AAAAARGHHHH...Fuck this thread. There is no evidence to prove that Socialism is a superior form of government.

So...OK....Is socialism a *viable* form of government? YES. There...I said it. The idea that a government will work with people and business etc to provide an infrastructure that pleases the people can be demonstrated.

My current manager is from Germany. Great guy, *extremely* talented Engineer. Very smart guy.

He doesn't understand American capitalsm. Now, that isn't to say that he doesn't understand companies making money, and the subsequent salaries that come along with it (that, mind you, HE TAKES ADVANTAGE OF BECAUSE HIS HIGH SALARY IS DEPENDENT UPON OUR COMPANY MAKING A SHIT LOAD OF MONEY....)....

....but he has this "social awareness" in which he thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for his government to TAX HIM MORE in order to provide ADDITIONAL BENEFITS to those that are not of his economic stature.

i.e. He is willing to have his wealth redistributed.

i.e. he is willing to be a slave for the benefit of others, though he would NEVER confess to such an interpretation.

So he is ALSO a child of the Soviet Union -- i.e. he was born in East Germany before the wall fell, and thus his ideology is shaded by Soviet Communism.

But...bottom line...her is a very intelligent guy who thinks that socialism is a good thing, because he has worked his ass off and has welth to spare, and thus he thinks it is RIGHT that the government take from him to provide benefits to others.

SO....does socialisim WORK? Yes. Sure. Of course it does IF AND WHEN IT IS MANAGED PROPERLY.

The problem is that socialism often does NOT work properly.

MORE to the point, socialism ***stunts the growth of poeple***.

This is simply a truth of humanity, and if you deny this, you are a lying piece of shit: If someone offers you SOMETHING for doing NOTHING, then you will do nothing. If someone offers you something for nothing and asks (NOT demands) that you do nothing to add to the coffers, then you will do nothing.

Socialism works...WHEN AND ONLY WHEN managed properly....but the bottom line is that is depends upon people being willing to give of themselves.....with no return benefit....for the advantage of others.

Now...WHY socialism SUCKS is because it DENIES HUMANS THE IMPETUS TO IMPROVE THEMSELVES.

Look at the current idiocy in America...where Burger-flipping ****assholes*** are demanding $15/hr to give me a fucking burger and fries at McDonald's. IDIOCY.

First and foremost....NONE of these assholes seems to be able to serve me a well-made burger and hot fries. i.e. they HAVE NO TALENT to EARN that money.

Second...when they demand a wage that is HIGHER than some skilled workers...they effectively give a PAY CUT to those working jobs requiring more skill.

Third....when they get their pay raise, everythign they produce will GO UP IN COST....thus effectiely giving a pay cut to EVERYONE.

Because the demand for a pay raise is not associated with a cap in corporate profits, companies will simply raise prices to compensate for the idiotic raise in wages...and IN SHORT ORDER THE HIGHER WAGE WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO THE PREVIOUS LOWER MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE EVERYTHING COSTS MORE.

There is nothing in this equation that encourages some useless piece of shit dope-smoiking burger flipper to IMPROVE HIMSELF OR HERSELF. And thus a government mandate that 'THINGS GET BETTER' by improvign wages will be totally offset by the price increaeses. In fact...the end result may be a net-negative.

And......oh my god...I'm so tired of writing this.....bottom line is, socialism if a failure, because the end result is an overall REDUCTION in corporate growth and expansion of the wage base.

IF the governemnt is demanding that what you WANT to do (grow the company) will cost more (government mandates wages, benefits, etc) then there is a point where you will STOP investing in new ideas, new products, etc, because why the hell would you put yourself out there and risk your wealth?

"OH...." the libtard says, "because corporations are GREEDY" and therefore they will always do more to make more money: Which is funny....because the same Libtards ALSO say that a corporation that makes more money will never pay people more because they hoard wealth instead of investing....blah blah blah....i.e. libtards are just fuckign morons that know NOTHING about business or investment or economics in general...which is why we are as fucked as we are.....etc etc etc.

Socialism sucks. Deal, with it, you useless fucks.

HERE'S AN IDEA.....educate yourself, get work experience, work hard, get better and better jobs, contribute to society WILLINGLY instead of at the point of a gun, ETC.

qed

"Social justice" instead of "struggle for weathness" is a pledge for a peaceful society. <irony>Else, let's start by getting rid of our parents. They are not productive and we would get more in stopping taking care of them. (I wrote "our parents" but I meant "yours", mine are smart and deserve what they get, for sure)</irony>

Our parents aren't productive? lol what the fuck? My parents are in their 70's. One still works (as he pleases), the other provides volunteer and various services to society that otherwise would be provided by probably MULTIPLE useless fucks charging $15/hour. The reason my parents can provide services to society is BECAUSE of capitalism that allowed them to earn and save wealth that they now live off of. My parents, even though I am married with kids, also continue to provide valuable advice and insight as to how to handle certain events in my life.

That you are such a sick piece of shit that you think society would benefit from the extermination of your parents and their wisdom is simply a example of what a useless, arrogant piece of shit you are.

Can anyone defend parents?
Can anyone defend the idea that "parenthood" can produce a better society by diminishing individual freedom in exchange for increased socialist imposition of familial power on the individual?

Krellin, you really need to look into Rawls's Theory of Justice, although I imagine it's a bit above your pay-grade, mentally.

Krellin, society is constantly redistributing wealth in the direction of the powerful. Your friend and his high salary--and yours--represents only a portion of the economic value you produce. A portion of the value you produce is being retained by your employer. In theory, that could create a partnership in which you and your employer work together for your mutual benefit. Employers are seeking to maximize profit--which means, in short, that they will seek to take as much as they possibly can from their employees in every way unless they are restrained by government. If producing wealth for other people is slavery, you're far more a slave to your employer than to your government.

Capitalism all the way. Yee haw

Big govt is for losers. If you don't think that a socialist govt creates an elite, you are just fucking stupid.

ITT: PURE IDEOLOGY

@ OP: All forms of government have inherent strengths and weaknesses. Socialism certainly has its strengths. The many of the socialist governments in Scandinavia have produced the "happiest people" and "best schools" in the world. The results speak for themselves. The US has been a quasi-Capitalist/Socialist country since the early 1900s and has been usually drifting towards Socialist policies (although the GOP reduce SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid in the next few years). I drift between Communism all the way to Anarchy depending on the day of "what would be best." To be honest, they all are great and terrible at the same time...

To answer the original question: of course.

The latest posts seem to assume that socialism=everything but unrestricted capitalism. In that respect the scandinavian countries are socialistic, so is all of Europe. I will iterate ChoosyBeggars tip: read Rawls Theory of Justice and perhaps Nozicks Anarchy, State and Utopia. Add some utilitarian book like The life you can save by Singer. Then come back.

@vixol Nozick is so, so pessimistic in his worldview. Yes, it's a worthwhile read, but mostly as a touching-off point for better books. I'd suggest some easy JSM over Singer, though, since Rawls speaks so directly on him. Also, throwing in HATH by Nietzsche wouldn't hurt. That being said, Krellin isn't going to do any of this.

On what matters by Parfit if we're bringing in the artillery. And something about quasi realism to deepen the discussion about values. Ok, we're being a tad elitist here ;)

No harm in that. Opportunities to speak about these things are all too rare, and banality all too common.

Also if you're into quasi-realism I'd suggest picking up some G. E. Moore or Bertrand Russell, if you haven't yet.

Thank you orathaic for your reply. My point was that there are competing political philosophies here. I was responding to a comment that Socialism was ipso facto the only legitimate viewpoint. As you discerned, I tend to fall on the side of individual freedom. My reasons run precisely to the point of mistrust. I simply don't trust political elites to make sound judgments. Take law enforcement for example. I don't think it was wise to grant the police the power to confiscate the property of individuals using civil forfeiture. That incentives the police toward corruption, and corruption is inevitable. A socialist assumes we must have a State run police force. But who decides the policies of that force? The socialists? There are legitimate contradictory political philosophies to those advocated Rawls, who has been subject of effective critical analysis imo.

IMHO Rawls can be used to defend almost any ideology, as long as you claim that "your" ideology is the one that best forwards the interests of the worst-offs.

That's a very limited reading of his work. You'd be well served by another go at it.

For those interested, quasirealism includes a theory about supervenience, which simply put means that certain values are glued to certain states, without actually meaning they "exist" in an absolute way. An analogy is colour: The colour "blue" of an object does not really exist, what exists is a set of material qualities that reflects certain kinds of light which IN HUMAN eyes are observed as "blue". So blue doesnt exist, but its observation comes along with certain physical qualities.

The same could be said about values and actions or distribution of wealth. This is not meant to mean that we could vote about what is observed as good.

You also would probably enjoy Pirsig as he relates to a priori. He goes at the idea much more practically than most others have.

@ChoosyBeggar I didnt mean it could be well used. But given the basic premise that you have a priori reason to like potential worlds with good outcome for the worst off, then all ideologies that claim being best for the worst off could claim to be Rawlsian in a kind of more or less coherent way. That doesnt mean that the basic premise is right or that all theories can make a good claim to being best for the worst off though. Some would even claim that there are actual empiric evidence that says some theories are clearly not best for the worst off. But then again, what is empiri worth?

Utilitarianism and quasi-realism are not good bedfellows, vixol. I'd advise against conflating or combining the two. Practical inquiry into values would be better served by relativistic morality or veil-of-ignorance combined with Nietzschean self-rebranding, scaled up.

Shoot all socialists. Fuel the power plants with them.

1. reduction in population means fewer resources are consumes
1a. reduction in population means less impact on environment, which socialists assholes, whom are also usually enviuronmental fucktards, should love
2. I forget the next point, but point 1. and 1a. are awesome enough

As usual, Krellin's input is so very useful.

Oh yeah. As if a fucking back-scratching liberal "discussion" of socialism had any inherent value. Fucking moron.

@Choosy, of course you are right. Utilitarianism in all forms is based on the assumption that there are at least something everyone "ought" to value. And in this ought is some kind of proof that they exist, a long the line RM hare uses in Moral thinking.

Krellin, your argument is clearly based on some deep felt antagonism, and I rfespect that. We are just talking on different levels. You're discussing in essence whether you "like" socialism as in "liking icecream", whereas we are discussing questions about what icecream is, what to "like" something means, and whether liking at all has any other than subjective meaning. You could respect our discussion too?