how you associate radicals as people who like very limited government. I actually don't think this is too radical a view. Then again I am a radical.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: spidey07
.... People would organize themselves and take care of it.

As in creating a government to make sure it gets done??

The problem is the right wingers want to paint a black and white picture about socialism but completely ignore the fact that we already have a lot of socialist elements in place. Most of which they take for granted.

There happens to be a large difference between organization itself and government. One occurs voluntarily, and one uses force to maintain "order".

Any organization that deals with common property resources will inevitably apply coercion to some extent. These organizations have to deal with Pareto inefficiencies resulting from the free rider problem.

People agree to be part of these organizations or not. This does not happen with government. My participation is dependent on the place of birth with current government.

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: xj0hnxThe difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism.

I would characterize what we have right now as a Mixed Economy--a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements.

There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society.

Yes, but the difference is in degree and not in principle. I'm sure that both you and I would agree that public libraries and public roads are a good thing or at least OK. However, having public libraries and roads is socialist. In order to have the public libraries and roads, the government has to take money from some people by force and redistribute it into libraries and roads. The government decides that the will of the individual is to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. There are very serious, principled capitalists out there who would vigorously argue that public roads and libraries are socialist and immoral. Now, I like the public roads and libraries and don't have a problem with the government taxing people (within reason) to build them, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't socialism and a violation of individual rights just because I find the word socialism to be odious. Just like you don't want your tax money going to support lazy people on welfare, other individuals don't want their money going for roads and libraries that they won't use. It's the same thing.

I agree with the other poster who said that he's a cafeteria socialist and a cafeteria capitalist. We, as a society, need to grow up and stop debating whether or not all socialism is bad and all capitalism is good and instead focus on what economic policies maximize the people's wealth and well-being.

Ignoring the radicals out there who believe that somehow people would be better off without government/very limited government, there is pretty much only 1 aspect of "socialism" that people are opposed to. Publicly funded programs that can only be used by a certain selection of the population.

Anyone can use a road, library or park.

I cannot go use food stamps, welfare, or other social services.

I do not believe that these are inherently evil programs, but in there current state, they breed corruption and greed.

I personally contribute to a form of "welfare" within my church, but it is limited, and people are responsible to an authority. The goal of the program is to get people off of the program as soon as possible, whereas the govt program admins are rewarded for having more people on the program.

Back to the topic at hand, people typically do not have a problem with programs that benefit society as a whole. The arguments usually come in when programs are only allowed to be used by sections of the general population.

No program can directly affect the entire general population. Your only disagreement is the extent to which certain programs target specific groups or in other words, I like certain programs and i don't like certain programs. You've given no principles by which to identify what a good program is and a bad program. A road can only be used by people traveling through or in the local area. A road across the country cannot directly help your day to day commute.

I also like how you associate radicals as people who like very limited government. I actually don't think this is too radical a view. Then again I am a radical.

Not everyone uses all the roads, obviously, but the fact that if anyone in the country were in the area, and needed to get to where the road goes, they can. Roads, libraries, etc, are not built with monies taken from one class adn used expressly to benefit another class of people, and if they do, than they are wrong. Of course roads, and libraries are a mooot point because they are built by the city, or state for the most part, and do not immediately fall into the scope of "big government".

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: xj0hnxThe difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism.

I would characterize what we have right now as a Mixed Economy--a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements.

There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society.

Yes, but the difference is in degree and not in principle. I'm sure that both you and I would agree that public libraries and public roads are a good thing or at least OK. However, having public libraries and roads is socialist. In order to have the public libraries and roads, the government has to take money from some people by force and redistribute it into libraries and roads. The government decides that the will of the individual is to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. There are very serious, principled capitalists out there who would vigorously argue that public roads and libraries are socialist and immoral. Now, I like the public roads and libraries and don't have a problem with the government taxing people (within reason) to build them, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't socialism and a violation of individual rights just because I find the word socialism to be odious. Just like you don't want your tax money going to support lazy people on welfare, other individuals don't want their money going for roads and libraries that they won't use. It's the same thing.

I agree with the other poster who said that he's a cafeteria socialist and a cafeteria capitalist. We, as a society, need to grow up and stop debating whether or not all socialism is bad and all capitalism is good and instead focus on what economic policies maximize the people's wealth and well-being.

Ignoring the radicals out there who believe that somehow people would be better off without government/very limited government, there is pretty much only 1 aspect of "socialism" that people are opposed to. Publicly funded programs that can only be used by a certain selection of the population.

Anyone can use a road, library or park.

I cannot go use food stamps, welfare, or other social services.

I do not believe that these are inherently evil programs, but in there current state, they breed corruption and greed.

I personally contribute to a form of "welfare" within my church, but it is limited, and people are responsible to an authority. The goal of the program is to get people off of the program as soon as possible, whereas the govt program admins are rewarded for having more people on the program.

Back to the topic at hand, people typically do not have a problem with programs that benefit society as a whole. The arguments usually come in when programs are only allowed to be used by sections of the general population.

No program can directly affect the entire general population. Your only disagreement is the extent to which certain programs target specific groups or in other words, I like certain programs and i don't like certain programs. You've given no principles by which to identify what a good program is and a bad program. A road can only be used by people traveling through or in the local area. A road across the country cannot directly help your day to day commute.

I also like how you associate radicals as people who like very limited government. I actually don't think this is too radical a view. Then again I am a radical.

My main concern is programs that allow people to feed off of others through taxes. As I explained, a temporary programs is perfectly okay, but our programs are not set up that way.

A local road is built by a local government for use mostly by local citizens. Local governments, imo, have much more freedom with what they can do. Besides violating basic rights defined in the Constitution, or not defined as the case may be, they can do what they wish. If you don't like it, move or run for public office.

Also, the federal government has a mandate to regulate interstate trade, and this has been taken to mean building interstate roads. That in itself is up for debate, but it is in practice.

I am in favor of limited government, if that hasn't been or needs to be made clear, but I do think it is a radical view to think that people can get along fine without government in any form.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: xj0hnxThe difference is that our system of government is not socialist, and not based on socialism.

I would characterize what we have right now as a Mixed Economy--a mixture of capitalist and socialist elements.

There is a very big difference between a government that's run as a collective to control the production and distribution of goods, and the peoples income for redistribution, and local and state, even federal governments using tax dollars on programs that benefit society as a whole. "Socialistic in nature" doesn't define socialism. Another big difference between the entitlements, and public good is that anyone can go to a park, or a library, everyone drives on the roads, and drinks the water, but go try and move into a government sponsored housing project, or try to get food stamps, or WIC, or get on Medicad, those do not benefit society as a whole, they are run with monies taken from people with money, and redistibuted only to a certain segment of society.

Yes, but the difference is in degree and not in principle. I'm sure that both you and I would agree that public libraries and public roads are a good thing or at least OK. However, having public libraries and roads is socialist. In order to have the public libraries and roads, the government has to take money from some people by force and redistribute it into libraries and roads. The government decides that the will of the individual is to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. There are very serious, principled capitalists out there who would vigorously argue that public roads and libraries are socialist and immoral. Now, I like the public roads and libraries and don't have a problem with the government taxing people (within reason) to build them, but I'm not going to pretend that it isn't socialism and a violation of individual rights just because I find the word socialism to be odious. Just like you don't want your tax money going to support lazy people on welfare, other individuals don't want their money going for roads and libraries that they won't use. It's the same thing.

I agree with the other poster who said that he's a cafeteria socialist and a cafeteria capitalist. We, as a society, need to grow up and stop debating whether or not all socialism is bad and all capitalism is good and instead focus on what economic policies maximize the people's wealth and well-being.

Ignoring the radicals out there who believe that somehow people would be better off without government/very limited government, there is pretty much only 1 aspect of "socialism" that people are opposed to. Publicly funded programs that can only be used by a certain selection of the population.

Anyone can use a road, library or park.

I cannot go use food stamps, welfare, or other social services.

I do not believe that these are inherently evil programs, but in there current state, they breed corruption and greed.

I personally contribute to a form of "welfare" within my church, but it is limited, and people are responsible to an authority. The goal of the program is to get people off of the program as soon as possible, whereas the govt program admins are rewarded for having more people on the program.

Back to the topic at hand, people typically do not have a problem with programs that benefit society as a whole. The arguments usually come in when programs are only allowed to be used by sections of the general population.

No program can directly affect the entire general population. Your only disagreement is the extent to which certain programs target specific groups or in other words, I like certain programs and i don't like certain programs. You've given no principles by which to identify what a good program is and a bad program. A road can only be used by people traveling through or in the local area. A road across the country cannot directly help your day to day commute.

I also like how you associate radicals as people who like very limited government. I actually don't think this is too radical a view. Then again I am a radical.

My main concern is programs that allow people to feed off of others through taxes. As I explained, a temporary programs is perfectly okay, but our programs are not set up that way.

A local road is built by a local government for use mostly by local citizens. Local governments, imo, have much more freedom with what they can do. Besides violating basic rights defined in the Constitution, or not defined as the case may be, they can do what they wish. If you don't like it, move or run for public office.

Also, the federal government has a mandate to regulate interstate trade, and this has been taken to mean building interstate roads. That in itself is up for debate, but it is in practice.

I am in favor of limited government, if that hasn't been or needs to be made clear, but I do think it is a radical view to think that people can get along fine without government in any form.

Why is moving and running for public office the only valid options? Just something I always like to point out. It's always seemed to me that people believe that these are the only two valid choices. And certainly government has told people so, after all, the only thing then a government needs to do, is the minimum to keep the population from revolting. And in many ways I think this explains the success of democracy; democracy does this better on a larger scale than every other form in history.

If you feel the options are bad, do you partake in the option so as the create the options you like, or do you not participate at all?

If you feel voting is not a valid way to represent people, do you vote to change the system or not? Or if you feel that lobbying is evil as well, where do you go then? I'm sure people will say move, but really, where to?

 

[Zensal]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Why is moving and running for public office the only valid options? Just something I always like to point out. It's always seemed to me that people believe that these are the only two valid choices. And certainly government has told people so, after all, the only thing then a government needs to do, is the minimum to keep the population from revolting. And in many ways I think this explains the success of democracy; democracy does this better on a larger scale than every other form in history.

If you feel the options are bad, do you partake in the option so as the create the options you like, or do you not participate at all?

If you feel voting is not a valid way to represent people, do you vote to change the system or not? Or if you feel that lobbying is evil as well, where do you go then? I'm sure people will say move, but really, where to?

Voting is another valid option, but it has to be for someone who shares the same opinions as you. Although running for office is the only sure way to represent your opinions.

You need to look at the basics of government. It's just a group of people making decisions for the rest of us. It can be and has been changed.

Moving is also a very valid point. Local/State governments, the ones who can assume a significant control over your life by law or lack thereof, can easily be moved away from if they become to oppressive. This is a self-regulating mechanism, because if too many people leave, there is no one to pay taxes to fund such a government.

Voting is a basic principle that American society was founded on. If you do not believe in voting, you might as well not vote and start a revolution to change things.

Lobbying can be changed by elected representatives. They just choose not to. Maybe you should become an elected representative and change that.

Btw, I believe a benevolent dictator is the absolute best form of government there can be. The problem is corruption, greed and who comes after the benevolent dictator.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Zensal

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Why is moving and running for public office the only valid options? Just something I always like to point out. It's always seemed to me that people believe that these are the only two valid choices. And certainly government has told people so, after all, the only thing then a government needs to do, is the minimum to keep the population from revolting. And in many ways I think this explains the success of democracy; democracy does this better on a larger scale than every other form in history.

If you feel the options are bad, do you partake in the option so as the create the options you like, or do you not participate at all?

If you feel voting is not a valid way to represent people, do you vote to change the system or not? Or if you feel that lobbying is evil as well, where do you go then? I'm sure people will say move, but really, where to?

Voting is another valid option, but it has to be for someone who shares the same opinions as you. Although running for office is the only sure way to represent your opinions.

You need to look at the basics of government. It's just a group of people making decisions for the rest of us. It can be and has been changed.

Moving is also a very valid point. Local/State governments, the ones who can assume a significant control over your life by law or lack thereof, can easily be moved away from if they become to oppressive. This is a self-regulating mechanism, because if too many people leave, there is no one to pay taxes to fund such a government.

Voting is a basic principle that American society was founded on. If you do not believe in voting, you might as well not vote and[ start a revolution to change things.

Lobbying can be changed by elected representatives. They just choose not to. Maybe you should become an elected representative and change that.

Btw, I believe a benevolent dictator is the absolute best form of government there can be. The problem is corruption, greed and who comes after the benevolent dictator.

Certainty of death, small chance of success... well, what're we waiting for?