special interests in socialism

[Immanuel Can]

You affirm Socialism. But there will be "no shareholding." Yet workers get "shares" in your companies.

Indeed. I confirm collective ownership in the means of production.

Shareholding.

You seem to be having trouble understanding. When you understand you'll be less shocked.

Nope, I'm not having a problem. I know what a "share" is. You, on the other hand, don't seem to.

There are no "shares" in a company run by Socialism. There are no "investors." There are no "dividends." There's only the State and what it decides the worker gets.

[henry quirk]

and here we go...

You don't like it when thing change, do you henry?

i don't like you when you tussle just to tussle

yesterday, you were libertarian; today, you're a socialist; tomorrow, you'll be a nazi

you become whatever you need to be just so you can tussle

even your do no harm principle is a sham

you're a chameleon, a mimic

you're tiresome

[henry quirk]

You affirm Socialism. But there will be "no shareholding." Yet workers get "shares" in your companies.

Indeed. I confirm collective ownership in the means of production.

Shareholding.

You seem to be having trouble understanding. When you understand you'll be less shocked.

Nope, I'm not having a problem. I know what a "share" is. You, on the other hand, don't seem to.

There are no "shares" in a company run by Socialism. There are no "investors." There are no "dividends." There's only the State and what it decides the worker gets.

guy, he knows...he's just runnin' another mindscrew...arguin' just argue

[Immanuel Can]

guy, he knows...he's just runnin' another mindscrew...arguin' just argue

You're right. That's what he does.

[Skepdick]

There are no "shares" in a company run by Socialism. There are no "investors." There are no "dividends." There's only the State and what it decides the worker gets.

You are allowed to be wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

There are no "shares" in a company run by Socialism. There are no "investors." There are no "dividends." There's only the State and what it decides the worker gets.

You are allowed to be wrong.

Good. Bye.

[Skepdick]

i don't like you when you tussle just to tussle

yesterday, you were libertarian; today, you're a socialist; tomorrow, you'll be a nazi

you become whatever you need to be just so you can tussle

even your do no harm principle is a sham

you're a chameleon, a mimic

you're tiresome

Henry,

I've taken a concept you understand (capitalism) as a point of departure and I added to it another concept you understand "shareholding".
I then explained that in my system shareholding is offered by default to every employee (something which is not always true in the way you explain capitalism).

This distinction is what I want you to understand when I use the the word "Socialism" in the context of this conversation: shareholding-by-default (with opt-out).
Either you understand my meaning; either you understand this minuscule-but-precise distinction; or you don't.

When you engage in the stupid philosophical language games and you insist on telling me that my words don't mean precisely what I intend them to mean, then one of us is "tussling". And it's not me.

I am under no obligation to remain the same person I was a year ago, a month ago, or even a day ago. I am here to create yourself, continuously - I ascribe myself no labels.

[henry quirk]

i don't like you when you tussle just to tussle

yesterday, you were libertarian; today, you're a socialist; tomorrow, you'll be a nazi

you become whatever you need to be just so you can tussle

even your do no harm principle is a sham

you're a chameleon, a mimic

you're tiresome

Henry,

I've taken a concept you understand (capitalism) as a point of departure and I added to it another concept you understand "shareholding".
I then explained that in my system shareholding is offered by default to every employee (something which is not always true in Capitalism)

This tiny distinction is what I want you to understand when I use the the word "Socialism": shareholding-by-default (with opt-out).
Either you understand my meaning; either you understand this minuscule-and-precise distinction; or you don't.

When you engage in the stupid philosophical language games and you insist on telling me that my words don't mean precisely what I intend them to mean, then one of us is "tussling". And it's not me.

I am under no obligation to remain the same person I was a year ago, a month ago, or even a day ago. I am here to create yourself, continuously - I ascribe myself no labels.

I don't care

[Skepdick]

I don't care

You care enough to start a tussle, then accuse me of it...

I'd recommend some self-awareness, but it may be too late.

[RCSaunders]

Socialist government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

All government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

Right. Which is why having a multi-party system with checks and balances on power is absolutely necessary. I agree...trust no politician. Hedge against their potential corruption. It's going to happen...if not with this guy, then with the next one.

The best system is the one in which the people have the most votes...and in Capitalism, they not only have votes every four years or so, they also have the power of their "vote" expressed in their consumer, lifestyle and charitable choices. They put their money where they want it to be, and control of it is not taken from them by a centralized power. So they "vote" informally by supporting those inventions, products, services, charitable causes and situations that they personally wish to persist. And since economic power is very persuasive, even to corrupt politicians, the people get their way when the people "vote" in that manner.

In the end, then, Capitalism is far more direct and democratic than Socialism can ever be.

All modern governments are excused as methods of establishing the kind of society someone decides is the appropriate one by means of an agency with the power to initiate force against those under that government. By definition, all governments are oppressive, forcing all those who do not behave the way a particular government dictates (for the good of society, of course) all should behave. There is no such thing as a good government and all arguments about which kind of government is best are arguments about the right way to do the wrong thing.

[Belinda]

All government quickly becomes an entity with no goal but its own power.

Right. Which is why having a multi-party system with checks and balances on power is absolutely necessary. I agree...trust no politician. Hedge against their potential corruption. It's going to happen...if not with this guy, then with the next one.

The best system is the one in which the people have the most votes...and in Capitalism, they not only have votes every four years or so, they also have the power of their "vote" expressed in their consumer, lifestyle and charitable choices. They put their money where they want it to be, and control of it is not taken from them by a centralized power. So they "vote" informally by supporting those inventions, products, services, charitable causes and situations that they personally wish to persist. And since economic power is very persuasive, even to corrupt politicians, the people get their way when the people "vote" in that manner.

In the end, then, Capitalism is far more direct and democratic than Socialism can ever be.

All modern governments are excused as methods of establishing the kind of society someone decides is the appropriate one by means of an agency with the power to initiate force against those under that government. By definition, all governments are oppressive, forcing all those who do not behave the way a particular government dictates (for the good of society, of course) all should behave. There is no such thing as a good government and all arguments about which kind of government is best are arguments about the right way to do the wrong thing.

You write:"There is no such thing as a good government and all arguments about which kind of government is best are arguments about the right way to do the wrong thing."



Good is a relative quality. Good government relates to bad government. There has never been a society, ranging from family, to clan, to tribe, to nation state, that has not been governed by some elite person or group. Some of these elites were better : some worse. Your populism is a lie that you have been taught by propagandists for some dictator.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as a good government and all arguments about which kind of government is best are arguments about the right way to do the wrong thing.

And yet, governments are a necessary evil. That's why checks-and-balances, strictly limiting the length of tenure and power of the politicians are indispensable. You can't trust folks always to do the right thing when they get power, so you've got to make sure they don't have unlimited scope in which to do whatever they do.

[RCSaunders]

You write:"There is no such thing as a good government and all arguments about which kind of government is best are arguments about the right way to do the wrong thing."

Good is a relative quality. Good government relates to bad government. There has never been a society, ranging from family, to clan, to tribe, to nation state, that has not been governed by some elite person or group. Some of these elites were better : some worse. Your populism is a lie that you have been taught by propagandists for some dictator.

What dictator has ever taught that no government is good, that every individual is responsible for their own life, and that no political or social system can possibly solve individual human problems?

Governments are inevitable so long as the great mass or humanity is terrified of being free and longs for some leader or authority to take responsibility for their useless lives. Have your governments and blame whatever you like for them, but know you will surely suffer under any political system.

I have no political ideology (or much interest in politics at all, except to be aware of what any particular outrages a government in my area might be doing, so I can avoid it). Otherwise, I live free of government, as millions of others do, and enjoy the circus you call politics.

If anyone wants to be free, they can be, but like anything else, they never will be so long as they expect someone else (like some political or religious leader) or something else (like a government) to do it for them. Your Freedom Now.

[Skepdick]

If anyone wants to be free, they can be, but like anything else, they never will be so long as they expect someone else (like some political or religious leader) or something else (like a government) to do it for them. Your Freedom Now.

The myth of the autonomous generalist.

You can be free! You can do EVERYTHING yourself.

Except for all the thing you need other people for.

[henry quirk]

There is no such thing as a good government and all arguments about which kind of government is best are arguments about the right way to do the wrong thing.

And yet, governments are a necessary evil. That's why checks-and-balances, strictly limiting the length of tenure and power of the politicians are indispensable. You can't trust folks always to do the right thing when they get power, so you've got to make sure they don't have unlimited scope in which to do whatever they do.

what you have to do is cut their balls off, leash 'em, kick 'em in the heads occasionally, feed them very little, and let them do only the absolute minimum

they need to be made small & fearful

they should never be allowed to rise above their station

they are, as you say, a necessary evil...mebbe we've gotten too comfortable with the necessary part and gotten too good at ignorin' the evil part