User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 71

  1. #31
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    If I lived under communism I wouldnt own any goodies.

    Under socialism it would be pretty much the same.

    Capitalism defends the right to private property ownership. Without Capitalism, the goodies would be produced by technology, but noone would own them, nor the means of their production.

    I believe thats what he meant.
    Well here's were an actual definition becomes really important, because plenty of people calling themselves social democrats, democratic socialists, or market socialists would totally reject the notion that socialism does not allow private ownership.

    Of course this could get into silly semantics about ownership, too. You could be provided with something which you do not officially own but can still benefit from using essentially like an owner. And on the other hand, perhaps anything that could potentially be taken (like money via taxes) is not really owned at all.
    Does this question even matter?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #32
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    3,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well here's were an actual definition becomes really important, because plenty of people calling themselves social democrats, democratic socialists, or market socialists would totally reject the notion that socialism does not allow private ownership.

    Of course this could get into silly semantics about ownership, too. You could be provided with something which you do not officially own but can still benefit from using essentially like an owner. And on the other hand, perhaps anything that could potentially be taken (like money via taxes) is not really owned at all.
    Does this question even matter?
    I think it does, but perhaps thats because I do not see ownership as something ambigous, in fact, its possible that its the only non-ambigous institution there is. The temporary caretaker you mention isnt an owner, phsyical control over an object does not confer its ownership. If it did, there would no need to catch theives.

    It seems those who you mention who call themselves socialists(including yourself) view property in between capitalists(defend the right to private property) and communists(private property is abolished).

  3. #33
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    The anthropomorphizing started with you. I merely followed your lead.


    Everything that is publicly funded through tax money is socialistic in nature. A non-socialistic justice system would be funded privately. An example would be private arbitration. Because our justice system has always been funded with tax money, it has always been a socialistic institution. An example of a non-socialistic military would be mercenaries paid with private money (Blackwater contractors are mercenaries, but they are paid with tax money).

    My point? This nation has been partially socialistic since its inception. The proper way to critique socialism is to look at specific instances where it is applied to see whether or not it works.

    Has socialism been successful when it comes to our justice system? I would argue that it has, especially if people who hate socialism, like you, haven't even realized that it's a socialistic institution.
    Has socialism been successful when it comes to our military? See above.
    Has socialism been successful when it comes to the interstate highway system? Probably, but there are certainly points worthy of debate.
    Could socialism be successfully applied to the television manufacturing industry? That would almost certainly be a massive disaster.
    Socialism isn't defined as taxing for public services such as courts or police. MLK, Jr. had it right when he described socialism as the redistribution of wealth. Taxing can lead to redistribution of wealth, but in the case of court or police, it has nothing to do with higher classes feeding the poorer classes as in socialism.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  4. #34
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    It creates a moral vacuum in society which is waiting to be filled with something else. And what that 'something else' is will depend on whatever extremist causes are lurking in the political background..
    I think you need to explain that in greater detail. How exactly does socialism create a moral vacuum?

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    The present values vacuum will be filled by Islam.

    Why Islam and not the ideology of mindless consumerism or some other powerful force in our collective consciousness? Why not Christianity? Even that religion is more influential in the West than Islam.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    While various special interest groups vie to fill the values vacuum in the US created by media networks and their political pawns in Washington D.C.,
    Why is that a problem with socialism specifically? These issues happen even with countries that are ranked very high on the Index of Economic Freedom and display few socialist tendencies.

    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    these are not faith-based groups. LGBT, for example, is not faith-based. Animal rights activist groups and tree-hugging groups are not faith-based. They are emotion-based. And their emotions are not strong enough to lead them to those suicidal acts of rebellion which cause much havoc and grief around the world. The activities of these groups rend societies along political lines, but not really along social lines, because those lines were already drawn centuries ago via the Judeo-Christian ethos.,
    Judeo-Christian ethics were the basis of our collective consciousness for centuries and they offer one way to organize our value system. Yet there may be other ways of doing so that are not grounded in this belief system. Why is having a worldview that's not based on Judeo-Christian faith problematic?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  5. #35
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Socialism isn't defined as taxing for public services such as courts or police. MLK, Jr. had it right when he described socialism as the redistribution of wealth. Taxing can lead to redistribution of wealth, but in the case of court or police, it has nothing to do with higher classes feeding the poorer classes as in socialism.
    1. All economic transactions are a redistribution of wealth.

    2. If you're not going to call the justice system and police socialistic institutions, then you can't call entitlement programs socialistic institutions either.

    3. Taxing to fund the police is absolutely a redistribution of wealth. The wealthy can easily afford their own private security. The poor cannot. We use tax money to fund the police so the poor have access to police services. The same goes for the justice system, the military, and every other government service.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #36
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    1. All economic transactions are a redistribution of wealth.

    2. If you're not going to call the justice system and police socialistic institutions, then you can't call entitlement programs socialistic institutions either.

    3. Taxing to fund the police is absolutely a redistribution of wealth. The wealthy can easily afford their own private security. The poor cannot. We use tax money to fund the police so the poor have access to police services. The same goes for the justice system, the military, and every other government service.
    Enough falsehoods.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #37
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Enough falsehoods.
    Lateralus's statements aren't falsehoods. What's the fundamental difference between taking the money from the rich to set up the police station and doing so to set up some basic social services?

    In both cases, the funds are taken from the rich through taxation to provide services for those who are less well off.

    However, I wouldn't agree that all economic transactions are re-distributions of wealth in the same sense of the term. The government does not play as active of a role in the New York Stock Exchange as it does with funding the police department and social services.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #38
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    However, I wouldn't agree that all economic transactions are re-distributions of wealth in the same sense of the term. The government does not play as active of a role as the New York Stock Exchange as it does with funding the police department and social services.
    What I meant by "all economic transactions are a redistribution of wealth" is that all economic transaction result in an altered distribution of wealth. Spending $2.00 on a loaf of bread results in the distribution of wealth being altered.

    I mentioned this because "redistribution of wealth" is considered an inherently bad thing in some circles, but they're really only referring to a politically mandated redistribution of wealth. When a finance company charges someone a $35 fee, that's not only not considered a redistribution of wealth (even though it's redistribution from the poor or middle class to the wealthy), it's not even considered bad for the economy. That imbalanced view when it comes to "redistribution of wealth" is annoying.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #39
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Lateralus's statements aren't falsehoods. What's the fundamental difference between taking the money from the rich to set up the police station and doing so to set up some basic social services?

    In both cases, the funds are taken from the rich through taxation to provide services for those who are less well off.

    However, I wouldn't agree that all economic transactions are re-distributions of wealth in the same sense of the term. The government does not play as active of a role as the New York Stock Exchange as it does with funding the police department and social services.
    The police station is not set up to distribute tax money to those who are less well-off financially. That's the difference.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  10. #40
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    The police station is not set up to distribute tax money to those who are less well-off financially. That's the difference.
    Yet in an indirect way, the police stations provide the less privileged with opportunities to achieve upward mobility in a similar sense to how social welfare programs should.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    What I meant by "all economic transactions are a redistribution of wealth" is that all economic transaction result in an altered distribution of wealth. Spending $2.00 on a loaf of bread results in the distribution of wealth being altered.

    I mentioned this because "redistribution of wealth" is considered an inherently bad thing in some circles, but they're really only referring to a politically mandated redistribution of wealth. When a finance company charges someone a $35 fee, that's not only not considered a redistribution of wealth (even though it's redistribution from the poor or middle class to the wealthy), it's not even considered bad for the economy. That imbalanced view when it comes to "redistribution of wealth" is annoying.
    This type of re-distribution does not carry invidious connotations in conservative circles because it does not amount to "free handouts". Right-wingers don't have much of a problem with wealth transfers from the rich to the well-off provided that the latter have earned it.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Why I am no longer going to complain about anti-S bias
    By strychnine in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 372
    Last Post: 03-29-2011, 05:17 AM
  2. [Fi] Why I am Sad - Maybe someone else can relate?
    By discoverhiddenjules in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-01-2011, 12:15 AM
  3. Hello, I am a social infant *face palm*
    By KilgoreTrout in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-01-2010, 03:59 AM
  4. This is why incest is against the law...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 01:46 PM
  5. Why I am here
    By HilbertSpace in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 01:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO