Philosophy Now Forum

ForgedinHell wrote:I have noticed that there are a lot of socialists lurking about on this forum. They seem to take offense with my definition of socialism, which is the use of force by one group of people against another. It is the deprivation of freedom. The socialists whine like babies that I have somehow been unfair in my definition. So, my challange to all you socialists out there is this: State your definition of socialism without it contradicting my definition for socialism.

If they are "lurking" then you can't notice them, by definition - or so I am told.

socialism is mans natural state.but freedom is also a natural state.the logic is to then be both free and sociallised .and that means good will.

jackles wrote:socialism is mans natural state

No, man's natural state is free-market capitalism, motivated by one's own self-interest, but leading to everyone else's own self-interest.

rome the system is by its nature freesocialist.rome is the planitary system.the planitary freesocialist roman system.

jackles wrote:rome the system is by its nature freesocialist.rome is the planitary system.the planitary freesocialist roman system.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain that statement in plain, understandable English.

The thread title is a bit vague little bit like 'your either with us or against us' just uneducated statement rather than the work of intellectual reasoning. But I'll answer it like this, Australia is more socialistic country than America even when the conservatives are managing it. But we have more real freedom than Americans do. Go figure?

Kurt wrote:The thread title is a bit vague little bit like 'your either with us or against us' just uneducated statement rather than the work of intellectual reasoning. But I'll answer it like this, Australia is more socialistic country than America even when the conservatives are managing it. But we have more real freedom than Americans do. Go figure?

Well, first of all, I believe your statement about conservatives must be a typographical error since, of course, it is liberal Democrats like Obama who are socialistic. Secondly, when you speak of "real freedom," what are you talking about as opposed to fake freedom.

Here the conservatives are what we call the liberals and are the right wing of politics like the republicans in the US. Real freedom pobabily not a good phrase to use. I guess as an observer from the outside we can see certain things that if on the inside are not as obvious. Overall it's about what America seems to think freedom is in relation to a society being able to function. In some areas the idea seem to be skewed and manipulated probably for reasons of power through fear then in a subtle way freedoms are decreased or controlled under the heading of we are keeping you free. I you want an example I would be happy to provide one from this perspective. Just that I prefer dialogue rather than writing a endless essays.

Socialism is not the use of force to take away freedom. Stalin was not a socialist but a dictator running under a fundamentalist socialist flag, once they got rid of him USSR became a fundamentalist social state and called it communism, now they are run by a Mafia.
Socialism is not defined by communism. When our socialist government is managing our country I never see them using force but just the usual democratic process. You can have socialist ideas but they usually involve an approach that requires more empathy and inclusiveness than right wing ideas do. I'm not a religious person but if Jesus did return I wonder if he would identify more with capitalism or socialism. By the way I'm not an anti capitalist or a socialist I see value in both sides.

Kurt wrote:By the way I'm not an anti capitalist or a socialist I see value in both sides.

Well, if you see value in socialism, you see value in the government taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that an ordinary citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

bobevenson wrote:

Kurt wrote:By the way I'm not an anti capitalist or a socialist I see value in both sides.

Well, if you see value in socialism, you see value in the government taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that an ordinary citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

No, people do it all the time, and perfectly legally.
When you go into your gay bar in Cincinnati, the man on the door takes your cash.
You have voluntarily paid for a service.
As a member of society you pay taxes, as without that there would be no society; no army , no police - no nothing.
If you don't like it, then please pay attention to what it says on the Dollar bills and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's

Kurt wrote:Socialism is not the use of force to take away freedom. Stalin was not a socialist but a dictator running under a fundamentalist socialist flag, once they got rid of him USSR became a fundamentalist social state and called it communism, now they are run by a Mafia.
Socialism is not defined by communism. When our socialist government is managing our country I never see them using force but just the usual democratic process. You can have socialist ideas but they usually involve an approach that requires more empathy and inclusiveness than right wing ideas do. I'm not a religious person but if Jesus did return I wonder if he would identify more with capitalism or socialism. By the way I'm not an anti capitalist or a socialist I see value in both sides.

Jesus said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" - in other words pay your taxes. The money in your pocket belongs to the state.

and Jesus said , build the Leviathan... construct a secular state that takes the place of charity and when all are saved, you shall be too... we all know religion is an opiate, shackle your self to your government masters and follow me ...

oh wait...

you say you want a revolution?

-Imp

bobevenson wrote:

Kurt wrote:By the way I'm not an anti capitalist or a socialist I see value in both sides.

Well, if you see value in socialism, you see value in the government taking money from one person and giving it to somebody else, something that an ordinary citizen would be thrown in jail for doing.

No the evidence here is that both sides of politics are good at that. Only difference is that the right tends to take more away from education and health so they can pork barrel for the next election. While the left develops policies on the run that have not always been thought out well and can tend to over spend.
Although as any Aussie admits 80% of the big policy items that have stood the test of time and made the biggest impact on our society came from the left even though at the time they might not have always been popular.
I knew it would be a mistake to mention Jesus, would not surprise me if that statement about Ceasar was added as an amendment would be very handy for the leaders of the time.

bobevenson wrote: No, man's natural state is free-market capitalism, motivated by one's own self-interest, but leading to everyone else's own self-interest.

This is the Hobbesian view of the natural state of man.

Your Republican style of government and free market capitalism is actually based on the ideas of people such as John Locke and Adam Smith. Definitely not Thomas Hobbs and the self-interested individual.