"socialism does everything to destroy…"

**



"Socialism does everything to destroy jobs through excessive regulation, making people dependent on the system to survive. The goal of socialism is to create a welfare state and a population that is dependent on an all-powerful government.
Socialist policies don't only negatively affect the working poor, but everyone." –Pressed Rat

**

 

**


The problem is what does socialism mean and what level of socialism is being talked about?

As I have mentioned elsewhere there are those that think that any bit of social provision or communal effort within a system makes that whole system ‘Socialist’. That kind of extremism, like all extremes has a logical all of it’s own, and can be disregarded but I think it would be interesting to look at the criticisms raised in Rats statement (although I don’t expect the same courtesy in return -)

**

First up I would have to say that I only think my ideas are based in socialist theory not based on it, I don’t consider myself a socialist in the extreme or strict sense but think that many of my ideas can be traced back to some socialist ideas.

I believe we are a community of individuals not individuals that just happen to be living alongside others.

I believe we have a duty to those in our community that is only just secondary to our own interests.

I believe that the short and long term welfare of the community is paramount.

I believe that the community we live in includes not only our immediate grouping but also the world.

I believe that democracy although not perfect is the best means by which the will of the community can be expressed.

**

socialism does everything to destroy jobs through excessive regulation

Who is to say what regulation is excessive?

For example - If a construction firm says it has to pay out a lot of money on complying with fire and structural regulations are they excessive and allow possibly dangerous building to be built?

Now some people, such as libertarians, argue that this can be dealt with by litigation by suing the builder for injury or by a relative suing the builder (if you are dead) in case of the building burning down or collapsing.

But for what, if there are no safety regulations what do you sue them for, for building a dangerous building? The builder just has to say that the individual had a choice to work in or enter that building.

**

“The goal of socialism is to create a welfare state and a population that is dependent on an all-powerful government.”

What is a welfare system? To me it is about ensuring the health, happiness, good fortune; well-being and even prosperity of the community.

To free marketeers ‘welfare’ is wrong because it disrupts the flow of the market. So if a person receives a benefit that subsidised by the community that they could not have gained as an individual, then that person is getting an ‘unfair’ advantage over someone else could pay for it individually and was not subsidised by the community.

For example if everyone gives into a communal chest for education by are taxed on a sliding rate so that more is taken from the richest than the poorest. Then the fund is split up equally. So that in theory the poorest and richest get the same level of education. To some libertarian thinkers this is unfair because the poorer is getting something for nothing and the richer is paying for something for which they receive no benefit which they might have spent on something else that might possibly have helped the communities economy.

In reality the equality of education is never quiet achieved poor children usually come from poorly educated families without the time or resources to give their children the educationally stimulating childhood that the richer parents can achieve.

But to me the free market ideas is silly for one a better-educated citizenry is beneficial to the whole community in ways that can not just be expressed in monetary terms, in that they are likely to be happier. But let us think in monetary terms, the better educated are likely to be healthier which means they are less likely to be a drain on the communities resources and they are likely to have greater fortune, and therefore more likely to contribute to the communities prosperity.

It is for this reason that many on the left including socialists strongly believe in universal education paid for by taxation. Many like me believe in a level of redistribution from the richer to the poorer so that it can be channelled into such programmes that help the community as a whole.

**

socialist policies don't only negatively affect the working poor, but everyone

This goes back to the idea that if only rich people, companies and corporations were just freed from having to pay for all that ‘socialist’ healthcare, education and benefit system, and if only all that ‘socialist’ red tape was cut, like all those rules about health and safely and the environmental regulations were removed they would be able to make so much more money. This would mean that they then could increase workers wages and take on new staff, build schools and hospitals and voluntarily improve workers safety.

Personally I think that thinking is hogwash. It is like the US firms that talk big about being American and seem always to be waving the stars and strips and talking about boasting the US economy, while moving jobs away from American worker so they can exploit workers in other countries. These same US firm then turn around and tell the workers in these sweatshops that they are really on their side and are trying to boast their countries economies.

Basically what is important to them is the profit not the truth and so I am wary of there claims for giving up hard fought for benefits so easily.

**

Ok these are just a few quickly typed musings and I’m sure that there will be time for more later.


**

 

I fully agree with Pressed Rat.

Socialism is not only immoral, it's evil.

 

How does creating and enforcing building codes equate to "excessive regulation"? How about a more realistic example, such as re-routing a highway through private property (eminent domain) to avoid disrupting a bog-turtle habitat? How about minority-contractor hiring preferences (institutional racism)? Racial quotas ("affirmative action") Preferential bidding to union shops? I just cannot see how building codes are similar to these (socialist) policies? Not even in the same realm.

As to education. How does providing free education to high school level equate to socialism? I do not think that, in the US, there should be a FEDERAL department of education, but the provision of education to the secondary level is not socialism. What about Social Security (forced tax to pay for retirement money that you are, by law, NOT entitled to, and that people my age will not have), AFDC, Medicare, -Aid, food stamps, etc., etc.? These programs are all proven not to work in the long term and are direclty based upon "socialistic principles". "Social welfare" has served to keep generation after generation of the poor in poverty.

Socialism robs the individual of self-determination and control over their destiny. Why work hard? Why distinguish yourself? I am not my brother's keeper. I do not need anyone to interfere in my affairs, nor would I presume to do so to another. Many prople have come from poverty, including myself, and attain a good life under capitalism. There is no reason that anyone, if they have the desire, cannot also do the same.
Or we can live under socialism where we ALL get substandard health care, where we ALL live in crappy apartments, where we ALL drive crappy cars, where we ALL work menial jobs. Why do thousands of Canadians come to the US for healthcare? Because their socialized system is so good, and working properly? Why have socialist countries done little to nothing to advance scientific knowledge? Why can't they even manufacture an automobile that won't break down? Because socialism encourages, and thrives upon, mediocrity. It is the same problem endemic to government workers. The best and brightest don't go into it, because they can do much better in the "real world". As long as there are legitimate capitalist countries, the result will always be the same. The best and brightest will flee their socialist hell-holes, and go to the "real world", where they can maximize their talents.

That's OK though, your little preamble explained everything to me. I understand your beliefs, and do not happen to agree with any of them.

 

Rob

I would take your comments more seriously if you where in anyway willing to back up your arguments when they are challenged. As it is I still await with expectation your return to the thread – Brands of Socialism – although I will not be holding my breath.

OK Rob here is the deal I’ll enter into a debate with you on one piece of you post, the first paragraph, I’ll read and discuss the rest only after we have talked about that. I’m not saying I will not discuss the rest only that I’m not wasting time writing something (like I have before) only to have them ignored.

Lets see if you’re actually willing to debate first.

**

How does creating and enforcing building codes equate to "excessive regulation"?

This is the thing about regulations what is ‘excessive’? One person’s excessive regulation is another’s health and safety regulations.

“How about a more realistic example, such as re-routing a highway through private property (eminent domain) to avoid disrupting a bog-turtle habitat?”

Who is building this highway? What is it meant to do?

Also think about what you are saying in context. Rat is claiming that ‘excessive regulation’ destroys jobs, but in your example if you are saying that the highway is going the longer way round it would mean the construction firm hiring more people or hiring them for longer, it is keeping jobs not destroying them.

Rob you really need to think before you post.

**

How about minority-contractor hiring preferences (institutional racism)? Racial quotas ("affirmative action")

These are not ‘socialist’ policies, they may be policies supported by some on the left wing of US politics but not all.
They are US policies meant to deal with a US problem. Many socialists I’ve talked to think this kind of policy is diversory.

**

Preferential bidding to union shops?

You will have to explain

 

Slut

Socialism is in and of itself not immoral. Honestly I think it would be the best form of government (economy)....if it could exist without government coercion. But since it can't, I would agree that it is a form of government that is highly destructive of personal liberties, and causes a general drain on the economy and production.


But if a government of whatever type cannot in some way coerce, how can it govern?

For example if someone is going around killing people you could ask them to stop or you could force them to stop? You could ask them not to do it again or you could lock them up.

Laws and regulations are the means by which our society holds together.

Maybe one day people will not need coercion but until then if you have a government it will be based on some means of coercion.

So sorry but your argument makes little sense.


**

 

Regulation? Regulation of the market would be a non-issue, as the market would no longer exist in a socialist society.

In a socialist society, production would be aimed at need, not profit.




Socialism has nothing to do with an all-powerful government, as the basis of socialism is that the workers are in control of society, and production is aimed at the needs of the working class.


Social security and regulation does not neccesarily equate socialism.

 

o yeah get these welfare mother's outta my hair...regulation...eeewww...no need for that...lets the poor starve, ayn rand style... what we need is some wholesome fuedalism...


if socialism is so flawwed why is the richest nation in teh world, Luxembourg, a socialist constitutional monarchy. Why is the country with the highest stardard of living (Norway and Finland(each year it alternates)both are socialist however) socialist, why is the country with teh smallest rich poor gap, socialist, why do countries udner the socialist parties control have longer life expectency, less crime, and higher net mirgation rates than most of those that dont
(recently (i beileve last week)cuba's life expectancy passed USA's, Cuba prolly one of the worst examples of socialism)...socialism works.capitalism breeds inequity

 

and despite its flaws, it got USSR to super power status(not to mention the fasting industrialization in history), look at russia before communism and now after...id say that was a golden age (mid khrushchev)

 

Oh god... *shudder*
see, this is why i could NEVER be libertarian. because i actually have COMPASSION for people who are living at or below the poverty line. because i DO NOT support a flat tax that would be oh-so-convenient for affluent citizens, and would destruct the communities who are already struggling.

Has this guy EVER done any social work? especially in inner-cities? i have. its a sad sight to see.

socialism is NOT the problem.

 

well put

 

Libertarians support FREEDOM AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. "Compassion" isn't really compassion if it is FORCED by an institution (i.e. Government).

Had you rather have a government body that decides what is best for you, your children, your money, your sexual choices, etc.?

The rich would still pay more with a flat tax (not that I agree with that). So what are you saying, people should be PUNISHED for economic success?

Do you have a RIGHT to my stuff that I have used my talents, energy and time to obtain just because you don't have it?

No system should be based on COERCION and ENVY!

The government should not take from you and give to another, that should be done by MUTUAL CONSENT only. Freedom means free trade as well.

When monopolies become COERCIVE is when the governing body should step up. Stopping initial coercion in ALL forms is the ONLY job of the STATE.

 

*/end political forum fast*
yes, yes... i like this thread... so many times people will talk about how socialism exists to create a welfare state and an all powerful consuming government, yet these people fail to look around the world at all the socialist nations who do not have that powerful of governments, huge welfare states, or oppressive police forces ((in fact the truth is the opposite, their military force is minimal to none))... When they think socialism , they think China, the USSR, cuba, countries like that... but socialism expands further than those psuedo-socialist police states... canada, norway, finland, germany... all more socialist nations doing better than any other country in terms of living conditions. People use the fact that world leaders used the socialist philosophy to gain power, and than abuse that power, as a way to discredit socialism all together... but like christians tell me all the time... just because someone SAYS they are christian doesnt mean they are... and that because of those christians who spoil it for the rest of the good-natured christians, doesnt mean that the few who did NOT represent chrsitianity, should be used to condemn it... same goes for socialism... why would someone use a group of leaders who did NOT represent socialism (yet spoke of it to gain power and wealth) as a way to discredit it...? Because they are fishing for excuses... Its foolishness... these people weren't socialists at all (stalin, mao, etc)... In all the books of socialist philosophy, you will not find ONE book that promotes 1. a welfare state 2. an all powerful oppressive police state 3. totalitarianism... the socialist nations i mentioned earlier do not represent these things that others claim of socialism.

So what is socialism...?
Socialism is the transitional stage between Government and no government(communism), and communal sharing. It is written, that once the tracks have been leid by the government, that the leaders should give up their power, and surrender it to every man living in their country. No self-proclaimed "communist" nation has gaven up their power, which is one reason out of many as to why these nations do not represent socialism, nor communism, nor marx. Totalitarianism and Socialism do not mix. People often use the political ideology of these nations as an excuse to bash the economic philosophies of socialism... totalitarianism, dictatorships... these arent a reflection of the socialist philosophy at all... anyone who has picked up a book about socialism knows this.

That is an argument against totalitarianism, not socialism.
Show me 1 socialist who supports totalitarianism.

It is simply obviously better to concentrate the wealth and spread it relatively evenly than to have most of the countries wealth in the hands of a few people, while the rest are forced to starve and slave for the ruling class. Spreading it evenly allows for greater economic growth as the poor will have more resources to create products, and to strive for what they want in life... for instance, become a painter, programmer, doctor... its much easier to acheive these things when having the basic necessities of life, than when it is not... simple concept, really.

Do you have a right to keep the masses poor and without the necessities of life... There are workers who work their asses off every day, using their talents energy and time and they do not get nearly the wealth as others get... Rich people arent rich because they are somewhat more intelligent, they were just at the right place at the right time... the truth is a lot of people work their asses off and in return get next to nothing... socialism isnt about handouts or a welfare state its about giving people what they NEED... and if giving someone food, clothes, shelter is "Evil"(as pika said) than you are a fool.

As i've said earlier... libertarianism is slavery... if we do not regulate businesses they are destined to control the government in itself... which is what is happening in america... on a smaller scale than which would happen in a libertarian society. The gap between the rich and poor would be much larger than it is right now in a libertarian society, and the majority of workers would be forced to slave over 40+ hour work weeks while the ruling classes hardly work, and simply act as businessesmen controlling their corporations.. and reaping profits off of them. Libertarians claim to be against the government, but by being such corporate whores they open up the pathway for corporations to control the government and do as they wish... libertarianism depends on the good will of corporations... which is nonexistant... without that, it is basically sending the working class into a new form of slavery. They use the political ideology originally developed by socialists (annexation, getting rid of drug laws, equality, legalizing prostitution and etc) as a way to draw people into the libertarian philosophy.. they think, "well i want drugs to be legal so I guess im a libertarian" people attach the political ideology along with the absurd economic philosophy (which is a utopian ideal, btw) as a way to get people to join them... truth is there is a lot of different ideologies which politically stand on the same level... socialism, libertarianism, both stand on the same level as far as political freedoms go and getting rid of illogical laws...

 

Answer me one question:

FREEDOM or EQUALITY? Which one do you is more important to you?

REGULATIONS are a sham. Do you know why you pay $30,000 for a vehicle?? It's not the company. It's the government taxing and regulations costing the company. A new car should really cost you 50% less, but why doesn't it? Because the government takes half of that cost YOU pay in regulation and taxation. THEY KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

 

Look Robin Hood, you nor the government has a right to steal.

Do I have a RIGHT to keep the masses poor? Tell me how I am doing this. I agree many people work their asses off, but no one has a right to a certain job. Tell me what job do you have a right to?

You have the opportunity to earn a living or not to.

Big Businesses SHOULD be stopped when they become COERCIVE...not before.

 

anarchy is a sham, without govt regulations corporations would outsource all the jobs to haiti, and mexico until there are no more jobs(money) left, exploiting/enslaving the indiginous peoples to maximize profit then turn around and charge whatever they want for the car, if the government cant dictate (at least to some degree price control)...i value equality.
Freedom is just a word, when the people are starving...

 

I choose both, which is Socialism.
To say that a free market = freedom is simply absurd...

I dont own a vehicle. If I did, i'de pay about 1,000-3,000 for it.

You are lumping all forms of regulation into that...that is not what all regulation is... to let these corporations do as they please without ANY regulation means that

* 1. Our environment will be left extremely shitty... corporations will be able to dump their toxic waste anywhere they please, and send radioactive things to any where they please... the delicate balance of the ocean (ph levels, salinity, ammonia levels, etc would all be FUCKED) would be disrupted as corporations would began dumping their shit in it... the worlds drinking water supply would shrink even further than it has already

* 2. Corporations are free to have child workers, work them 20 hours a day, pay them next to nothing, or not pay them at all.

* 3. Corporations are free to start monopolies in certain areas of business as there is nothing to control them

* 4. Corporations are left with the sky as the limit in terms of power and control, the only thing limiting them is $$... once they become so wealthy they will not have a hard time at all controlling the government and using it for its own gain.

Who loses in libertarianism...
1. the working class 2. the environment and animals across the world 3. children

besides, in a socialist society such corporations wouldnt exist for long, neither would the monatary system... and a need for taxation.

 

I am not an anarchist. A minarchist, yes.

Yes, exploitation and enslavement is coercion and businesses who do this should be stopped.

But, you are assuming that people are all evil by nature and need a Nanny State to regulate them in everything financial.

Tell me is your compassion really compassion when a government has to force it? I personally know BIG BUSINESS OWNERS who actually created low income housing in my area (gasp!) without Big Brother. What about that?

You mean people can actually contribute to charity and want to? Yes, they can and do, but not when they are paying 50% tax and regulated out the ass over pretentious bullshit.

 

It's not stealing, any idiot can tell you that... sense when is giving people what they need to live "stealing".

By not regulating corporations the masses are destined to stay poor, hungry, and pissed off.... libertarianism does just this.