SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[ForgedinHell]

I was joking around.

i live an area where rural and suburban texas intersect and combine their worst features

i am so used to hearing the most outrageous things said in all seriousness that sometimes i cannot tell a joke

Besides, don't you think "asshole" is a bit strong, even if I were serious?

if someone genuinely thinks that profiteering even at the expense of human lives is not morally repugnant then asshole applies

so are you a libertarian who are ok with just a tiny bit of socialism

dont worry that is a common view in my neck of the woods - socialized police libraries roads sewers for sure - and even a bit of welfare but not too much with a lifetime limit

and yes when disasters occur people are willing to help

however some people are also willing to profit themselves at the expense of others

and private charity is very uneven in its application

If I write something outrageous, I'm probably joking, unless I am writing about Chaz, in which case, I'm probably serious.

Here is the thing: Take all the ills of human beings, now how does socialism solve those ills? Would a socialist government fairly respond to a disaster? Or, would it likely play political favorites? No system will ever be perfect, because human beings aren't perfect. However, knowing people are not perfect, concentrating power in the state, does not seem like a good idea. Having power diversified, seems less likely to be harmful.

I believe in no socialism. I do believe we need a state, and am not an anarchist. I do not believe that figuring out the perfect role for the state is by any means an easy matter to figure out. However, I do believe that presently in the US, we are losing our freedoms to an ever encroaching state. The claim that democracy justifies an ever encroaching state is one I believe to be false, and dangerous. When is the last time any of your teachers told you there was a difference between democracy and freedom? I am disgusted by the notion that we are even allowed to vote on whether gays can marry. They should have the right to as free people, and the matter should not be up for vote.
Personally, I would never try to profit when disaster strikes, but would try to help anyone I could. Every libertarian I know shares this view. There is nothing in my position that tells people they should not help, quite the contrary. My position is solely that people cannot be forced to help, because people are free.

[Kayla]

Here is the thing: Take all the ills of human beings, now how does socialism solve those ills? Would a socialist government fairly respond to a disaster? Or, would it likely play political favorites?

i am not defending socialism since i am not sure what you even mean by it

no one in their right mind defends soviet/cuban version of socialism

do you consider canada or sweden to be socialist or social democratic

No system will ever be perfect, because human beings aren't perfect.

i am not aware of anyone claiming otherwise

I do believe we need a state,

do you believe the state should be run entirely by private enterprise as the bob ouzo guy goes

I do not believe that figuring out the perfect role for the state is by any means an easy matter to figure out.

did anyone suggest otherwise

However, I do believe that presently in the US, we are losing our freedoms to an ever encroaching state.

we are but what does that have to do with socialism

certainly those in power are not interested in redistributing wealth to the less wealthy

When is the last time any of your teachers told you there was a difference between democracy and freedom?

in may i believe but this was our russian math teacher who freely volunteers often unorthodox political views

social studies and history and whatnot teachers do not get into that

Personally, I would never try to profit when disaster strikes, but would try to help anyone I could. Every libertarian I know shares this view.

this does not correspond to my observations

ayn rand - you know - the founder of libertarianism - was like well you want to help the poor no one will stop you

she certainly came across as not giving a shit about the poor herself

There is nothing in my position that tells people they should not help, quite the contrary. My position is solely that people cannot be forced to help, because people are free.

you cannot force people to physically show up and help yes

but part of the cost of living in a society is that you have to contribute to certain things if you can

if we lived in a society of saints then maybe private charity would be enough

but we do not

[MGL]

I don't think I would call myself a socialist, although you are welcome to call me that if it simplifies the world for you. I don't endorse equal incomes or even equal wealth - just a fairer distribution of the latter and a resonable minimum of the former. I apologise for not being "man enough" to spell out the best way to achieve this except to say that it should be done in regulated free market and that we should at least try. Until you can demonstrate its ultimate futility with some reason or evidence, I would rather we fail trying and learn from our mistakes than simply accept the unfairness of the prevailing state of affairs as irreversible. However, your argument does not seem to be solely based on the impossibility of a fair society, because your justification of property rights seems to suggest the fairest society is a wholly unregulated free market where the state only steals property from people so that the rest of their property can be protected by force. This enforcement of property rights is justifed by extending the principle of self-defence, while the principle of earning the product of your volutary labour justifies the entitlement to property in the first place. This principle is also somehow extended to justify the finders keepers rule for unproduced property ( eg land ) which presumably trumps any other rule mere humans might come up with, even if the latter rule is intrinsically fairer. When I have pointed out the self defeating conclusions you own definition leads to and the relative moral bankruptcy of your principle of finders keepers you merely claim astonisment and simply offer unargued contradictions and insults. When I have offered examples of how common ownership would work by using free market examples and have told you that I consider the free market the best way of determining prices and wages you seem confused and ask me the same question as if my answer had been something completely different. If you are so clever, and I am so stupid, I would at least expect a point by point rebuttal to my specific points so that I may understand you better rather than some generalised rant that just repeats the same unjustifed claims you have already made. Your argument seems so self-serving that I am surprised you don't just admit that you refuse to be constrained by an sense of social justice at all except where it is in your personal interest to do so.

[Arising_uk]

Socialism is what you get when laissez faire capitalism has had its course.

[ForgedinHell]

Socialism is what you get when laissez faire capitalism has had its course.

Socialism is what you get when people are too stupid to stand up for their freedoms and allow a bunch of elitist trash to run everyone's life.

[Arising_uk]

Socialism is what you get when people are too stupid to stand up for their freedoms and allow a bunch of elitist trash to run everyone's life.

You mean like Lehman Brothers and the rest of the finance capitalists?

My point was that Socialism was and is defined against the obvious failures of a purely laissez faire capitalist system. Its why such a system does not exist in any but lawless nations.

[Kayla]

Prove that it is "luck which the free market mostly rewards."

you ask for proof a lot but never specify what you would consider a standard for this proof

so a simple question

what would have to be the case for you to be wrong

if you cannot answer this question you are speaking gibberish

[ForgedinHell]

Prove that it is "luck which the free market mostly rewards."

you ask for proof a lot but never specify what you would consider a standard for this proof

so a simple question

what would have to be the case for you to be wrong

if you cannot answer this question you are speaking gibberish

The other person made a claim, so asking the person for proof is fair game. How is that "gibberish"? I'm getting the impression that since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum that actual empirical evidence is irrelevant around here. He would have to show that pure chance and pure chance alone dictates monetary success. So, for example, if a person studies hard, goes to med school, earns $300,000.00 per year, he would need to explain how that was a result of luck, and not hard work. I don't think he can do it.

Now, perhaps I can enlighten him by pointing out an argument he could have made, using empirical evidence, from a field of science known as applied mathematics. I'm actually surprised none of the socialists ever mentioned it. Socialists must not be very bright. In any event, look at what happens to those people in certain fields. Like stock investors, for example. Their success, and these people can make a fortune, is based primarily on pure chance. This is also true of many CEOs, and movie stars, film-studio heads, etc. Same with football coaches. Ever notice a losing coach will get replaced with a "better" coach, who ends up next season with the same losing record?

Now, how does this happen? In those fields with a lot of variables, many beyond the person's control, hard work, knowledge,etc., is not going to be correlated with actual achievement. However, in evaluating these people, one looks at the results, and as a result, there are in fact a great number of people who will make millions this year, and it can be mathematically proven that they didn't deserve it.

Now, since I was not afraid of this answer, since I know better criticisms of capitalism than the socialists who come here, does anything I wrote, in any way, promote socialism over capitalism? The answer is no.

I was, however, curious if the user could utilize actual evidence in his/her arguments. Arguments without evidence are a waste of time.

[ForgedinHell]

Socialism is what you get when people are too stupid to stand up for their freedoms and allow a bunch of elitist trash to run everyone's life.

You mean like Lehman Brothers and the rest of the finance capitalists?

My point was that Socialism was and is defined against the obvious failures of a purely laissez faire capitalist system. Its why such a system does not exist in any but lawless nations.

First, under capitalism, no bailouts would have occurred. Second, the recent financial collapse has nothing to do with a free-market failure, and everything to do with the failure of government socialist policies. The recent subrpime mortgage crisis? You think that was the result of free-market capitalism? Do you really think banks would loan money to people who could not repay the loans on any significant level? The only way that happens is when the government interfers with the free-market. That's exactly what happened. The vast majority of those subprime loans that resulted in the crash were issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginny Mae. Those organizations are not private corporations. They get their marching orders from the government, which based on a flawed fed study that mistakenly stated racism was running rampant in the home-loan industry, the government encouraged these entities to issue mortgages with out worrying about whether they would be paid back. They issued 95% of the loans. These entities had nothing to lose. They made the loans politicians told them to, they received favors in return, and if they ever had any losses, no big deal, because the taxpayers pick up the losses. Socialism does not work.

[MGL]

Prove that it is "luck which the free market mostly rewards."

you ask for proof a lot but never specify what you would consider a standard for this proof

so a simple question

what would have to be the case for you to be wrong

if you cannot answer this question you are speaking gibberish

The other person made a claim, so asking the person for proof is fair game. How is that "gibberish"? I'm getting the impression that since this is a philosophy forum and not a science forum that actual empirical evidence is irrelevant around here. He would have to show that pure chance and pure chance alone dictates monetary success. So, for example, if a person studies hard, goes to med school, earns $300,000.00 per year, he would need to explain how that was a result of luck, and not hard work. I don't think he can do it.

Now, perhaps I can enlighten him by pointing out an argument he could have made, using empirical evidence, from a field of science known as applied mathematics. I'm actually surprised none of the socialists ever mentioned it. Socialists must not be very bright. In any event, look at what happens to those people in certain fields. Like stock investors, for example. Their success, and these people can make a fortune, is based primarily on pure chance. This is also true of many CEOs, and movie stars, film-studio heads, etc. Same with football coaches. Ever notice a losing coach will get replaced with a "better" coach, who ends up next season with the same losing record?

Now, how does this happen? In those fields with a lot of variables, many beyond the person's control, hard work, knowledge,etc., is not going to be correlated with actual achievement. However, in evaluating these people, one looks at the results, and as a result, there are in fact a great number of people who will make millions this year, and it can be mathematically proven that they didn't deserve it.

Now, since I was not afraid of this answer, since I know better criticisms of capitalism than the socialists who come here, does anything I wrote, in any way, promote socialism over capitalism? The answer is no.

I was, however, curious if the user could utilize actual evidence in his/her arguments. Arguments without evidence are a waste of time.

Why does a socialist have to show that pure chance and pure chance ALONE dictates monetary success? Where does this claim come from? All a socialist has to show is that there is a significant element of chance involved in the process of making money.

What about the luck of being given the opportunity of an education? What about the luck of being born to rich parents who can finance the education? What about the luck of being born to educated parents who belong to an educated class who realise the value of an education and cultivate these valuse into their offspring so that they are more likely be induced to pursue an education. I am sure there are admirable stories of underprivileged people who have managed to give themselves an eduation, work hard and make it to the top. But these stories are not the norm of the hightly educated who mostly come from more privileged backgrounds. How on earth is this NOT luck?

What about the luck of having an attractive face, a good voice,good health?

Are these not significant factors in the success of actors, singers, sports stars?

[MGL]

Socialism is what you get when people are too stupid to stand up for their freedoms and allow a bunch of elitist trash to run everyone's life.

You mean like Lehman Brothers and the rest of the finance capitalists?

My point was that Socialism was and is defined against the obvious failures of a purely laissez faire capitalist system. Its why such a system does not exist in any but lawless nations.

First, under capitalism, no bailouts would have occurred. Second, the recent financial collapse has nothing to do with a free-market failure, and everything to do with the failure of government socialist policies. The recent subrpime mortgage crisis? You think that was the result of free-market capitalism? Do you really think banks would loan money to people who could not repay the loans on any significant level? The only way that happens is when the government interfers with the free-market. That's exactly what happened. The vast majority of those subprime loans that resulted in the crash were issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginny Mae. Those organizations are not private corporations. They get their marching orders from the government, which based on a flawed fed study that mistakenly stated racism was running rampant in the home-loan industry, the government encouraged these entities to issue mortgages with out worrying about whether they would be paid back. They issued 95% of the loans. These entities had nothing to lose. They made the loans politicians told them to, they received favors in return, and if they ever had any losses, no big deal, because the taxpayers pick up the losses. Socialism does not work.

What about the securitisations of these sub prime mortgages by the deregualted financial institutions that obscured their risk to investors?

If a particular policy to achieve a goal fails, why should that make the goal itself wrong?

[ForgedinHell]

[quote="MGL
Why does a socialist have to show that pure chance and pure chance ALONE dictates monetary success? Where does this claim come from? All a socialist has to show is that there is a significant element of chance involved in the process of making money.

What about the luck of being given the opportunity of an education? What about the luck of being born to rich parents who can finance the education? What about the luck of being born to educated parents who belong to an educated class who realise the value of an education and cultivate these valuse into their offspring so that they are more likely be induced to pursue an education. I am sure there are admirable stories of underprivileged people who have managed to give themselves an eduation, work hard and make it to the top. But these stories are not the norm of the hightly educated who mostly come from more privileged backgrounds. How on earth is this NOT luck?

What about the luck of having an attractive face, a good voice,good health?

Are these not significant factors in the success of actors, singers, sports stars?

I never made such a claim, but was merely responding to two users who claimed that capitalism is just about luck, which is not true, although luck is certainly in existence. What I have stated is that socialists have to justify their use of force and turning people into slaves to promote their utopian ideas. That is something that no socialist has ever been able to justify, and never will.

You mention some examples involving the issue of "equality of opportunity," but no such equality can ever exist, and the end results of trying to establish such leads to ruthless conduct by socialists. Take for example the child born to parents wealthy enough to educate her. First, if they justly earned their money, then no socialist has a right to take it from them, or demand that they not spend it on educating their daughter. Second, by using force to require people to pay for the education of others, you would be using unjustified force, and what you would be doing is nothing less than stealing. People have the right to exist without having to support others they don't want to. Third, we see the result of state educational systems where entire generations may be brain washed into accepting the ideals of a political elite.

As far as the "luck" of being born pretty, are you socialists suggesting that we scar and disfigure attractive people, so they can be equal to the ugly ones? We don't want to be unfair now, do we? What you refer to as luck, is simply reality. A child may be born to poor parents, but what if he is smarter, a better athlete, and better looking than a rich kid? If the only factor you are going to look at is wealth, then all those other factors just get amplified, don't they? At the end of the day, trying to create equal opportunity always involves forecful acts of repression.
[/quote]

[Kayla]

forged

would it be too much too ask if you try to be a bit more specific than label anyone who diagrees with you as a 'socialist'

as i pointed out already the label can apply to the mainstream ideology of north korea as much as it can apply to mainstream social democratic ideologies of canada or finland

you further abuse the word when you lump the very pro business republicans in with socialists

question

what would have to be demonstrated as true for you to accept that socialism is a good thing

[ForgedinHell]

forged

would it be too much too ask if you try to be a bit more specific than label anyone who diagrees with you as a 'socialist'

as i pointed out already the label can apply to the mainstream ideology of north korea as much as it can apply to mainstream social democratic ideologies of canada or finland

you further abuse the word when you lump the very pro business republicans in with socialists

question

what would have to be demonstrated as true for you to accept that socialism is a good thing

I have defined the term. It is the use of force, unjustifiably. The justified use of force involves self-defense, or defense of another. If someone wants to rob me, or rape a woman next to me, I am justified in using force to defend myself and the woman. What I am not justified in doing is using force against another because I think it is a good idea to get what I want. So, I can ask someone to donate a $100 for a school, but if the person says, "no," then I am not justified in using force, taking the $100, even if I claim I am using it for some public good. The socialist uses force to take our money, to limit our freedoms, not because there is a need to defend someone from harm, but because the socialist has a utopian vision in mind. Using force to steal $100 from me is every bit as unjustified whether a person uses a knife, or the power of the state, to take it from me. Socialism is the unjustified use of force to establish a utopian vision. That is true of Republicans, Democrats, Social Democrats, nazis, socialists, commies, Islamofascists, etc.

There is freedom on one side, and tyranny on the other. There is only one form of freedom, but there are a variety of tyrannies. That is why my definition of socialism, which is the proper one, is applicable to socialist party members and gay-bashing Republicans alike.

[Kayla]

there is no point to this conversation

you are attacking socialism but using an obvious straw-man

by your definition a street mugger is a socialist

you are more polite than bobevenson but ultimately just as silly