America Will Never Be A Socialist Country

[EMNofSeattle]

dodge.

No, It is documented that the US has higher rates of smoking, alcoholism, and obesity.

i prefer to be treated like an employee.

Then get a different job where the labor conditions are what you want.

false.

No

 

[Helix]

No, It is documented that the US has higher rates of smoking, alcoholism, and obesity.

dodge. Americans pay vastly more for basically the same care. this is beyond debate.

Then get a different job where the labor conditions are what you want.

while i wouldn't mind transferring to Europe, that isn't possible right now. i'll vote against anti-labor Republicans for the timbering and try to make things better here.

No

yes.

 

[Kobie]

No, It is documented that the US has higher rates of smoking, alcoholism, and obesity.

The U.S. ranks 69th in the world in cigarette consumption per capita and 48th in alcohol consumption per capita, as per wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capita

 

[Keridan]

Not really. Nixon had price controls, did you miss the massive deconstruction of Nixon's gubmint regulations under both Carter and Reagan???? Dictators, oligarchies, turn of the century governments fixed prices, gold standards and rates of exchange- gubmint controls ain't just socialist...

Seems only conservatives fear drawing the line- it was the battle cry against same sex marriage-''if we allow 'the gays' to marry soon men will marry farm animals!!!!" (I was a bit put off these guardians of marriage didn't consider women might marry farm animals as well... :roll: )

Just so I have a baseline- even live as in for years in any *shudder* European nation???? Just what causes you to shudder so???? eace

As your post is not rude, I didn't want to disregard you without comment. Most of what you said either assumes a viewpoint I dont hold or was already addressed in my subsequent contributions to this thread.

As for your ending questions, I don't understand the phrasing you used. I think you are asking what I pity EU for and that would further derail this thread just to have us disagree anyway.

I'm sorry for not engaging you at this time. I hope you have a nice evening.

 

[Felis Leo]

I'm for giving people control of their lives. By allowing them to see what is in their products, in this very specific example. It's not transparent because you're leaving yet another loop hole.

Let me ask it this way.

If a company makes a product with a carcinogenic compound, that is a known carcinogenic compound, do you think the public should be:

A. Informed that the carcinogenic compound is present.
B. Told the carcinogenic compound (which the manufacturer knows is in the product, in this example) MAY or MAY NOT be in the product.
C. Told to make their own decisions and leave business be business.

Good question, Obscurity. I would advocate Option A if the manufacturer knows or should have reasonably known about the presence of a carcinogen. What I would not advocate for is mandatory testing of any and all products entering the marketplace. But those that are not tested should be clearly marked.

What I have no interest is helping already-established and ossified juggernauts of any particular industry retain their position through regulatory capture.

I want people to be armed with the truth of what they're buying. Apparently you are not. If the mantra of conservatives is personal responsibility, how can you be against telling the public a carcinogen is in a product? Instead, you play grabass to justify mucking things up.

Give people the truth and they will make their informed decision. Play with words and you protect only one party while claiming the purchaser was an idiot and it's their fault for buying the product.

Well there I disagree. I do not think people are idiots, except in a rare number of instances. I think most people have preferences which, on the surface appear irrational and appear detrimental to their health or long-term self-interests. There are plenty of people who know the dangers of the product they are purchasing but choose to purchase them anyway, such as tobacco and alcohol, which are fundamentally unhealthy to consume in any quantity. There are people such who believe that if we just forced companies to inform people a bit more, they would change their ways and stop drinking and smoking or using fireworks or any number of dangerous activities with dangerous products. By all means, put warning labels about the dangers of fetal alcohol syndrome and lung cancer on the labels. Put warning labels stating the product contains agents known to cause cancer. But one cannot save people from themselves. If people derive utility from a product that they know to be dangerous, then nothing will really stand a chance of stopping them from using it except criminal prohibition.

Doubt it. But let's debate it. I've asked very pointedly why you refuse transparency and all you're resorting to is more right wing sound bytes.

Well a few reasons. One of the many ways

I don't want to control lives. I want people to have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. Seemingly, from your position, you still want to conceal and offer plausible deniability on behalf of the company, and then place all the fault on the consumer.

That is absurd.

I have no desire to do that, Obscurity. If a company manufactures a dangerously-designed or defective product, I am all for the manufacturer to be punished in civil court and forced to pay damages. And if they knowingly concealed defects or dangerous composition of the product, I am all for them being sued, and if it is egregious enough, being held criminally liable.

 

[Harshaw]

All the more evidence that no one knows what socialism really means, but the term is sure going to be used to frighten people.

There are an awful lot of people who want it both ways.

Here, a lot of people seem to want to hold "socialism" to its strict definition, state control of the means of production. To which they say, "no way, the stuff we want isn't socialism; you're just trying to scare people."

But when people say they want socialism, and critics of socialism point to socialist nightmares around the globe historically, or contemporary ones like Venezuela or Cuba, it's all "no no no no. We mean like SWEDEN or DENMARK. You know, democratic socialism."

So, for you, and for everyone who liked your post . . .

What is real socialism? Just so we can be clear going forward. And expect to be held to it.

 

[sangha]

Good question, Obscurity. I would advocate Option A if the manufacturer knows or should have reasonably known about the presence of a carcinogen. What I would not advocate for is mandatory testing of any and all products entering the marketplace. But those that are not tested should be clearly marked.

IMO, producing or using a product that has not been proven to be safe is both morally wrong and harmful to a civil society, with the latter making it justifiably subject to govt regulation. By what right, legal or moral, does a producer have to sell a product which puts both people and society at risk?

What I have no interest is helping already-established and ossified juggernauts of any particular industry retain their position through regulatory capture.

I find that an odd position to take for someone with your views on campaign finance as one inevitably leads to the other.

 

[OrphanSlug]

There are an awful lot of people who want it both ways.

Here, a lot of people seem to want to hold "socialism" to its strict definition, state control of the means of production. To which they say, "no way, the stuff we want isn't socialism; you're just trying to scare people."

But when people say they want socialism, and critics of socialism point to socialist nightmares around the globe historically, or contemporary ones like Venezuela or Cuba, it's all "no no no no. We mean like SWEDEN or DENMARK. You know, democratic socialism."

So, for you, and for everyone who liked your post . . .

What is real socialism? Just so we can be clear going forward. And expect to be held to it.

The problem with the question is the definition inherently means strict socialism, as defined as a political ideology and economic principle of socioeconomic organization that advocates the means of production, distribution, and exchange of products and services be owned and/or regulated by the community (government) as a whole. The issue with that definition is that is the polar opposite of the economic principles of capitalism. The political ideology of hands off, and the economic principle of ownership being private and reliant on market forces.

Our issue, a harsh reality too, is we have neither one.

We run a mixed economic model, have almost back to the inception of the country. There has always been some degree of government involvement and/or influence and/or regulation of our economy. Moreover, we long ago abandoned the principles of minimal government. Political ideology suggested using the power of governance to some ends.

Social conservatism and frankly oligarchical capitalism are hallmarks of the right, trying to influence economic and social ends (in various ways) are hallmarks of the left.

The irony is when someone in our modern political climate, like Trump, gets up and says "America will never be a socialist country" what he is really talking about is an unwillingness to shift where the power of governance comes down. Said another way, release the ends they want from the power of government doing what modern Republicans want. Republicans are neither free market or self determination thinking, they just want power to go where they want it.

When someone like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez talk about Democratic Socialism, they are not talking about the ole USSR or Russia (closer to perhaps Sweden or Denmark but I doubt it would align there either.) They are just talking about using power of government to new degrees of economic and social ends. The inverse of Republicans, today's Democrats just want power to go where they want it.

In the meantime, we continue to march towards greater government... from the lot of them.

 

[Felis Leo]

IMO, producing or using a product that has not been proven to be safe is both morally wrong and harmful to a civil society, with the latter making it justifiably subject to govt regulation. By what right, legal or moral, does a producer have to sell a product which puts both people and society at risk?

That is a good question, sangha. I would say that a seller has a right to produce dangerous products by the same right that people are given to purchase dangerous products. The best example being, of course, alcohol. Alcohol is unsafe to consume, and creates severe negative externalities. People destroy their bodies which leads them to becoming emotional burdens on their families and financial burdens on their communities, and people who drink often endanger their communities through drunken driving which kill thousands of innocent people every year in our country alone. Beyond use as a cooking flavor, direct alcohol consumption provides no material benefit to society and a huge number of detriments. Yet we allow alcoholic beverage companies to continue to produce, market and sell alcohol because that is what the people apparently want.

I find that an odd position to take for someone with your views on campaign finance as one inevitably leads to the other.

Perhaps. But regulatory capture certainly exists in countries that have far stricter campaign advertisement and spending laws than ours. However much campaign finance laws change, I think laws and regulations passed to favor already-established firms with greater economies of scale and to prevent new competing firms from entering into the market will always be an issue that we will need to watch out for (especially when these laws are passed under the auspices of the public good).

 

[Harshaw]

The problem with the question is the definition inherently means strict socialism, as defined as a political ideology and economic principle of socioeconomic organization that advocates the means of production, distribution, and exchange of products and services be owned and/or regulated by the community (government) as a whole. The issue with that definition is that is the polar opposite of the economic principles of capitalism. The political ideology of hands off, and the economic principle of ownership being private and reliant on market forces.

Our issue, a harsh reality too, is we have neither one.

We run a mixed economic model, have almost back to the inception of the country. There has always been some degree of government involvement and/or influence and/or regulation of our economy. Moreover, we long ago abandoned the principles of minimal government. Political ideology suggested using the power of governance to some ends.

Social conservatism and frankly oligarchical capitalism are hallmarks of the right, trying to influence economic and social ends (in various ways) are hallmarks of the left.

The irony is when someone in our modern political climate, like Trump, gets up and says "America will never be a socialist country" what he is really talking about is an unwillingness to shift where the power of governance comes down. Said another way, release the ends they want from the power of government doing what modern Republicans want. Republicans are neither free market or self determination thinking, they just want power to go where they want it.

When someone like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez talk about Democratic Socialism, they are not talking about the ole USSR or Russia (closer to perhaps Sweden or Denmark but I doubt it would align there either.) They are just talking about using power of government to new degrees of economic and social ends. The inverse of Republicans, today's Democrats just want power to go where they want it.

In the meantime, we continue to march towards greater government... from the lot of them.

The things you say here, I already said in my post, just more succinctly.

So, just give a simple answer:

What is real socialism?

 

[OrphanSlug]

The things you say here, I already said in my post, just more succinctly.

So, just give a simple answer:

What is real socialism?

I am not entirely sure it has ever been achieved, nor as 'real' capitalism.

That is my point, the nature of your question is chasing whiteboard classroom theory.

 

[sangha]

That is a good question, sangha. I would say that a seller has a right to produce dangerous products by the same right that people are given to purchase dangerous products. The best example being, of course, alcohol. Alcohol is unsafe to consume, and creates severe negative externalities. People destroy their bodies which leads them to becoming burdens on their communities, and people who drink often endanger their communities through drunken driving which kill thousands of innocent people every year in our country alone. Beyond use as a cooking flavor, direct alcohol consumption provides no material benefit to society and a huge number of detriments. Yet we allow alcoholic beverage companies to continue to produce, market and sell alcohol.

For one thing, alcohol consumption is not necessarily harmful. In fact, moderate consumption can be beneficial.

But even more important, alcohol consumption is highly regulated. Your example supports my position

In addition, I would point out that we were not talking about necessarily banning substances/products which are known to be harmful. We were talking about the right to use/sell products whose safety, or lack thereof, is unknown. So I will repeat the question I asked earlier:

By what right, legal or moral, does a producer have to sell a product which puts both people and society at risk?

Perhaps. But regulatory capture certainly exists in countries that have far stricter campaign advertisement and spending laws than ours. However much campaign finance laws change, I think laws and regulations passed to favor already-established firms with greater economies of scale and to prevent new competition from entering into the market will always be an issue that we will need to watch out for (especially when these laws are passed under the auspices of the public good).

The fact that there are several ways to achieve regulatory capture is not a reasonable argument for allowing one or more of the ways to continue.

And I agree with the bolded.

 

[Harshaw]

I am not entirely sure it has ever been achieved, nor as 'real' capitalism.

That is my point, the nature of your question is chasing whiteboard classroom theory.

I didn't ask you if it's ever been achieved.

I asked you what it is.

Same for everyone else who liked your post.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I didn't ask you if it's ever been achieved.

I asked you what it is.

Same for everyone else who liked your post.

I said what it is, if you do not like the definition then provide one.

 

[Harshaw]

I said what it is, if you do not like the definition then provide one.

You seem to have initially defined it correctly:

The problem with the question is the definition inherently means strict socialism, as defined as a political ideology and economic principle of socioeconomic organization that advocates the means of production, distribution, and exchange of products and services be owned and/or regulated by the community (government) as a whole.

But then you've spend a lot of time, including the rest of that post, explaining why it shouldn't be defined that way, not least because it's "never been achieved."

You said:

All the more evidence that no one knows what socialism really means, but the term is sure going to be used to frighten people.

So it's only fair to ask you "what socialism really means" and expect a clear answer with no hedging.

(I agree with you that both the Democrats and Republicans are chiefly about expanding power, but that's not really relevant to the question.)

 

[OrphanSlug]

You seem to have initially defined it correctly:



But then you've spend a lot of time, including the rest of that post, explaining why it shouldn't be defined that way, not least because it's "never been achieved."

You said:



So it's only fair to ask you "what socialism really means" and expect a clear answer with no hedging.

And I gave you an answer, you just do not like it. Get off the high horse and provide one.

 

[Harshaw]

And I gave you an answer, you just do not like it. Get off the high horse and provide one.

I did. I said "you seem to have initially defined it correctly," and then quoted your post as to the definition.

All I'm saying is this:

There are an awful lot of people who want it both ways.

Here, a lot of people seem to want to hold "socialism" to its strict definition, state control of the means of production. To which they say, "no way, the stuff we want isn't socialism; you're just trying to scare people."

But when people say they want socialism, and critics of socialism point to socialist nightmares around the globe historically, or contemporary ones like Venezuela or Cuba, it's all "no no no no. We mean like SWEDEN or DENMARK. You know, democratic socialism."

Do you disagree with anything here?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I did. I said "you seem to have initially defined it correctly," and then quoted your post as to the definition.

All I'm saying is this:



Do you disagree with anything here?

I am waiting, define Democratic Socialism. You are happy to challenge the rest of us, your turn.

 

[Harshaw]

I am waiting, define Democratic Socialism. You are happy to challenge the rest of us, your turn.

I did:

no no no no. We mean like SWEDEN or DENMARK. You know, democratic socialism."

 

[sangha]

I am waiting, define Democratic Socialism. You are happy to challenge the rest of us, your turn.

Where society, either through the govt or through other means, controls the economy to the extent that society wants to as determined using democratic processes

 

[OrphanSlug]

Where society, either through the govt or through other means, controls the economy to the extent that society wants to as determined using democratic processes

Thank you, that is what I was looking for. I appreciate your honesty.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I did:

So if I answered, and you answered... what are you really gunning for? What do you think you have that you refuse to give here?

 

[Harshaw]

So if I answered, and you answered... what are you really gunning for? What do you think you have that you refuse to give here?

What is it that you're trying so hard to avoid being pinned down to here?

I said exactly what my point was in my first post: people want the definition of "socialism" to be situationally convenient. All I wanted was for people to take a stand on a concrete definition of the word.

Which no one has. Not even you. Even you tried to dismiss the definition you gave as being a "problem."

 

[OrphanSlug]

What is it that you're trying so hard to avoid being pinned down to here?

I said exactly what my point was in my first post: people want the definition of "socialism" to be situationally convenient. All I wanted was for people to take a stand on a concrete definition of the word.

Which no one has. Not even you. Even you tried to dismiss the definition you gave as being a "problem."

First you said I've answered, now you say I have not. So what do you really want me to define?

 

[Harshaw]

First you said I've answered, now you say I have not. So what do you really want me to define?

No, I said you immediately went to great lengths to hedge on the definition you provided, which you have.

Keep at it, I guess. But don't lecture people on not knowing "what socialism really means" if you refuse to be pinned down as to what it "really means."

This merry-go-round ride is over now.