like the rams defended against atlanta last sunday?

The idea that government can produce a better society (by limiting individual freedom) is the premise of all forms of democratic governments (not just socialist ones). Choosing to live under any system of laws (constraints to individual freedom) is an exchange intended to produce a better society.

OP is a straw man based on a very loaded question.

However, as a socialist, I would happily defend socialism.

the goverment that governs least, governs best. its not the government, its the people.

If someone can defend capitalism being fair to all, do explain.

fairness...life is not fair...why are you living in the US mid west and not on borneo?

beraca, 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.

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

The government imposes a law, "you shall not steal". That restricts my freedom to take things from other people. The government does that on the premise that it makes a better society. Nothing to do with socialism.

If you want to talk about socialism specifically, please define what you mean by it (which individual freedoms you think socialism takes away).

the true socialist society is the nuclear family. this being said the benefits are understood by the parents and taught to the children. and it is somewhat self seeking in that it preserves the lineage. you must take into account in any society the nature of humanity. we are wired to take advantage. we are taught to cooperate. i learned that in kindergarten at age four!

ShockTrooper, what breaca was referring to is something called social contract theory, which is a foundational tenet of liberalism. The individual gives up some of their natural freedoms, such as the freedom to murder others, for more order and security. Every state is an "imposition of government power on the individual." Socialism extends that only slightly further in order to create more equality in the society.

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

Yes, what Peregrine said! That is what I mean.

who determines 'equality'?

Grainbob?

pbomrainp

Are we talking about actual socialism or modern socialism?

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.

And greater equality (in income) translates into greater happiness for whole the country (including the rich) - see this HBR article for the research - https://hbr.org/2016/01/income-inequality-makes-whole-countries-less-happy

money does not buy happiness. the most unhappy people i know are liberals and socialists.

i don't know may atheists but those i do know aren't too happy either.

dD_Shocktrooper: Your definition could describe a lot of forms of government which are not socialism.

CAPT Bard makes excellent points. I concur not that he needed that. His argument rests on its own merits.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Socialism does curtail some individual freedoms, but it does so in order to promote other freedoms.

Two examples:

Freedom from poverty.
Freedom from illness.

Jamiat98uk, there is still some drool on the corner of your mouth. You didn't get it all when you wiped.

*mute thread*

Socialism isn't necessarily about equality. Some of its most effective use has been in preventing foreign influence on the economy, like how it was used in Africa, Latin America, or Iran. Countries sought to become economically independent, so they had their governments seize industries to keep other countries out.

As a globalist and a capitalist, I'm not a huge fan of it, but this classical form of it "public ownership of the means of production" implemented through nationalization of industry, I understand it.

Western socialists, which are the "modern" variety of socialist, are different in ideology from this. They seem to be globalist as well to an extent, but they fear trade deals. It's hard for me to discern cohesive policies from these that don't feel ripped off of non-socialistic thinkers as far as I can tell.