Socialism Works!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

1. even being poor, you can get into a good school. i did. it's called a scholarship, and if you work hard enough, you can get a great education even without a ton of money.

---

This doesn't mean everybody has the same opportunities. If you have enough money either because your family worked really hard or they stole really hard you don't need to work hard at all, for example you get into a good school no matter what.
If you're poor you have to be pretty smart to get ahead, if you're rich you don't.
Equal opportunity is a fiction anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

2. it's theft because people that pay more taxes don't get more services from the government. if anything, it's the opposite.

---

This is debatable. Some people get a lot more worth than the taxes they pay and this is true on both ends of the spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Equal opportunity is a fiction anyways.

---

correct. so why not get over it, rejoice that if you're smart you have a chance, and get as far ahead as you can?

if you work hard, you can succeed, bottom line. maybe some people will succeed without deserving it, but that's not your problem or mine. they have to make peace with that on their own. my only responsibility is to work as hard as i can and get as far ahead as i can.

i'm reminded of a parable. one morning a man sees a sign by a field; "$100 for a day's work". so he goes to the farmer by the sign, grabs a tool and gets to work. he works long and hard all day. right before the end of the day, another guy shows up and starts working. half an hour later, it's quitting time.

the farmer hands the first man $100. "as promised, here is your $100." he also hands the second man $100. the first man is upset, "i worked much harder for my $100! that isn't fair!"

the farmer replies, "you willingly worked for the promise of $100 and $100 you got, fair and square. what i pay this other man is none of your concern. you got exactly what you bargained for, so be grateful and do not complain."

thus endeth the lesson. learn from it what you will.

I'm most certainly over the perfect fairness being unattainable thing, I was just pointing out a simple lapse in logic - I thought it is quite relevant.

All we're talking here is different models of society, and I don't understand why so many people can't get over the idea that there is not an ultimate model which is best in all cases.
A lot of things work really well, in different circumstances, none of them is perfect and they all succeed in some aspects and fail in others.

Whether we like it or not fairness is one of the fundamental principles of our moral view as humans. Parables are nice and all, but I like to live with other people, that's why I am concerned with what happens with them as well. It's not only me though - the very fact that people post here means that they care for more than what's in their immediate control,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

correct. so why not get over it, rejoice that if you're smart you have a chance, and get as far ahead as you can?

if you work hard, you can succeed, bottom line. maybe some people will succeed without deserving it, but that's not your problem or mine. they have to make peace with that on their own. my only responsibility is to work as hard as i can and get as far ahead as i can.

i'm reminded of a parable. one morning a man sees a sign by a field; "$100 for a day's work". so he goes to the farmer by the sign, grabs a tool and gets to work. he works long and hard all day. right before the end of the day, another guy shows up and starts working. half an hour later, it's quitting time.

the farmer hands the first man $100. "as promised, here is your $100." he also hands the second man $100. the first man is upset, "i worked much harder for my $100! that isn't fair!"

the farmer replies, "you willingly worked for the promise of $100 and $100 you got, fair and square. what i pay this other man is none of your concern. you got exactly what you bargained for, so be grateful and do not complain."

thus endeth the lesson. learn from it what you will.

---

You do know that that parable is credited to Jesus don't you? (don't really want to say anything one way or the other just pointing it out.) Offcourse he didn't talk about $100 but that IS where the parable came from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

You do know that that parable is credited to Jesus don't you? (don't really want to say anything one way or the other just pointing it out.) Offcourse he didn't talk about $100 but that IS where the parable came from.

---

Actually that particular parable is credited to Jockeys - that heathen. He's no better than a publican or a tax collector I say! A hundred dollars my foot. John the Baptist lived on locusts where is he getting this hundred dollars crap?

Anyway back to what I was going to say, the purpose of government is not to make everything fair, but should be to protect everyone's individual right to be free to make whatever they choose to of their lives

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Anyway back to what I was going to say, the purpose of government is not to make everything fair, but should be to protect everyone's individual right to be free to make whatever they choose to of their lives

---

And that's exactly the main reason to say no to socialism or too strong governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Whether we like it or not fairness is one of the fundamental principles of our moral view as humans.

---

maybe your moral view. it's not a part of mine. "fair" is a vague concept, bordering on undefinable. what seems fair to one man isn't fair at all to another. let's just cut the BS and say "fair = what I like" because most of the time that's all it means anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

You do know that that parable is credited to Jesus don't you? (don't really want to say anything one way or the other just pointing it out.) Offcourse he didn't talk about $100 but that IS where the parable came from.

---

really??? golly gee, i must have missed that during the 4.5 years of theological school... :w 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

maybe your moral view. it's not a part of mine. "fair" is a vague concept, bordering on undefinable. what seems fair to one man isn't fair at all to another. let's just cut the BS and say "fair = what I like" because most of the time that's all it means anyway.

---

I don't make these up, it's anthropological 'fact' which goes across time and space. It isn't culture specific and it's as vagueness stems from being abstract.
I wouldn't dismiss it the way you do, but it's really your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't make these up, it's anthropological 'fact' which goes across time and space.

---

[citation needed]

If I might make a recommendation for a good book at this point (as I sense that this thread is near death), it's a great book about the intellectual origins of the U.S. Constitution. Covers a great deal of historical thought and philosophy that influenced the framers.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, by Forrest McDonald (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_McDonald)

Link to the book at Amazon: Amazon.com: Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution: Forrest McDonald: Books

I'm about half way through and will probably need to read it at least one more time (maybe I'm a little thick, I don't know...). If you haven't read it, and are interested the origins of the United States, and the thinking that went on at that time, you may very well enjoy this book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

[citation needed]

---

Well, since this is such a fundamental ingredient, I guess I'll just point you to a whole bunch of them. Google scholar I think is a reasonable indexing of research articles, but you could refer to any other service, I don't think it'll take you too long to be convinced that while there is a lot of research into nuances and differences in the perception of fairness, the category itself is fundamental.

cultural psychology fairness - Google Scholar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, since this is such a fundamental ingredient, I guess I'll just point you to a whole bunch of them. Google scholar I think is a reasonable indexing of research articles, but you could refer to any other service, I don't think it'll take you too long to be convinced that while there is a lot of research into nuances and differences in the perception of fairness, the category itself is fundamental.

cultural psychology fairness - Google Scholar

---

i read the first half dozen papers. interesting stuff. i think we may be saying the same thing, just in different ways. the IDEA of fairness is indeed omnipresent, i agree with that. most of the papers were bent on studying and even quantifying fairness.

i just don't think actual fairness is omnipresent. the papers suggest that people LIKE fairness, which i don't disagree with at all.

i merely thought you were saying actual fairness was constantly OCCURRING which is what i disagreed with. so yes, fairness is a common idea and a well-liked one, i agree. but what i was trying to say is that the world IS unfair, and unfairness, in fact and occurrence, is actually the more common of the two.

thus, my personal philosophy does not take fairness into account, since in practice it is vanishingly rare, and not to be relied upon.

I think we may be butting our heads up against cultural differences here. I do not think the purpose of Government is a generalisable thing. For example, I seem to recall the French had an expression, which ended up in their constitution, which contained the work "Equality" in there somewhere.

In my own case, Australia's Government has some basis in what we rather euphemistically term a "fair go". In fact, I think some may still refer to us as a Socialist Capitalist country, but I am not sure. We certainly were a lot more Socialistic several decades ago.

It seems to me that where you grew up, what you were/are exposed to and so on drive your thoughts on this issue. It makes perfect sense to me that people in the US have a different idea of what socialism is to say those who live in Sweden.

But socialism is just a word, as is capitalism and communism. They each have some form of technical socio-political definition that the academics can argue over. Pragmatically, however, all we will ever know about are their manifestations. So technically, all we are able to say is that this particular attempt didn't do so well, or whatever. From my way of looking at it, there is no empirical evidence one way or the other that any of these ideologies (capitalism included) works. What we see are "Shadowlands" - man's poor attempts to implement these idealistic constructions in a workable form.

So I think that any attempt to correlate what actual countries implement with the socio-political definitions of Socialism, communism, or Captialism is as fraught and pointless as me buying a Pakistani razor, shaving with it, and saying "straight razors are all crap".

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

So I think that any attempt to correlate what actual countries implement with the socio-political definitions of Socialism, communism, or Captialism is as fraught and pointless as me buying a Pakistani razor, shaving with it, and saying "straight razors are all crap".

James.

---

:OT

N=1
σ(sigma) is undefined
The confidence interval explodes to +/- infinity!

OTOH: if we are all regressing toward the mean, we should try and make the mean as desirable as possible! (assuming it doesn't play havoc with R-squared adjusted). :D

-Rob

Complete equality is a utopia that is never going to be realized that is true and social democrats agree with this. But Jockeys said "so why not get over it". Well, the utopia is a dream that can never be accomplished, it is a philosophical goal, but the realistic goal is to implement equality as far at it can be implemented in reality. But saying "so why not get over it" just because that the ultimate goal is a utopia would also be like saying get over trying to fight racism it is just not possible to totally disregard cultural or ethnic differences for example.

Anyway..

I think this discussion has drifted away from the main subject. It has become a war of opinions due to a cultural clash mainly between US. Americans and Europeans, Canadians etc.
The original subject was that socialism does not work and I think we in general have agreed upon that it does work, but then there are different opinions about what is a better form of government than the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rawaz

Complete equality is a utopia that is never going to be realized that is true and social democrats agree with this. But Jockeys said "so why not get over it". Well, the utopia is a dream that can never be accomplished, it is a philosophical goal, but the realistic goal is to implement equality as far at it can be implemented in reality.

---

not everyone thinks complete equality is good, regardless of whether it is achievable or not. i would think a completely equal society is DYStopian, and a nightmare. without inequality there is no motivation to innovate, to achieve, to take pride in one's actions.

humans are social animals, true, but social animals that have a pathological need for difference. i just think equality, true equality, would be utterly disastrous for us as a species. just my 2c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

not everyone thinks complete equality is good, regardless of whether it is achievable or not. i would think a completely equal society is DYStopian, and a nightmare. without inequality there is no motivation to innovate, to achieve, to take pride in one's actions.

humans are social animals, true, but social animals that have a pathological need for difference. i just think equality, true equality, would be utterly disastrous for us as a species. just my 2c.

---

Sure and that's a valid point to have. But for others equality is something to strive for, just like racism is something worth fighting for while others believe that would be a dystopia. (by this I of course don't compare you my friend, it was just an example)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rawaz

The original subject was that socialism does not work and I think we in general have agreed upon that it does work, but then there are different opinions about what is a better form of government than the other.

---

Yes, i agree socialism works, but it works to diminish individual liberty and freedom. Not a desirable system for a country that was founded for the purpose of keeping and protecting those rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

Yes, i agree socialism works, but it works to diminish individual liberty and freedom. Not a desirable system for a country that was founded for the purpose of keeping and protecting those rights.

---

Sums it up quite nicely Scott!

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

really??? golly gee, i must have missed that during the 4.5 years of theological school... :w 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :p

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

http://fishki_net.users.photofile.ru...8/83872899.jpg