The imposition of government power on the individual by diminishing personal freedom is crystal clear. One increases at the expense of the other. Obamacare is a perfect example of the phrase in real life. You no longer have the freedom to choose whatever you want in health care because the government imposes it power to dictate your health care choices.

That troublesome phrase "better society". How would you define this? Standards of living? Economic power? If you define "better" in terms of better individual freedom, which I think you are implying, then won't a socialist government by definition be worse?

Take China, however. Standards of living are actually fairly high, despite a highly centralised society. Also needless to say, China is an economic powerhouse. So would you say that China has a "good society"?

LStragavanz, could you provide a specific example of what you are talking about. If you read my statement I define socialism as the imposition of government power on the individual that decreases their individual freedom. You may have your own definition of socialism. I would appreciate a specific example of what you are talking about, and does it make society better. I'm more than willing to agree if convinced.

Giving the lower classes the chance to be educated, to be healthy, to work in a healthy environment is, in my opinion, freedom.
Liberals are disillusioned by the idea that being able to earn a lot of money means they're free, while money is the only thing that's actually keeping people in chains.

Yeah, I'll give defending socialism a stab. I believe that having the government control a country's armed forces leads to a better society that giving individuals a choice to defend their little patch or let it be overrun. Acting in unison when invading other nations is historically more efficient that individuals mounting their own campaigns. @db - would you advocate more individual choice when it comes to the armed services or less?

NiggeBaby, there is still some drool on the corner of your mouth. You didn't get it all when you wiped.

The fact that all of Washington's men volunteered for duty and weren't conscripted is an example of the individual freedom vs socialism I'm talking about. Definitely superior to a conscripted force. When has an army of American draftees been superior to American volunteers? Exactly my point. The American officer corps from West Point is all volunteer and arguably the finest in the world.

I can see for someone like you the opportunity to confuse the word Nigee with Nigge must be compelling, very impressive you didn't add the letter 'r' as the temptation for you must be overwhelming.
Why not concern yourself with a topic you understand rather than trying to over-simplify something you obviously don't understand which just makes you look like an ignoramus.
Why not tell us how not living in a Socialist state has brought you great freedoms. The juxtaposition of your argument to what is happening at the moment with the NSA in the US is ironic and quite hilarious. If you want to check out over-bearing govt power over individuals you don't have to touch Socialism, just look at the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I'm just going to assume you're looking to be educated, my advice is try reading more rather than trolling forums with your crackpot idiotic comments.

@db - love how you keep trying to move the goalposts. You said..."define socialism as the imposition of government power on the individual that decreases their individual freedom" so every time an officer in the army says, for example, 'we're storming that hill' the army is acting as a socialist unit. From that point on acting together even when some individuals want to try other tactics is the best way of achieving the overall aim. The same can be said of road building. You might want to excercise your personal choice of travelling by sedan chair but building roads is best achieved by government overriding your objections and building them anyway. Ditto hospitals, schools, libraries, etc etc.

It is not an imposition if you want everyone to be provided with universal health care.

Everyone happily pools their resources, and a public health service is paid for.

You do the same for police, education and military. The end.

I guess NigeeBarby didn't bother to read the first post of the thread before he posted his thoughts. Nothing like either laziness or being uninformed. I wonder why NigeeBarby doesn't start a thread "What is great about socialism and bad about individual freedom."

Here is the statement that began this thread NigeeBarby since you didn't read it, or if you did you decided to bait and switch. Either way your post is ill suited for the subject of this thread.

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

Obamacare expanded health care. Ridiculous. I can no longer forego purchasing health care. That is not an expansion.

Here is another example of socialism working. In England we have several water companies. Individuals can choose who supplies their water. In Scotland they have one water board. The average water bill in Scotland is a lot less than in England. Water quality is comparable. Individuals are denied choice, but it seems to work.

Manaic, you can start your own thread to discuss private corporations. The choice here is between individual freedom creating a better society than socialism.

" "government" can produce a better society by diminishing individual freedom in exchange for increased socialist imposition of government power on the individual"

This doesnt sounds like Socialism, this rather sounds like a totalitarian socialism like National Socialist regimes.

Although, your question is obviously a rhetoric one as you clearly expect the answer no I want to remind you that anyone can defend any idea, there are many defenders of national socialism unfortunately.

Finally I think you may also be interested in reading more about anarcho-socialism and anarcho-syndicalism which, in a nutshell, emphasise strongly the "stateless society" argument of Marx.

It is also important to ask in which areas the government should have regulatory roles. Many socialists only wants government to regulate the economy, but they are strongly against interfering with the social life or getting involved with social construction.

"If you read my statement I define socialism as the imposition of government power on the individual that decreases their individual freedom."

Which sounds like a remarkably-charged and slanted definition...

Or would you like it if I "defined" conservatism as angry old Southern white men imposing their views on religion and business on everyone else?

Not exactly a fair and balanced definition, is it?

Maybe you should try and frame your question less like a FOX News anchor and more like, you know, someone with a shred of objectivity...and dignity...and integrity...

@ ShockTrooper - 'Manaic, you can start your own thread to discuss private corporations. The choice here is between individual freedom creating a better society than socialism.'

He's talking about socialism in scotland, with regards to water supply (another things which everyone needs)

Nebuchanezar, you obviously don't understand what socialism means, and you don't bother to read what I said it means in the statement that began this thread. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Also, this is an example of what we call 'representative democracy' - the people voted for senators, congressmen and a president. These represent the will of the people and are required to do their best to improve life for everyone.

The issue isn't between socialism and individual freedom, it is between representative democracy and corporatism.

"you obviously don't understand what socialism means, and you don't bother to read what I said it means"

What you said it means? Are you an authority now? Where did you derive your authority, was it by starting this thread? I guess we will have to bow down and accept your definitions, on this thread, and banish reality from it.

11/10 would laugh and remember the good ole days with TC again

I defined it obiwan. The diminishment of individual freedom by the imposition of government power on the individual. That is socialism.

Too bad no socialist would define it as such.

This is called a "straw man". Define something you dislike in a way that you have an easier time arguing against it.

Hey PE, don't forget to cash your government check brought to you by an hard working American who can cut it.

Well done, dD.

Oh wait, you're actually serious.

That's a problem.

I think socialism can work rather well in small societies where people have similar work ethics.

For instance, when I was in college, my three roommate and I lived in a fairly socialist society. We pooled our money for groceries and supplies, and cooked our meals together and split them. We didn't really keep track of who owed what. We just took what we needed and then replaced it when we could. Worked well for us.

Now, going from 4 people to a whole country is a bit of a stretch, but I could see it working well for societies of dozens of people.

@abge, as it happens, democracy has a similar problem when scaling up to hundreds of millions....

Without wasting any further time on this point, I think it's safe to say that no government currently works for 350 million people or more...

No Orathic. I'm not. I'm debating the diminishment of individual freedom in favor of the imposition of government power over the individual.