Healthcare being nationalized is one of few things that I'd really consider socialistic about Western leftists. And that barely fits in my book.

So yes. Id rather be paying my country for coverage than paying some crooked ceo hunchback fuck.

Alright, this seems to have derailed into a serious discussion, so this is where I'll bow out.

PooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOF, gone like a stale fart in a fresh summer breeze.

The forum is smelling better already.

@dD -

The "diminishment of individual freedom in favor of the imposition of government power over the individual" is in general a bad idea, as I am of the opinion that self-governing liberty best produces civic virtue and happiness. Imposition of governmental control, even in the name of a good cause, doesn't account for the corruption/imperfection of all-too-human people who make up the government.

I'm not sure I'd equate "diminishment of individual liberties" with "socialism" though, which is why you're drawing reactions from both Left and Right on this particular forum. There are other forms of government that ask for an ordered society. Each comes with different degrees and layouts of the individual liberties one is asked to submit to the state. Even the declaration of independence has the undersigners pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Submitting to the common laws of any particular city is part of acceptance into it. Some cities are more restrictive than others. I favor a lesser degree of restriction, because liberty is better than a nanny state. Either way, we're talking about degrees of restriction, not whether restriction exists at all.

otoh, If you want to go live in a perfectly independent and autonomous state of nature, that's fine. But get off my property, get rid of all those clothes you didn't make, get rid of the property that ties you to my society, and go live like an animal somewhere else. The rest of us human beings will be staying in a polis of some sort or another.

"wake up sheeple, we sheep aren't supposed to live in flocks!"

Related vid : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmjOd9Dlr34

What a rubbish loaded question or proposition you put DJ it's a load of rubbish full.stop. I suppose in your bullshit ayn randish rubbish you'll argue that all those millions oppressed by economic powers and the lack of it are somehow gloriously free to be used up as cannon fodder by corporations and extremely wealthy individuals are enjoying their squalid "Nirvana"

"BC" is how I describe you flawed propaganda DJ.. BC...beneath contempt

Socialism can be easily "defended" , however your shoddy intellectually bankrupt practise of misrepresenting that which you wish to criticise so that your criticisms can be constructed with the appearance of validity, whereas they really display your validity djs

Bloody asinine self correcting script s/w
Should read..so that your criticisms can be constructed with an appearance of validity, whereas what is displayed djs, is your vapidity.

From a social perspective, I guess socialism could work, that's less my area.

Purely economically, it would be impossible to maintain a purely socialist system without SERIOUSLY taking away civil liberties, and you'd have to be able to control birth rates and other wacky things to stabilize the work force and inflation.

complete control of demand systems could theoretically be done, though it's implementation is currently well beyond us, and it'd require destroying 100% of any non-necessary items.

control of supply systems would require a manipulation of all levels of factors of production, and for pure resource allocation you'd need constantly progressing technological output


Now, this is more communist than purely socialist, however if you create a socialist government and expect the economy to work: no. Pure communism MIGHT work, though the moral detriments are huge.

socialistic elements are implemented into society, though America is still FAR more capitalist than socialist, even our schools and healthcare have competition, and the drive is for MORE of that. human nature more accurately reflects competition than altruism, as altruism from an evolutionary perspective is derived from very close genetics (and isn't even in theory a great selective force)

Socialism may sound good to some, but the phrase "it looks SO good on paper" is very unfounded, as anyone who has even a slight knowledge of a purely socialist system will see it either will A. fail or B. take away basic rights

I won't denounce socialism entirely though, even though I've never seen a working system, beyond small Kibbutz in Israel and the such. Large scale socialism is VERY difficult without creating some form of representative state, and moving towards communism.

PS

Yes I have studied Marx's economics, and no I am not convinced. The spread of wealth over such large populous is entirely inefficient in the methods he depicts, and he also makes some presuppositions about Demand that are not supported by current mathematical models of the economy.

Arguments about "government control over individual freedom" entirely miss the point. For the vast majority of people, the organization that exerts the most control over their lives is their employer, not the government. Government interventions that limit the power of employers actually increase individual freedom. Similarly, as we have seen through history, corporations can take far more control over sociery than government, and so government is needed as a balancing force to protect individual freedom by limiting the power of corporations.

America tried libertarianism already in the late 1800s. It didn't work that well and it became clear that government limits on the power of employers was good for freedom, not to mention public health and safety.

No.

"Similarly, as we have seen through history, corporations can take far more control over sociery than government, and so government is needed as a balancing force to protect individual freedom by limiting the power of corporations."

um... recent history. before that it was the government causing all the problems. Also about 8 different major gov't collapses in the 20th century. All in all I agree, checks and balances are the most important part of gov't.

"America tried libertarianism already in the late 1800s. It didn't work that well and it became clear that government limits on the power of employers was good for freedom, not to mention public health and safety."

also after the civil was states' rights kind of went out the window a LOTTTT.

Also it's important to remember, that Economies of Scale make up only a part of how monopolies are formed. MANY monopolies form from government collusion. Thus checks and balances (our current system has shit checks and balances)

JamesYanik: Interesting analysis, but you seem to be basing your analysis on orthodox Marxism. Not all socialist thought is Marxist and not all Marxist thought fits with your analysis.

While most of your analysis isn't relevant to my brand of socialism, this is:
"human nature more accurately reflects competition than altruism, as altruism from an evolutionary perspective is derived from very close genetics (and isn't even in theory a great selective force)"
Around the time Darwin passed away, people began thinking of ways to apply evolutionary genetics to political science. This lead to a dark, dark world of 'scientific' racism known today as social Darwinism. It is not a good idea to base a society on a perverse belief that individuals, countries, nations and races can be 'superior' to one another because this belief in superiority ('competition', as you call it) inevitably leads to death and suffering on a massive scale. Social Darwinism was discredited in the wake of World War II and should never rear its ugly head again.

Instead, we must talk about what we value – either as individuals or as a people. Do we value order and blind obedience so as to satisfy the gods of natural selection and run a well-oiled competitive machine? Or do we instead value compassion for our fellow man (alturism, if you like)? The latter is the basis of socialism. We must ask ourselves and our neighbors what world we want to live in. Maybe this is the 'social perspective' you mention at the beginning of your analysis?

"um... recent history."
Have you ever heard of the East India Companies?

In very small communities it can work.

@"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?"

The government employs 'police officers' who diminish individual freedom, to create a 'better' society.

Can you defend this? Any taxation at all, never mind the actually inplied use of force by the state against your personal freedoms. Is infact socialism by your definition.

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/05/republican-party-protect-children/

The original question cannot be answered unless we first agree on what constitutes a "better society". That is a philosophical question heavily debated over the years. Utilitarianism in differens versions leading to theories about distributive justice is one argued answer, Nozicks theories about what follows from an original distribution is another. Since that question cannot be objectively decided the thread starters question cannot be objectively answered either. Yes, I'm a philosophy major.

I am not a philosophy major but the answer to this question is yes. I can defend socialism, anyone can, with information of any caliber.

Yeah ok, everything can be defended if we mean defended in a broader meaning. In that respect I can defend stabbing for Moscow even when it leads to France winning solo or the genocide in Rwanda.

You don't need to define what is 'better for society' - you just need to consider it, 'what people think is better for society'.

"I am not a philosophy major but the answer to this question is yes. I can defend socialism, anyone can, with information of any caliber."

Here is what he means. Do feel that it is ok for a collection of people to take away from the individual? That is what State sponsored socialism requires. Some agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual. Others believe that liberty and freedom of the individual from tyranny ought to be primary. If you believe in the former, then how do you decide what are the needs of the many? Do you practice paternalism? Do you have an elite group of government bureaucrats who decide? If so, do you acknowledge the elites are likely to act in their own self-interest because of human nature? If so, does that undermine the society you envision?

Can anyone defend satanic rituals

"Some agree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual. Others believe that liberty and freedom of the individual from tyranny ought to be primary."

Most agree with police and armies being paid for by taking from the individual. None appear to argue that these jobs are better done by volunteers.

Many agree that education - at primary and secondary levels - should be paid for by taking from the individual. So that everyone you are likely to meet in the street is better educated, and more indoctrinated into the system and thus hopefully less of a threat to you (and poverty+poor education tends to correlate with crime rates).

Few (in America) advocate for Higher education and healthcare to be paid for by taking from the individual. Again, for similar reasons to those given above. (with healthcare costs and poverty being linked, especially for chronic illnesses - many of which were considered 'disqualifying pre-existing conditions' until Obama care came along)

@eutrnage : It is far more nuanced than the black and white picture you paint. And nobody that i'm aware has called for 'liberty and freedom' in all things. Not even anarchists...

Can anyone defend neoliberalism?
Can anyone defend the idea that "privatization" can produce a better society by diminishing social institutions in exchange for increased capitalist imposition of corporate power on society?