Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

Doesn't extent of freedom constitute an aspect of the quality of society? How is it, in any way, seperate?

Finally, in a socialist society, you would be "free" to do so, except you wouldn't have very much luck because you don't have people in such desperate situations.

 

Freedom is the ability to do what you want, whenever you want. It has nothing to do with the ease of living for people, though a life of freedom itself may be considered of high quality.

 

It does have to do with the well-being of people (inherently), which necessarily has to do with the quality of society in which they live.

 

Freedom only has to do with the well being of people as far as freedom is a desirable thing to have in one's life. Being fat, happy, and well-fed does not entail freedom. Freedom does not entail being fat, happy, and well-fed.

 

I said it's an aspect of well-being, and an aspect of society.

I didn't say it was the definition of well-being...

 

Freedom is an aspect of well-being, yes, and a positive aspect of society.

 

So then why is it seperate from the quality of a society?

 

It's not seperate from the quality of a society. Freedom is a positive quality, just as wealth, food, happiness, etc. are all positive qualities. It is possible to have a truly miserable society where people are free, or a very well taken care of society where people are not free.

 

which, incidentally, is what I have been arguing for a while now, and you just turn around and pretend thats what you have been saying all along

 

Then are we in agreement that freedom is a positive quality of a society?

 

I wouldn't say it is inherently a postive quality (although as far as qualities go it's probably the closest), and it obviously requires limitations such as not having the freedom to kill whoever you want.
But yes, when considering what factors were present in most reasonably-successful societies, freedom is at the top of the list.

Of course, 'freedom' is a rather large blanket term and I think we should stop using it so openly because it is notorious for causing confusion in discussions.

 

Yes, it does require basic limitations, which can be provided by the individual. If somebody tries to kill me, I shall defend myself using whatever force I deem necessary.

Ok, so you value freedom. Now, when I say freedom, I mean the freedom to do whatever you want, own land, build your own house, leave society if you so wish, sell your labor, etc. I do not mean freedom from poverty, starvation, or any of those things. Do you have the same concept of freedom as I?

 

What? How does this work? Everyone has to defend themselves?

Mm, nope. I don't consider the concept of land-ownership as a good thing, and with the redistribution of wealth within a society the negative effects of removing this particular freedom can be minimized for the average person.

 

Or pay others to defend them, or, if an individual chooses, they can defend somebody if they request it.

So, say I live on a farm with my family. We have worked the land for generations. Suddenly, you and your socialist friends come along, and steal our land for the greater good? No, this is madness. You acknowledge it as a freedom, but argue that it should be removed? No, you can bug off, I'm staying on my land, and if you try to take it, I'll defend it with deadly force. I don't care about the poor, they can take care of themselves. They're not my responsibility.

 

And yet when I make statements that devalue the life of unsentient organisms (fetuses), I'm the one that gets labeled as a bad person. This place is insane.

That said, the fundamental distinction between your ideology and my own is that you seek to make life better for a small minority. I seek to make life better for everyone. Your views are by definition bad for society.

Furthermore, why do you automatically assume that more freedom = more good. It is true that most modern society has progressed alongside various freedoms, but that doesn't mean any freedom you event is inherently good. I argue that private property rights have had disastrous consequences for the world. You haven't explained why it is 'wrong' to take away land from the rich.

Damn it, when is sythe going to acknowledge at least my two original posts. Main reason I signed up on here was to expose his hilarious ignorance. Unfortunately, a brief look into the abortion thread gave me a pretty good idea of the sort of people that tend to post here. I am rather amazed at the failure of our education systems.

 

Nah, I seek to make all individuals free. What happens as a result of that is the price of freedom.

Not all freedom's are good. Infringing upon universally preferred behavior, initiating force, etc. are not good things. Yet, individuals can defend their own rights.

Take property away from the rich? You have no moral grounds for that, other than to help people whose suffering is not my responsibility. If you have the right to do that, then why can't I take your land and add it to my own?

 

I'm sure they would. 'cept they wouldn't be able to. And what are these rights you keep talking about? Where are they coming from and how do you define them?

Moral grounds? This means nothing to me.

And this by definition makes your ideology bad for society by being bad for the majority of people. This approach will almost certainly turn out to be racist, classist, elitist, and probably sexist in practice.

You could, but you wouldn't be able to. That's what wide-scale revolutions are for. It is widely understood that most of the upper class will not willingly give up that which they have stolen from the people.

 

The way you seek it is through complete class division, where the rich will always step on the poor. Who cares if the poor don't have any power, they have freedom to do whatever they want! /sarcasm, if you didn't catch that. What good is freedom without power or the ability to attain it? Read 1984, as ism suggested.

So in order for you, the elite, to be free, you have to destroy the poor. Great, who cares about them anyway? /sarcasm

Again, if they don't have power, they are not able to defend themselves.

There's no such thing as absolute morality.

Also, your final sentence is contradictory. We don't take your land for ourselves to control; that's the very idea that marxism is trying to convey. What you, as an elite, do, is take the poors' land for yourself, essentially, by doing relatively nothing. By your own moral standards, don't you feel bad for not caring about those who are worse off than you?

 

Of course they would be able to. If they simply fail to do so, that's their own fault.

Rights and morality are based upon universally preferred behavior. An individual has the right to the means to survive. If somebody interferes with their manner of surviving, they have the right do defend themselves against this.

Perhaps you will understand it in terms of "If you try to take my land with force, I will kill you".

A truly free society is not bad for the majority of the population. If wages are too low to survive on, people will not work for the wage-giver. They will find somebody else who pays more competitive wages.

If I want to be racist, classist, elitist, or sexist, I will be.

Revolutions are useless nowadays. The weapons of destruction that we possess render large mobs completely without power. If I live on my own land, minding my own business, dealing in the free market to earn a living, then coming and taking my land is completely unjustified. I would not hesitate to use lethal force if necessary.

Stolen from the people? There is no theft here. An individual sells their services. If they have no other choice, that is their own concern, not mine.

Complete class division, no. I'm for the abolishment of government, an institution that keeps the poor, poor. Think - without taxation, you can keep what you earn, all of it. You can save up money, find a niche in the market, and use it.

Everybody would be free, actually.

And so you know, the "elite" aren't some shadowy group of evil people who deliberately try to sabotage the poor, laughing as they drink wine from golden goblets, etc. Most people are actually genuinely good people, and don't go out of their way to engage in vast conspiracies.

They don't need any political power. If you have a place to live, and weapons with which to defend yourself, you can do so.

Of course there is. Morality is based upon universally preferred behavior.

I take nothing. I either claim land that is unoccupied and unused, or purchase it.

My moral standards are those of not initiating force, except to protect myself. I am not responsible for others. If they are starving in the street, I may feel empathy for them, and give them food. In fact, if I need some unskilled workers, I may just hire them off the street, giving them food and shelter in exchange for their labor. I would give them adequate food, and perhaps money, also. I think that most people wouldn't deliberately try to undercut them. They can accept, or decline.

 

SOCIALISM?? COMMUNISM??

I am orginally from Australia - Democratic
I've been to United Arab Emirates - Monarchy
I've lived in China - Communist
I am now living in Somalia - No government except for Warlords.
In all of these countries the governments are messed up and all have problems.

All in all, I would prefer to live under a nationally socialist country then a communist one.