SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[ForgedinHell]

But, Hitler was a socialist, and here is the problem in denying that he was: The danger presents itself of a repeat performance.

Hitler took elements from many ideologies but I would dispute that he was a socialist and he certainly hated communists.

It's a bit rich that anyone that tries to defend any form of welfare programmes is called a socialist by the same conservatives who also claim that Hitler was a socialist even though his welfare programmes primarily consisted of murdering the helpless.

You're entitled to believe that Hitler was a socialist but it'll take a bit more than your word for everyone to believe it.

I understand where you are coming from. You personally are horrified at the thought that something you believe to be good could be used by someone like Hitler to commit so much evil. I'm not saying that this is automatically the case. I believe that democracy is socialism, and that there can be a rule of law that protects the minority from abuse. However, this only happens when the vast majority of the population accept such rights regarding human dignity as a given. That is and always has been our protection: an enlightened population. In Hitler's Germany, there was virtually no respect for civil rights, equal protection of the law and due process, long before Hitler took over.

The best I can come up with is the idea that the only thing that keeps America from turning into Nazi Germany is the fact Americans have a love for due process that the Germans did not share. What worries me, however, is that it appears people are becoming less well educated, and these uneducated people represent a cancer. Just look at this forum. This is a forum for philosophical debate, which would lead me to believe that most people here are brighter than the average. Yet, even here, there is bigotry and hatred that creeps in to the discussions.

[Notvacka]

What worries me, however, is that it appears people are becoming less well educated, and these uneducated people represent a cancer.

You might have a point there. What to do about it? Better education perhaps? Paid for through taxes, of course. How else could you educate the masses?

Just look at this forum. This is a forum for philosophical debate, which would lead me to believe that most people here are brighter than the average.

Sure, there are some bright people here. Like John, for instance. Why are you here yourself? It seems to me that you have a few ideas that you wish to preach. But if you are looking to convert others to your own view, you are certainly in the wrong place. However, if you wish to test your ideas, this is the perfect place. But in order to benefit, you need to honestly engage in serious discussion. And I'm here to help. I go on about self-ownership, because you haven't explained it to me. It still seems that you haven't figured it out for yourself yet, and you are avoiding the issue. Clinging to ideas that you like but don't truly understand is religious behaviour. Don't avoid my questions like some politician.

[John]

You personally are horrified at the thought that something you believe to be good could be used by someone like Hitler to commit so much evil.

That's not it because I'm quite aware of the crimes perpetrated by so called communist regimes. And I say "so called" because I don't think we've seen a regime that is a true reflection of Marx's vision but on the basis of the empirical evidence I've accepted that such a regime is probably, for all practical purposes, impossible to create as the evidence points towards an excessive level of state control at the expense of personal freedom. The relationship between socialism and social democracy is an important one though and I believe that is where the ideological battle is being fought now but I object to Hitler being called a socialist because he didn't enact socialist policies and was especially hostile towards communism. Hitler was not interested in equality, a central tenet of socialism, and tends to be labelled socialist because he co-opted the term into the name of his party and because he was a populist therefore giving the misguided impression that he was appealing to a sense of equality when he certainly was not.

As I said in another post, it's about striking a balance and we can disagree about where that should be but the endless repetition of the mantra that socialists are just Nazis in waiting is not helpful because it doesn't stand up to any serious scrutiny. The biggest threats to freedom these days seem to be coming from corporations manipulating governments not social democrats trying to get decent schools for kids or healthcare for the poor.

[Mike Strand]

"Force" and "freedom" may take on a variety of meanings. Force of law takes away my freedom (if caught) to steal somebody else's money or to kill another person in cold blood. The force of law may also limit or expand the freedom of an individual or corporation to get extremely rich, or expand or shrink a welfare program, which may improve or hurt the freedom or ability of a mother to feed her kids. The force of social opinion keeps me from spitting food or farting in public.

The argument can be made that The U. S. A. is a social democracy in its infancy, or maybe just a half-baked social democracy. Depending on voters, legislators could be elected who would cut or raise taxes, cut or increase spending on social programs, and cut or increase military spending or corporate bailouts. Every new law arguably takes away freedoms from some but may also provide new freedoms for others. State ownership of an industry, or higher taxes on the corporations involved in an industry, along with a higher minimum wage, may forcefully take away the freedom of the CEO to buy a yacht but may give new freedom to his workers to buy goods made by his or other corporations.

Can a good balance between capitalism and socialism be found? Can obligations and "freedoms" be spread around democratically, by the force of laws formulated and interpreted and enforced by elected officials, to prevent the worst abuses of either and to bring out the best in both?

[bobevenson]

Can a good balance between capitalism and socialism be found?

Can a good balance between good and evil be found? NO!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike Strand]

You're probably right, bobevenson. The balance (or pendulum) is never still, swings this way and that, depending on events and the behavior of voters and the people they elect. As to your equating two economic or political systems as good versus evil -- not so sure, may be an oversimplification.

[bobevenson]

You're probably right, bobevenson. The balance (or pendulum) is never still, swings this way and that, depending on events and the behavior of voters and the people they elect. As to your equating two economic or political systems as good versus evil -- not so sure, may be an oversimplification.

In any society, the only proper economic system is free-market capitalism. In terms of social integration, the government is free to guarantee life-long medical care for everyone as an example. However, even the super-rich are entitled to the same benefits as the super-poor. Regardless of what benefits are bestowed upon the public by the government, the only proper way to pay for them is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. In other words, all other taxes are improper, such as income taxes, sales taxes, and the millions of other taxes or ways that the government gets money (such as fines or confiscation of property).

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, bobevenson!

I think you suggest that free-market capitalism allows for things like government-sponsored benefits such as medical care, if financed by a fair tax system and available to all, rich or poor. The USA tax system is too complex I believe, and I hadn't thought much before about your idea of a single tax on property: Sounds reasonable, may have an effect similar to a progressive tax on income, and could be simpler to enforce and administer.

[ForgedinHell]

You're probably right, bobevenson. The balance (or pendulum) is never still, swings this way and that, depending on events and the behavior of voters and the people they elect. As to your equating two economic or political systems as good versus evil -- not so sure, may be an oversimplification.

In any society, the only proper economic system is free-market capitalism. In terms of social integration, the government is free to guarantee life-long medical care for everyone as an example. However, even the super-rich are entitled to the same benefits as the super-poor. Regardless of what benefits are bestowed upon the public by the government, the only proper way to pay for them is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value. In other words, all other taxes are improper, such as income taxes, sales taxes, and the millions of other taxes or ways that the government gets money (such as fines or confiscation of property).

There is no rational basis to limit taxes to property. For example, it is difficult to establish tax rates for any specific property, because its value is always uncertain We also know from numerous studies that people who own an asset always value it more highly than when they don't own it. So, which valuation would you even use to establish tax rates? Do you mean all property, including a car and clothes and books, or just real estate? If the latter, then why the preference?

A tax on property may cause someone to sell their property just to pay the tax. At least with an income tax, the money is taken out of actual earnings, so we know the person has the money to pay the tax. We also do not have to be concerned about valuation issues, like we do with the taxation of property. This will be especially hard on people who retire on limited incomes after paying off their home. If we follow your suggestion, those people will be forced to sell their homes just to pay the taxes.

The tax rates will also vary depending on the amount of government services. So, an expanding government, means higher taxes for all homeowners, which means many homeowners will have to sell. It also seems rather ridiculous to not tax some one who makes millions on stock dividends, solely because he decides never to buy a home, or a rather modest one.

[bobevenson]

Thanks, bobevenson!

I think you suggest that free-market capitalism allows for things like government-sponsored benefits such as medical care, if financed by a fair tax system and available to all, rich or poor. The USA tax system is too complex I believe, and I hadn't thought much before about your idea of a single tax on property: Sounds reasonable, may have an effect similar to a progressive tax on income, and could be simpler to enforce and administer.

The tax system of Evensonomics has some important features. It allows everybody to pay whatever taxes he wants. A billionaire with an annual income in the millions can pay no taxes at all if that is his most important goal in life. All he has to do is live in a cave with no possessions. Secondly, all the money in circulation must be backed by bank certificates of property that allow banks to issue money. People who own the property are therefore able to register their certificates with banks paying the highest interest rate on them. By definition, inflation is reduced to zero.

[ForgedinHell]

Thanks, bobevenson!

I think you suggest that free-market capitalism allows for things like government-sponsored benefits such as medical care, if financed by a fair tax system and available to all, rich or poor. The USA tax system is too complex I believe, and I hadn't thought much before about your idea of a single tax on property: Sounds reasonable, may have an effect similar to a progressive tax on income, and could be simpler to enforce and administer.

The tax system of Evensonomics has some important features. It allows everybody to pay whatever taxes he wants. A billionaire with an annual income in the millions can pay no taxes at all if that is his most important goal in life. All he has to do is live in a cave with no possessions. Secondly, all the money in circulation must be backed by bank certificates of property that allow banks to issue money. People who own the property are therefore able to register their certificates with banks paying the highest interest rate on them. By definition, inflation is reduced to zero.

If your system did allow everyone to pay what they wanted to, then those who didn't want to pay, they wouldn't have to, whether they lived in a cave or not. Someone who pays off a home should not have to lose it in retirement years, because some crazy person named bob evenson, a Holocaust-denying, anti-semitic wimp, says so. Sorry, jerk-off, but your plan isn't even on the radar screen and won't be. It was rejected more than a century ago.

[bobevenson]

If your system did allow everyone to pay what they wanted to, then those who didn't want to pay, they wouldn't have to, whether they lived in a cave or not. Someone who pays off a home should not have to lose it in retirement years, because some crazy person named bob evenson, a Holocaust-denying, anti-semitic wimp, says so. Sorry, jerk-off, but your plan isn't even on the radar screen and won't be. It was rejected more than a century ago.

We have three problems here: Problem No. 1 is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Problem No. 2 is that you don't know that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Problem No. 3 is that Problems No. 1 and No. 2 can't be solved.

[ForgedinHell]

If your system did allow everyone to pay what they wanted to, then those who didn't want to pay, they wouldn't have to, whether they lived in a cave or not. Someone who pays off a home should not have to lose it in retirement years, because some crazy person named bob evenson, a Holocaust-denying, anti-semitic wimp, says so. Sorry, jerk-off, but your plan isn't even on the radar screen and won't be. It was rejected more than a century ago.

We have three problems here: Problem No. 1 is that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Problem No. 2 is that you don't know that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Problem No. 3 is that Problems No. 1 and No. 2 can't be solved.

The only problem we have is that you are crazy. You act like a punk, not an adult. You never respond with any intelligible argument, merely sling insults about as if that is helpful. You know as well as I do where you got the idea from, so you are probably well familiar with the numerous reasons the idea was rejected. And every point I raised was valid.

[Satyr]

The evidence contradicts the FagOfCo.

[stsoc]

IMO, two of the most important elements of freedom for people in a society (after the most basic one of not being enslaved or caged) are 1. absense of hierarchy (having a master to boss you around), and 2. absense of economic power inequality. Both can be said to be applications of power equality principle, which is an a priori norm of communication (and thus of ethics) as pointed out by Habermas, which was without any explanation (propably because of ideological motivation) ignored by his student Hoppe.