Thread: Socialism Works!

Originally Posted by northpaw

So which of these is indicative of socialism?
(rhetorical question)

having a government

having a government that collects 10% of personal income

having a government that collects 40% of personal income

having a government that uses that money to:

build highways
explore outer space
wage war
provide public education
provide public health care
provide living assistance to the most impoverished 10%
provide living assistance to the most impoverished 3%
provide a postal service
offer foreign aid
guarantee savings deposits in banks
maintain national parks
etc.

Sorry for the long post, but I really don't understand how providing extra services suddenly tips some arbitrary scale to the side of socialism. Either you have a government that collects taxes and provides services or you don't. Most of what seems to get people excited is just a difference of degree, not of ideology.

Some of the things you list are enumerated, by the Constitution, to the Federal Government, and some to state, local governments, and the people themselves. Some services in the list are currently provided by the Federal Government, but should be left to private industry.

One huge problem is that the understanding of powers granted to the Federal Government have been muddied up by court rulings (particularly during the 1930's) concerning certain clauses within the Constitution. Particularly the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause.

For a brief history concerning the courts role in adulterating the Constitution read this as a start: Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision*(Review)

But to answer the question, socialism would be suspect in any situation where the government is taking over where states or the people should have control.

For instance, public education is not an enumerated power granted to the Federal Government, and therefore, is a responsibility left to the states or the people (10th Amendment Bill of Rights).

The same with living assistance and healthcare - not the role of the Federal Government per the U.S. Constitution as written by the founders.

Originally Posted by jockeys

really??? golly gee, i must have missed that during the 4.5 years of theological school... just because (I think) the Bible is a work of fiction doesn't mean there aren't good lessons to learn from it. one could say the same about the works of Tolkien as well, but I digress.

Don't be nasty now. I see so many people quoting scripture all the time yet they have no idea that they're doing it. I was just wondering if you knew.

Originally Posted by honedright

Yes, i agree socialism works, but it works to diminish individual liberty and freedom.

Balderdash! You shouldn't swallow that stuff.

Originally Posted by sicboater

OTOH: if we are all regressing toward the mean, we should try and make the mean as desirable as possible!

How cynical! I for one am progressing toward the nice

Originally Posted by honedright

Some of the things you list are enumerated, by the Constitution, to the Federal Government, and some to state, local governments, and the people themselves. Some services in the list are currently provided by the Federal Government, but should be left to private industry.

One huge problem is that the understanding of powers granted to the Federal Government have been muddied up by court rulings (particularly during the 1930's) concerning certain clauses within the Constitution. Particularly the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause.

For a brief history concerning the courts role in adulterating the Constitution read this as a start: Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision*(Review)

But to answer the question, socialism would be suspect in any situation where the government is taking over where states or the people should have control.

For instance, public education is not an enumerated power granted to the Federal Government, and therefore, is a responsibility left to the states or the people (10th Amendment Bill of Rights).

The same with living assistance and healthcare - not the role of the Federal Government per the U.S. Constitution as written by the founders.

So, roughly speaking, it sounds like you would define "not socialism" as those powers that the US Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government, and "approaching socialism" as granting it any additional powers.

Sorry for the oversimplification, but do you see why that might seem a bit arbitrary?

(By the way, I'm not disagreeing about what may or may not be appropriate, wise, etc. - I just have issue with the way the term gets thrown around.)

Originally Posted by northpaw

So, roughly speaking, it sounds like you would define "not socialism" as those powers that the US Constitution explicitly grants to the federal government, and "approaching socialism" as granting it any additional powers.

Sorry for the oversimplification, but do you see why that might seem a bit arbitrary?

(By the way, I'm not disagreeing about what may or may not be appropriate, wise, etc. - I just have issue with the way the term gets thrown around.)

It may be just a matter of degrees on a scale of preserved property rights. Property rights being proportional to absolute freedom. And considering that there must be some price to pay for the common defense necessary to preserve freedom.

At one end of the scale (the extreme right) would be 100% freedom/ property-rights and the existence of anarchy, at the other end of the scale (the extreme left) exists 0% freedom/ property-rights and the existence of tyranny.

The more you expect your government to do for you (government services - increasing on the scale to the left), cradle to grave as it were, the more of your property you must surrender and thus freedom you must give up, and the closer you get to the tyranny side of the scale.

I believe the founders and framers of the United States intended for this country to be somewhat just left of the extreme right (per my imaginary scale). Just enough to keep from anarchy, and far from tyranny.

Currently I believe the U.S. to be much too far to the left, and closer to tyranny, than the founders would have, as a whole, been comfortable with. I believe they had a very low tolerance for such. One half of the Declaration of Independence is a diatribe against the tyranny of King George III.