Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Helping others is socialism!
THIS IS NOT A THREAD ABOUT WHETHER SOCIALISM WORKS OR NOT.
Okay, I'm exaggerating with the title, but socialism gets used as a boogeyman buzzword a lot, particularly in the USA. What irritates me is how irrational people act because it's so powerful as a buzzword in the US. Not accepting universal health care despite millions of people left uninsured because of "teh socialism" is one thing, but when the current system isn't even economically efficient, that's just shooting yourself in the foot. And then there are a lot of people listening to less educated (in the field) pundits over scientists that have done years of research on climate change, though that's a lesser example.
Comments
Yes, even if it's a private insurance plan.
If you don't agree, then you clearly don't know how insurance works. This statement is not frivolous; I really mean this.
Isn't that what the "ignore your family and friends" options are? Or "go to work despite being sick?"
Then again, it's harder to understand when you're just picking dialogue tree options and all you see is how much money you have.
I think there's a luck element involved in that simulation, which I guess is realistic.
Charity ceases to be charity when it's mandatory.
with. It's being forced into helping others through taxation. Charity ceases to be charity when it's mandatory.
Here's the problem with relying on charity: What about rainy days?
Charity is not a consistently reliable source of funding, especially if you don't have the time to beg for money constantly.
Remember, even begging for money takes time and effort. And if you're talking about organizing donation drives and reaching out to potential donors in respectable ways, money as well. Wealth begets wealth; lack of wealth does not beget wealth.
Also, having regulations and welfare programs does not mean socialism. After all, an economic system itself does not changes.
Not to mention that if devotion to free market causes people to oppose common decency and leave people to die - maybe it is time to think if it really worth such devotion?
This one is not going to promote socialism or any other system - first, it is offtopic, and second, this one is not qualified to do so. But maybe it is a good idea to not mix economy and ideology, and think of economy in terms of what it does, not how it's called.
The largest such group that I can think of is a group of 32 MIT students, at the living group known as pika.
So if you're talking managing a country of even several hundred thousand people, if not several million or over a billion, you're going to have to impose order by force in some way. Heck, even pika has rules. These include having everyone help cook for the house (or pay an extra fee, if I recall correctly), having everyone help clean bathrooms and assigning kitchen duties to each person, and enforcing lack of seniority in room choices by having a rooming lottery.
Now, socialism is a TOTALLY different matter. Socialism just means that the means of production are owned by the government. This just means that a lot of companies are not allowed to be private. This is where the real dispute is, and the actual target that free-market-capitalism advocates dislike.
...see where I'm going with this?
And no, charity is not going to help everyone 100% of the time. But charity also doesn't rob people. Even on rainy days, the government has no right to take from one person and give to another.
This.
I dislike Socialism because it shoots private business in the foot. Being a Free-Market Capitalist, I can't agree with an system that cuts down private business.
government. Which means that basically the government controls whatever
they want to. When one takes into account that most politicians only
want power, and that power corrupts...
If you're going to assume slippery slope, then there's nothing I can do about it.
Turtle > And no, charity is not going to help everyone 100% of the time. But
charity also doesn't rob people. Even on rainy days, the government has
no right to take from one person and give to another.
Uh, the purpose of government is to manage and maintain a stable civil society. It's going to HAVE to do this. You're going to, for example, not be able to use the road outside your house as a parking lot for your cars. Someone's gotta set down some rules of how people behave so that one person doesn't step on another person's toes. (Heck, have you noticed that the closer people live together, the more rules there are? Have you seen how many rules and regulations there are in high-rise condominium buildings?)
So, the more resources--such as space--you need to share with other people, the more people are going to run into each other. Now, some people are nice, and they can work things out between themselves, but some people are not nice.
The rules are for when people are not nice to each other. The rules are an objective way to decide what flies and what doesn't.
Who makes the rules? Well, sometimes, it's called your parents. Sometimes it's called a homeowner's association. Sometimes it's called the government.
Different people's idea of evil varies quite widely.
Not to mention that many people are selfish and will try to game any system of rules to get more than their fair share of things. How would you differentiate between responsible desire for self-advancement and attempts to gain more than one's fair share?
Whatever the Bible says is evil.
How would you differentiate between responsible desire for self-advancement and attempts to gain more than one's fair share?
There's no such thing as "more than one's fair share" so long as you're not doing anything wrong to achieve your gains.
Well, that's good and all, but there are many people who will disagree with you. I'm fine with those being your beliefs, but that doesn't mean I'll always agree with you if you use them to make policy. I mean, I'm fine with you not eating shrimp, but I'll disagree with you if you try to make a law saying that I can't eat them.
> There's no such thing as "more than one's fair share" so long as you're not doing anything wrong to achieve your gains.
> not doing anything wrong
The key point that people argue over is exactly this: what exactly is considered wrong?
See, if you said that people should not be selling shrimp for consumption, because it's wrong, I'd totally disagree with you. How should we resolve that?
Again, whatever God says is wrong. If we can't agree that that's the standard for all morality, there's not much point in going any further in this debate, or any debate. I doubt I could convince you that anything is wrong if there's no moral standard to say so.
Who's to say theft is wrong? Or murder?
The Code of Hammurabi, for one.
standard for all morality, there's not much point in going any further
in this debate, or any debate. I doubt I could convince you that
anything is wrong if there's no moral standard to say so.
Well, for what it's worth, you should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
Some people follow the Bible. Some people follow the Koran. Some people follow their own moral codes.
The state has one funciton. To protect Liberty, Which is something you seek to destroy.
For example, would anyone advocate for the liberty to silence all of one's detractors by death or incapacitation?