Anyone here consider themselves socialists?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapperHere's another issue that has come up recently with smoking. To what extent should employers be allowed to dictate what their employees do in their own private lives? Should they be able to demand that their employees stop smoking on their own private property? Should the be able to demand that their employees all convert to Christianity? Should they able to demand that their employees not use birth control in the privacy of their own homes? Etc. What if all of the private property owners and employers demanded that people uphold these rules in order for them to do business with them. No one's rights have been violated here. There hasn't been any initiation of physical force and people have "liberty" and "freedom" de jure (under the law) but they suffer from de facto (in practice, in fact) dictatorship. Would you have any objections to that?

No I wouldn't. Those are all poor business decisions and those companies would disappear quickly.

Why would those companies disappear? What if all of the business owners maintained the same belief in what their employees should do? What if few other employment opportunities were available and there was an electronic blacklist? Also, as BigDH01 said in his example, what if it's a monopolistic seller (or an oligopoly) that requires these things of its customers and as a result of barriers to entry no one can enter the market to compete with it (or them)?

It really doesn't take too much imagination to conceive of ways that true capitalism could result in outright dictatorship and a loss of freedom and liberty.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: eskimospyBoth The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are hilariously obvious straw man arguments. (not to mention the writing style is that of a 6th grader who didn't have an editor) About 2/3rds of the way through the book when she has her antagonists (the socialists!) arguing for the end of science is about the point where any rational person should realize these books are either an elaborate prank on the reader, or the product of someone who is seriously delusional.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "argument for the end of science" was based on an actual, real-world debate that occurred amongst socialists at some point in the Thirties or Forties. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rand read about that debate in the New York Times or some such. Those are excellent novels in that they dramatize a great many fundamental philosophical issues and help teach readers to dig beneath the surface and to get to the fundamentals and to ask questions about underlying philosophical issues. They really are great novels in those regards even if you disagree with much of the politics or the philosophy or the writing style.

While some crazy person somewhere may have advocated such a thing, I am unaware of any credible figure who has done so. Feel free to provide a link if you have one though. That's really the essence of a straw man argument anyway, to take an absurd, fringe, insane opinion that is tangently related to your target and attempt to use it to discredit the whole. She's guilty of that in spades.

She's more than welcome to do this in the scope of providing drama to her book (however badly she fails at this), but she explicitly stated that the book was a political and philosophical manifesto. To use an obvious straw man as a foil/counterpoint to your argument is something nobody outside of Philosophy 101 should be doing.

 

[Sureshot324]

A balance of capitalism and socialism ftw

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: rchiu
I think people are making mistake by all these labels like socialist and capitalist. There is no absolute socialist or capitalist, and I don't see how any absolute system can work.

There is only a degree of socialist/capitalist. I'd say I am 40/60 with 40 being socialist. There has to be safety net in a society, and there has to be some kind of government planning so income gap doesn't get out of control. But more importantly, the economy is more efficient if there are less regulation and there is more incentive to be productive if there are less give aways. A government need to meet the minimium reguirement to provide basic safety net and protect the poor, and let free market work out the rest.

Why should the government be protecting the poor? Or anyone? They should be protecting liberty and freedom. You start "protecting" any type of group, especially one that does not produce, they wield their vote to take shit from those who do produce.

If you take some history lesson or read about other countries and civilization in the past, you'd see that countries and civilization fall most often not because lack of freedom and liberty, but too much poverty and income gap.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapperHere's another issue that has come up recently with smoking. To what extent should employers be allowed to dictate what their employees do in their own private lives? Should they be able to demand that their employees stop smoking on their own private property? Should the be able to demand that their employees all convert to Christianity? Should they able to demand that their employees not use birth control in the privacy of their own homes? Etc. What if all of the private property owners and employers demanded that people uphold these rules in order for them to do business with them. No one's rights have been violated here. There hasn't been any initiation of physical force and people have "liberty" and "freedom" de jure (under the law) but they suffer from de facto (in practice, in fact) dictatorship. Would you have any objections to that?

No I wouldn't. Those are all poor business decisions and those companies would disappear quickly.

Why would those companies disappear? What if all of the business owners maintained the same belief in what their employees should do? What if few other employment opportunities were available and there was an electronic blacklist? Also, as BigDH01 said in his example, what if it's a monopolistic seller (or an oligopoly) that requires these things of its customers and as a result of barriers to entry no one can enter the market to compete with it (or them)?

It really doesn't take too much imagination to conceive of ways that true capitalism could result in outright dictatorship and a loss of freedom and liberty.

If a private business owner demanded that his employees convert to XYZ religion, it would get out in the media and no one would do business with them.

If a CEO of a major corporation did the same the board would remove his ass before anything could happen.

The smoking thing nothing would happen (as it is now).

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: rchiu
I think people are making mistake by all these labels like socialist and capitalist. There is no absolute socialist or capitalist, and I don't see how any absolute system can work.

There is only a degree of socialist/capitalist. I'd say I am 40/60 with 40 being socialist. There has to be safety net in a society, and there has to be some kind of government planning so income gap doesn't get out of control. But more importantly, the economy is more efficient if there are less regulation and there is more incentive to be productive if there are less give aways. A government need to meet the minimium reguirement to provide basic safety net and protect the poor, and let free market work out the rest.

Why should the government be protecting the poor? Or anyone? They should be protecting liberty and freedom. You start "protecting" any type of group, especially one that does not produce, they wield their vote to take shit from those who do produce.

If you take some history lesson or read about other countries and civilization in the past, you'd see that countries and civilization fall most often not because lack of freedom and liberty, but too much poverty and income gap.

Examples? You mean like the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Examples? You mean like the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union?

More like 1917 Russia, Cuba, the French Revolution, etc... etc... etc. There's not much question that social inequality leads to instability.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
This book has single handedly managed to change my mind.

Just wait till you get to Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was only a prelude.

randian philosophy is childish in its simplistic view of the world and its mindless naivete, which is why it primarily attracts intellectual simpletons, especially to the degree that people such as yourself take it.

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
This book has single handedly managed to change my mind.

Just wait till you get to Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was only a prelude.

randian philosophy is childish in its simplistic view of the world and its mindless naivete, which is why it primarily attracts intellectual simpletons, especially to the degree that people such as yourself take it.

Socialism and central planning are failed ideas my friend...Economic calculation was proven impossible by the likes of Mises, Hayek, and others from the Austrian school..so capitalism had plenty of economic justification before Rand came around. What she did was provide the other piece of the puzzle, a MORAL justification for free markets and individual liberty, something they were sorely lacking before..and she did it in a way that appealed to the masses which dealt a heavy blow to the big government/collectivist mindset around the world. For that, she will be forever loathed by statist whiners such as yourself, and she deserves a huge round of applause for it in my opinion.

Go Rand Go!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Examples? You mean like the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union?

More like 1917 Russia, Cuba, the French Revolution, etc... etc... etc. There's not much question that social inequality leads to instability.

Yea those were beacons of freedom and liberty.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
This book has single handedly managed to change my mind.

Just wait till you get to Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was only a prelude.

randian philosophy is childish in its simplistic view of the world and its mindless naivete, which is why it primarily attracts intellectual simpletons, especially to the degree that people such as yourself take it.

Socialism and central planning are failed ideas my friend...Economic calculation was proven impossible by the likes of Mises, Hayek, and others from the Austrian school..so capitalism had plenty of economic justification before Rand came around. What she did was provide the other piece of the puzzle, a MORAL justification for free markets and individual liberty, something they were sorely lacking before..and she did it in a way that appealed to the masses which dealt a heavy blow to the big government/collectivist mindset around the world. For that, she will be forever loathed by statist whiners such as yourself, and she deserves a huge round of applause for it in my opinion.

Go Rand Go!

People like him don't care about calculations and efficiencies. They care about economic equity. Not "equality." They think there will be social unrest if the upper class "makes too much money." In the end it's about jealousy, power, and control to "even the playing field."

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
This book has single handedly managed to change my mind.

Just wait till you get to Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was only a prelude.

randian philosophy is childish in its simplistic view of the world and its mindless naivete, which is why it primarily attracts intellectual simpletons, especially to the degree that people such as yourself take it.

Socialism and central planning are failed ideas my friend...Economic calculation was proven impossible by the likes of Mises, Hayek, and others from the Austrian school..so capitalism had plenty of economic justification before Rand came around. What she did was provide the other piece of the puzzle, a MORAL justification for free markets and individual liberty, something they were sorely lacking before..and she did it in a way that appealed to the masses which dealt a heavy blow to the big government/collectivist mindset around the world. For that, she will be forever loathed by statist whiners such as yourself, and she deserves a huge round of applause for it in my opinion.

Go Rand Go!

If socialism is a failed idea you should probably let the world know. Every single prosperous nation on the planet is socialist to a considerable degree.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Originally posted by: Darthvoy
This book has single handedly managed to change my mind.

Just wait till you get to Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was only a prelude.

randian philosophy is childish in its simplistic view of the world and its mindless naivete, which is why it primarily attracts intellectual simpletons, especially to the degree that people such as yourself take it.

Socialism and central planning are failed ideas my friend...Economic calculation was proven impossible by the likes of Mises, Hayek, and others from the Austrian school..so capitalism had plenty of economic justification before Rand came around. What she did was provide the other piece of the puzzle, a MORAL justification for free markets and individual liberty, something they were sorely lacking before..and she did it in a way that appealed to the masses which dealt a heavy blow to the big government/collectivist mindset around the world. For that, she will be forever loathed by statist whiners such as yourself, and she deserves a huge round of applause for it in my opinion.

Go Rand Go!

If socialism is a failed idea you should probably let the world know. Every single prosperous nation on the planet is socialist to a considerable degree.

Those "prosperous" nations you speak of are failures and they only stand because they exploit capitalism to achieve their socialist ideals.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Socialism and central planning are failed ideas my friend...Economic calculation was proven impossible by the likes of Mises, Hayek, and others from the Austrian school..so capitalism had plenty of economic justification before Rand came around. What she did was provide the other piece of the puzzle, a MORAL justification for free markets and individual liberty, something they were sorely lacking before..and she did it in a way that appealed to the masses which dealt a heavy blow to the big government/collectivist mindset around the world. For that, she will be forever loathed by statist whiners such as yourself, and she deserves a huge round of applause for it in my opinion.

Go Rand Go!

If socialism is a failed idea you should probably let the world know. Every single prosperous nation on the planet is socialist to a considerable degree.

Those "prosperous" nations you speak of are failures and they only stand because they exploit capitalism to achieve their socialist ideals.

/facepalm

If those nations are failures then the world has never seen a success. If you really believe what you wrote, you need to go read a book.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: totalnoob

Socialism and central planning are failed ideas my friend...Economic calculation was proven impossible by the likes of Mises, Hayek, and others from the Austrian school..so capitalism had plenty of economic justification before Rand came around. What she did was provide the other piece of the puzzle, a MORAL justification for free markets and individual liberty, something they were sorely lacking before..and she did it in a way that appealed to the masses which dealt a heavy blow to the big government/collectivist mindset around the world. For that, she will be forever loathed by statist whiners such as yourself, and she deserves a huge round of applause for it in my opinion.

Go Rand Go!

If socialism is a failed idea you should probably let the world know. Every single prosperous nation on the planet is socialist to a considerable degree.

Those "prosperous" nations you speak of are failures and they only stand because they exploit capitalism to achieve their socialist ideals.

/facepalm

If those nations are failures then the world has never seen a success. If you really believe what you wrote, you need to go read a book.

Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

And relative to anything else the world has ever seen, these nations are a success. Maybe they aren't a success as compared to your magical robo-future, but that's because your world doesn't exist.

As for the means by which people control their fellow man, I'm not really interested in getting into that argument with you. You've offered up a whole bunch of incredibly broad, far reaching statements about the nature of human societies that are all based on very little, and presented them as facts. Hopefully you can see why I wouldn't want to discuss this with you.

 

[Atheus]

Moderately socialist certainly. Very much so in US terms. I believe, for example, that no child should ever go without food, shelter, or medical treatment due to the prosperity or otherwise of it's parents.

Originally posted by: JS80
Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

Erm, sorry, maybe I missed something... a benevolent dictatorship which results in zero poverty... how is that not socialism? Actually, scratch that, it's extremist communism! And then in the next sentance you present that dictatorship as opposed to a system which controls people?

What the fuck are you talking about???

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atheus
Moderately socialist certainly. Very much so in US terms. I believe, for example, that no child should ever go without food, shelter, or medical treatment due to the prosperity or otherwise of it's parents.

Originally posted by: JS80
Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

Erm, sorry, maybe I missed something... a benevolent dictatorship which results in zero poverty... how is that not socialism? Actually, scratch that, it's extremist communism! And then in the next sentance you present that dictatorship as opposed to a system which controls people?

What the fuck are you talking about???

Benevolent capitalist dictatorship. I.e. voters can't vote to steal from each other. That is a perfect world. But that is a utopia, and impossible to achieve. But we can strive to emulate such a society.

 

[Bitek]

@WS:

I think you and I are largely in agreement. I know who Rand is, and while not the student of hers that you were, my use of Bush (another Randian, mostly) was more literary than technical.

I am not so sure on the final point you made. I do believe there is fierce competition for resource, like any other biological system, but I do believe in humanity's capacity for great evil given the right motivator. Money can be a powerfully corrupting force as any. Even good people can do bad things in the right (wrong lol) environment.


RE: Randians

The hinge of your debate has been on the idea of a total centralized CIC gov't run economy=socialism, and a naive belief infallibility of gov't workers. Only in the extremist sense, and one no one is advocating. Fairly useless argument.

Also, it also pins on the assumption of the moral righteousness of the wealthy, and the immorality of the poor. The justification keeps being made in a circular logic.

Bad companies who make bad decisions do not necc fail. Likewise, prosperous companies do not even have to be all that efficient or competent. Like in evolution, and surviving company does not have to be optimal, just good enough for the certain environment.

There are many examples of suboptimal or immoral companies surviving just fine. They are not punished by destruction to which the Randian philo rests on.
Is MSFT really the best software company in the world? Is windows the best that can be done? Or are they just good enough to work, and wealthy and well entrenched enough to defend their territory, if even by monopolistic and anti-competitive practice?

Monsanto poisoned a whole town and gave 1000's cancer, yet they survive and prosper. Monopolies, price-fixing, collusion, bribery, recklessness, corruption... all of these things happen often enough, and rarely are the companies destroyed. They may get sued, and sometimes lose, but usually the company survives, pays a fine, maybe some firings, but then business goes on. The damage is still done however, and sometimes well after destructive punishments would even be effective at mitigating such behavior. Hence the necessity of gov't powers (in the absence of anyone else who can do it) to curtail these behaviors before they are highly damaging to the greater whole.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JS80

Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

And relative to anything else the world has ever seen, these nations are a success. Maybe they aren't a success as compared to your magical robo-future, but that's because your world doesn't exist.

As for the means by which people control their fellow man, I'm not really interested in getting into that argument with you. You've offered up a whole bunch of incredibly broad, far reaching statements about the nature of human societies that are all based on very little, and presented them as facts. Hopefully you can see why I wouldn't want to discuss this with you.

lol

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Atheus
Moderately socialist certainly. Very much so in US terms. I believe, for example, that no child should ever go without food, shelter, or medical treatment due to the prosperity or otherwise of it's parents.

Originally posted by: JS80
Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

Erm, sorry, maybe I missed something... a benevolent dictatorship which results in zero poverty... how is that not socialism? Actually, scratch that, it's extremist communism! And then in the next sentance you present that dictatorship as opposed to a system which controls people?

What the fuck are you talking about???

Benevolent capitalist dictatorship. I.e. voters can't vote to steal from each other. That is a perfect world. But that is a utopia, and impossible to achieve. But we can strive to emulate such a society.

Voters in a dictatorship?

Anyway how would that ever result in zero poverty? With absolute pure capitalism poor people just keep getting poorer with each generation, and disabled people will be poor regardless of background. Would you simply kill them all?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Bitek
@WS:

I think you and I are largely in agreement. I know who Rand is, and while not the student of hers that you were, my use of Bush (another Randian, mostly) was more literary than technical.

I am not so sure on the final point you made. I do believe there is fierce competition for resource, like any other biological system, but I do believe in humanity's capacity for great evil given the right motivator. Money can be a powerfully corrupting force as any. Even good people can do bad things in the right (wrong lol) environment.


RE: Randians

The hinge of your debate has been on the idea of a total centralized CIC gov't run economy=socialism, and the infallibility of gov't workers. Only in the extremist sense, and one no one is advocating. Fairly useless argument.

Also, it also pins on the assumption of the moral righteousness of the wealthy, and the immorality of the poor. The justification keeps being made in a circular logic.

Bad companies who make bad decisions do not necc fail. Likewise, prosperous companies do not even have to be all that efficient or competent. Like in evolution, and survivin company does not have to be optimal, just good enough for the certain environment.

There are many examples of suboptimal or immoral companies surviving just fine. They are not punished by destruction to which the Randian philo rests on.
Is MSFT really the best software company in the world? Is windows the best that can be done? Or are they just good enough to work, and wealthy and well entrenched enough to defend their territory, if even by monopolistic and anti-competitive practice?

Monsanto poisoned a whole town and gave 1000's cancer, yet they survive and prosper. Monopolies, price-fixing, collusion, bribery, recklessness, corruption... all of these things happen often enough, and rarely are the companies destroyed. They may get sued, and sometimes lose, but usually the company survives, pays a fine, maybe some firings, but then business goes on. The damage is still done however, and sometimes well after destructive punishments would even be effective at mitigating such behavior. Hence the necessity of gov't powers (in the absence of anyone else who can do it) to curtail these behaviors before they are highly damaging to the greater whole.

Socialists are the ones that are pushing their version of morality. In today's economy, by definition and action the poor as a whole are absolutely immoral. They choose to be in the position and use their vote to instill politicians that take from producers and give to them. How is that not stealing?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JS80
Socialists are the ones that are pushing their version of morality. In today's economy, by definition and action the poor as a whole are absolutely immoral. They choose to be in the position and use their vote to instill politicians that take from producers and give to them.

How has a child born into a poor family chosen to be in that position?

How is that not stealing?

I'm sure the dictionary will clear that one up for you.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Atheus
Moderately socialist certainly. Very much so in US terms. I believe, for example, that no child should ever go without food, shelter, or medical treatment due to the prosperity or otherwise of it's parents.

Originally posted by: JS80
Success is relative. If the world had zero socialism and had a pure benevolent dictatorship or some perfect constitution there would be zero poverty in the world. We'd all probably be served by robots and half of us would be playing online poker all day and would be world peace.

But we don't live in that utopia. We live in a world where people wield their power to control their minions through promises of socialism. And people like you certainly help sustain them.

Erm, sorry, maybe I missed something... a benevolent dictatorship which results in zero poverty... how is that not socialism? Actually, scratch that, it's extremist communism! And then in the next sentance you present that dictatorship as opposed to a system which controls people?

What the fuck are you talking about???

Benevolent capitalist dictatorship. I.e. voters can't vote to steal from each other. That is a perfect world. But that is a utopia, and impossible to achieve. But we can strive to emulate such a society.

Voters in a dictatorship?

Anyway how would that ever result in zero poverty? With absolute pure capitalism poor people just keep getting poorer with each generation, and disabled people will be poor regardless of background. Would you simply kill them all?

Poor people are poor because the government keeps them poor through entitlements and welfare.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
Socialists are the ones that are pushing their version of morality. In today's economy, by definition and action the poor as a whole are absolutely immoral. They choose to be in the position and use their vote to instill politicians that take from producers and give to them.

How has a child born into a poor family chosen to be in that position?

How is that not stealing?

I'm sure the dictionary will clear that one up for you.

I was born into a poor family. I chose not to be poor.