Socialism

@ Farmer
Socialism, economically, is very close to a pyramid scam.

Actually its much much closer to slavery.

Imagine that, in your current job, you don't get paid money, you have to heckle with your employer to get all the things you need to live -- your food, your shelter, your toiletries, everything. You don't get to go out and shop. Everything is political and you can't leave your job.

Further, under socialism there are no prices, so things are constantly in shortage and the planners have no means by which to determine what anyone should do.

The result is purely arbitrary allocations of resources, which means favouritism; your entire life under socialism becomes one huge micropolitical struggle to survive.

That you can't leave, trade, or own capital goods makes it slavery.

 

[farmer093]

@xX FireZ why a pyramid Scheme ?

And Sythe, you go on and on about slavery and socialism is economy, there are different types of socialism and under socialism there are prices except that the government controls them so things are not constantly in shortage because socialism does not mean embargo every country like juche and socialism you can leave, who told you that, you can trade, obviously, just because you like to take a stare at North Korea to back up all your assumptions, also if USA was not biased Cuba would be a powerful country look at their medical field and also a country with no resources and several embargoes its doing well compared to other latin american countries.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Full blown socialism seems to me to have some serious flaws. That being said, I also think that unregulated capitalism has flaws of equal caliber. I prefer a moderate form - a socialist democracy. Namely, Rawls' form of socialism.

 

[Outlawspure]

If your so set on Socialism why don't you leave? You said you were part of the American education system which is a joke. Please gtfo. Transfer abroad or something.

 

And Sythe, you go on and on about slavery and socialism is economy, there are different types of socialism and under socialism there are prices except that the government controls them so things are not constantly in shortage

Well if you are going to impose prices then why have socialism? If all you want it to do is imitate the market... why not just have the market instead?

What you are actually proposing is a system of price controls. Aside from being a form of theft, the detrimental effects of which you can read about in volume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls

I also recommened you read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson

A copy of which may be found here:
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

because socialism does not mean embargo every country like juche and socialism you can leave, who told you that, you can trade, obviously,

So if I can leave without permission and I can freely trade my labour for money, and my money for products, under your socialism, then what actually is your socialism?

That is: physically what is it that you propose in your system? Because this, as you describe it, is closer to the market economy, than to any form of socialism.

just because you like to take a stare at North Korea to back up all your assumptions, also if USA was not biased Cuba would be a powerful country look at their medical field and also a country with no resources and several embargoes its doing well compared to other latin american countries.

Look useless: You haven't a clue what you're talking about, you haven't even a firm idea as to what socialism properly is, as evidenced by your earlier lack of willingness to define it, and your present lack of understanding as to what it pertains to in practice. You definitely don't understand economics. All you have thusfar spat at me is a bunch of prejudicial rubbish occasionally mixed with the fallacy of polylogism.

Come back when you have a clear conception of the thing you are advocating, and until that time, stop advocating it.

If your so set on Socialism why don't you leave? You said you were part of the American education system which is a joke. Please gtfo. Transfer abroad or something.

This is the hew and cry of the in-just: Why should anyone have to physically leave their property simply because they disagree with you, and you are unwilling to debate them, and their property simply happens to be in the same arbitrary and abstract territory as theirs?

I'll just declare a nation state around you house, put troops on the border and require you to pay me an income tax. And if you don't like it I too can say "If you don't like it then leave." I suppose you would consider this justice?

 

Full blown socialism seems to me to have some serious flaws. That being said, I also think that unregulated capitalism has flaws of equal caliber. I prefer a moderate form - a socialist democracy. Namely, Rawls' form of socialism.

Golden mean fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

You too should read Economics in one lesson:
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Golden mean fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

You too should read Economics in one lesson:
http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

Sythe, I wasn't saying that I wanted a criss-cross between Capitalism and Socialism; I was saying that Rawls' view (which I agree with) is much more moderate than full out Socialism. I guess I was a bit unclear.

 

[pure skillzz]

Full blown socialism seems to me to have some serious flaws. That being said, I also think that unregulated capitalism has flaws of equal caliber. I prefer a moderate form - a socialist democracy. Namely, Rawls' form of socialism.

Then you would most likely enjoy the United States now adays.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Then you would most likely enjoy the United States now adays.

The states is nothing like what I had in mind.

 

Sythe, I wasn't saying that I wanted a criss-cross between Capitalism and Socialism; I was saying that Rawls' view (which I agree with) is much more moderate than full out Socialism. I guess I was a bit unclear.

Well let's assume then that you haven't invoked the golden mean fallacy. That is: let us assume that middle-of-the road socialism has some rational backing.

Firstly what is this rational backing?
Secondly, what are the serious flaws in socialism, in your understanding?
And thirdly, how does middle-of-the-road socialism avoid these serious flaws?

In the interests of mutual brevity, where possible try to keep explanations concise.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Well let's assume then that you haven't invoked the golden mean fallacy. That is: let us assume that middle-of-the road socialism has some rational backing.

Firstly what is this rational backing?
Secondly, what are the serious flaws in socialism, in your understanding?
And thirdly, how does middle-of-the-road socialism avoid these serious flaws?

In the interests of mutual brevity, where possible try to keep explanations concise.

1) Well, first let me say that there is one thing in capitalism that I specifically am against. When I walk down the Bridle Path, (one of the richest areas from my city) I always feel an acute feeling of pain. What is the reason for this pain? It is not that some people are living in impractical wealth while others are in poverty, but rather that the jobs that offer such opportunity are largely hereditary. We act as if every man can make his way but in truth it's quite the opposite; connections, money and influence are major factors in the determination of one's "abilitiy" - a colossal flaw. There is no equality of opportunity in capitalism. I think that the system I was speaking about takes needed steps to eliminate this problem. Oh, btw, this also applies to politics and many other things.
2) One of the main things I don't agree with is the redistribution of income. It may seem to work at first, but it is simply not human nature to, at the top, accept these disadvantages, and frankly,the bottom to accept this humiliation. I think that any form of serious, practical socialism should stay as far away as possible from redistribution of income. In my opinion, the differences in income must be to the benefit of the public (i.e. doctors are paid more so everyone isn't cashiers).
3) I have to go to school now and this could take me quite a while to explain. I'll answer it tonight, though.

 

[pure skillzz]

1) Well, first let me say that there is one thing in capitalism that I specifically am against. When I walk down the Bridle Path, (one of the richest areas from my city) I always feel an acute feeling of pain. What is the reason for this pain? It is not that some people are living in impractical wealth while others are in poverty, but rather that the jobs that offer such opportunity are largely hereditary. We act as if every man can make his way but in truth it's quite the opposite; connections, money and influence are major factors in the determination of one's "abilitiy" - a colossal flaw. There is no equality of opportunity in capitalism. I think that the system I was speaking about takes needed steps to eliminate this problem. Oh, btw, this also applies to politics and many other things.

Everybody does have an equal opportunity. Making good grades is the first step, and everybody can go to public school. If your grades are good enough heck you can get a scholarship and not have to pay a single cent, so the I don't have enough money factor doesn't have to kick in.

Instead these people skip school, and don't even give a shit. Then complain 10 years down the road how the government screwed them over.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Everybody does have an equal opportunity. Making good grades is the first step, and everybody can go to public school. If your grades are good enough heck you can get a scholarship and not have to pay a single cent, so the I don't have enough money factor doesn't have to kick in.

Instead these people skip school, and don't even give a shit. Then complain 10 years down the road how the government screwed them over.

No, equality of opportunity has been distorted. The son of a C.E.O would have a much better chance at being accepted at a high end job than the son of a grocer with significantly higher achievements.

 

[pure skillzz]

No, equality of opportunity has been distorted. The son of a C.E.O would have a much better chance at being accepted at a high end job than the son of a grocer with significantly higher achievements.

You can always work your way up the ladder.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

You can always work your way up the ladder.

Of course, but it's very, very, very difficult. Getting more difficult by the day as positions become more and more engraved in families. It's completely unequal.

 

[pure skillzz]

Of course, but it's very, very, very difficult. Getting more difficult by the day as positions become more and more engraved in families. It's completely unequal.

Well thats because were living in a recession as of right now, but once the economy gets better things will sort its self out.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Well thats because were living in a recession as of right now, but once the economy gets better things will sort its self out.

No it isn't. How does it have anything to do with the economy?

Politics as well. Every man can run for president? Then why does it require tens of thousands of dollars to run a suitable campaign? Does every man have the same right to vote with the same effectiveness? Then why can companies with significant influence pool their resources and effectively influence political decisions and our basic lifestyle.

 

[pure skillzz]

No it isn't. How does it have anything to do with the economy?

Well people are struggling to find jobs. So people who own a business are giving jobs to there children, or there friends, or even there friends children. The only way I'd be able to work this summer is if I ask one of my neighbors for a job.

Politics as well. Every man can run for president? Then why does it require tens of thousands of dollars to run a suitable campaign? Does every man have the same right to vote with the same effectiveness? Then why can companies with significant influence pool their resources and effectively influence political decisions and our basic lifestyle.

Tens of thousands is an understatement more like millions. Obama didn't come from a stable family, and he worked his way to become the president of the USA.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Well people are struggling to find jobs. So people who own a business are giving jobs to there children, or there friends, or even there friends children. The only way I'd be able to work this summer is if I ask one of my neighbors for a job.

I'm not necessarily talking about giving to children. I'm talking about when two people apply for a job.

Tens of thousands is an understatement more like millions. Obama didn't come from a stable family, and he worked his way to become the president of the USA.

Of course there will be people who make it to the top from the bottom - but it is completely unequal. Also, Obama had all his funding from insurance corporations, and now has to answer to them.

 

[pure skillzz]

I'm not necessarily talking about giving to children. I'm talking about when two people apply for a job.





Of course there will be people who make it to the top from the bottom - but it is completely unequal. Also, Obama had all his funding from insurance corporations, and now has to answer to them.

And Oprah Winfrey, and Warren Buffet only some of the two richest people in the world.