Question.

[1069]

What's everyone's objection to socialism?
I mean, seriously.
People talk about it like it's a dirty word or something.
They say a candidate has "socialist views" or "socialist leanings", and it's as if they're saying he has leprosy.
Why is socialism such a bad thing, in your opinion? Specifically.

 

[talloulou]

What's everyone's objection to socialism?
I mean, seriously.
People talk about it like it's a dirty word or something.
They say a candidate has "socialist views" or "socialist leanings", and it's as if they're saying he has leprosy.
Why is socialism such a bad thing, in your opinion? Specifically.

It's one of those things where really awful decisions can be made with the best of intentions.

I think the more you take care of people and move away from personal responsibility the more people need to be taken care of. Personal responsibility gets lost in waves of false self entitlement. With pure socialism you lose competition, motivation, intelligence, etc. Humans don't reach their highest potential relying on and living off the government teat. It's that simple.

There are some things which I would readily embrace such as nationalized health care. Done in the right way I think that would be fantastic. Done half ass though it's gonna really be a mess.

 

[Renae]

What's everyone's objection to socialism?
I mean, seriously.
People talk about it like it's a dirty word or something.
They say a candidate has "socialist views" or "socialist leanings", and it's as if they're saying he has leprosy.
Why is socialism such a bad thing, in your opinion? Specifically.

Socialism feels good. Here is a system that "helps everyone". It just sounds sooo good!

Except that it has a few flaws.

1. To help everyone, it punishes success. The better you do, the more they take. That's a fact.

2. It encourages reliance on others(I.E. the government). Instead of working hard, and earning things like, health care, a steady income, housing an such, the government provides it for you! That removes incentive. When people become slaves and leeches of the state, it requires more state to assist them. I work for ME, and my family, not for the lazy, for the lethargic, those who choose to not work for what they get.

I, and many others don't begrudge assistance to those in real need, however it's clear that when you don't have to rely on yourself, people tend to get... comfortable and demand more.

3. Government CANNOT do it right. Period. Look at Canada, for their problems with health care! Long waits, government bureaucrats deciding what is best for you on a formula... limited resources. It's horrible.

4. For a socialist government to work, society has to function for the betterment of the government. This is in the eyes of many, like myself, wrong. The government does NOT know what's best for me, and that's the real crux right there.

5. It's a bribe system.

The quote below is attributed to Sir Alex Fraser Tyler (1747-1813) and appears eerily relevant to the situation we currently find ourselves in.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The Tycoon Report - Teeka Tiwari - 6 Gold & Oil Stocks to Profit from Inflation

That's is our fear. What does Obama promise? More, more gifts from the government, more eduction, more healthcare, more tax cuts more more more.

If you vote for him, vote for Socialism.

America's uniqueness has never been about what the Government can do for you, but what you can do for yourself! It wasn't about what you had, or who you were, it was about what you did with yourself. Socialism is the antithesis of this.

That's what we have against it.

 

[rivrrat]

Wow.. where to start...

Simply put, I value personal choice, responsibility, liberty and freedom; and socialism flies in the face of all of that.

 

[allsogreat]

I think MrVicchio and MS Rivrrat said it all..Thanks...should be the end of this thread.

 

[1069]

Thanks...should be the end of this thread.

You're welcome; and the thread will be over when everyone's had their say.



Who are you, anyway?

 

[1069]

So far, everyone except mrVicchio has spoken in vague generalities that call to mind political rhetoric such as "They hate us for our freedom!"

I was hoping, in this thread, that we could discuss some specifics.
"Liberty" and "freedom" and stuff like that are entirely subjective terms.
I was hoping we could discuss this in a more... I don't know, concrete way.

 

[RedAkston]

I don't know

No kidding!

 

[1069]

Hey, P/N, do you stand up to pee?

No...

Gee, what fun. :roll:

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[Renae]

No kidding!

Come on now, 1069 is attempting to have a reasonable discussion, save the jabs for when this breaks down into "you don't care about the children!"



Seriously though, let's see if we can't discuss this eh?

 

[talloulou]

So far, everyone except mrVicchio has spoken in vague generalities that call to mind political rhetoric such as "They hate us for our freedom!"

I was hoping, in this thread, that we could discuss some specifics.
"Liberty" and "freedom" and stuff like that are entirely subjective terms.
I was hoping we could discuss this in a more... I don't know, concrete way.

Well, specifically, what is the motivation to excel in a socialist society? When the government controls the wealth and doles it out evenly how does that not squash the competitive spirit that drives us? If I can acquire food, housing, education, and all that I need to live while doing next to nothing why would I bother doing anything?

Obviously some forms of socialism of good. Some things should be under government control and we all benefit from having them set up that way. In a compassionate way I can even understand the need or desire to have the government ensure that nobody-for instance- starves. It's ridiculous to have humans who literally cannot acquire food. But at a certain point the more the government amasses wealth to redistribute the bigger the pool of people becomes that need the government.

 

[RedAkston]

Come on now, 1069 is attempting to have a reasonable discussion, save the jabs for when this breaks down into "you don't care about the children!"



Seriously though, let's see if we can't discuss this eh?

Don't think she's capable. I have yet to see a thread where she is involved in it where she actually did have a reasonable discussion. But I'll sit back and see if she can surprise me in this one. Oops, too late!

 

[Ethereal]

First, the intent of socialism (an egilatarian society) is predicated upon governmental control of the means of production and redistribution of wealth. This is economic fascism, plain and simple. Instead of allowing individuals to allocate and exchange goods the government assumes a monopoly over the economic decision making in a given society. This breads corruption and inefficiency, not to mention it circumvents personal liberty.

As to the redistribution of wealth, such a policy discourages productivity and competition. Those who succeed are punished while those who are less productive or determined are rewarded. As a consequence people at the lower end of the economic spectrum are less inclined to work hard and attain self-sufficiency, while those who would otherwise seek excellence settle for mediocrity.

Furthermore, socialism is the antithesis of individual liberty. Socialism views a society as a collective instead of individuals. Because of this the needs of the collective supercede the rights of an individual. This results in the collective ownership of land, plant, capital, and even your body. You exist to serve the needs of the collective, who is represented by the government. This is called the tyranny of the masses.

I could go on and on and on about the evils of socialism but it would be fruitless. Either you believe in individual liberty or you believe in collective ownership. Socialism is an impractical ideology and its precepts have been the impetus for some of the worst human rights violations in history. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions.

 

[Ethereal]

Just out of curiosity, 1069, are you actually planning on engaging in some kind of discussion which pertains to the current topic or do you feel the ideals of socialism have been sufficiently quashed? Not that I'm anticipating a response but I was genuinely intrigued as to whether or not you could engage in a mature discussion about matters of actual import. We had done this once before and I found it a rather pleasant alternative to your usual fixation on odiferous private parts and photoshop.

 

[Kandahar]

Why is socialism such a bad thing, in your opinion? Specifically.

State-owned enterprises are inefficient, unproductive, and unresponsive to change. Profit-driven businesses are usually much better at figuring out what the market wants/needs, and then providing it at an acceptable cost.

IMO, the state should only own things when the private sector cannot provide an optimal result. Health care and education, yes. Manufacturing and restaurants, no.

The best argument against socialism is a simple comparison of regions with similar cultures/histories, but with differing economies. Compare the economic development of West Germany and East Germany, or North Korea and South Korea, or China and Japan, or Austria and Hungary.

 

[PeteEU]

Nice question, sadly the thread has degenerated into the usual conservative right wing bashing.

Let me ask you this. Do you all see most European countries as "socialist"?

 

[Ethereal]

Nice question, sadly the thread has degenerated into the usual conservative right wing bashing.

Are there any specific aspects of our posts you would like to adress or will you limit your contention to a vague, substanceless condemnation?

Let me ask you this. Do you all see most European countries as "socialist"?

It depends on what you mean. If you mean a de facto socialist state then my answer would be no, if you mean a mixed economy which trends largely towards socialist economic policy then my answer is yes.

 

[PeteEU]

Are there any specific aspects of our posts you would like to adress or will you limit your contention to a vague, substanceless condemnation?

Depends on the answer to my question.

It depends on what you mean. If you mean a de facto socialist state then my answer would be no, if you mean a mixed economy which trends largely towards socialist economic policy then my answer is yes.

Define "largely" then.

Lets look at some of MrVicchio's list.

1. To help everyone, it punishes success. The better you do, the more they take. That's a fact.

Europe does not punish success. In fact it encourages it. Denmark, a country with many socialist leaning programs (I admit this) did not "punish" the co-inventor of Skype. It did not "punish" the worlds largest shipping company. Spain did not "punish" Inditex to become the worlds largest clothing retail chain. France did not "punish" Carrefour for closing the gap with Walmart... the list goes on. Socialism did not "punish" Germany for being the worlds largest exporter. The UK did not punish.. never mind they did punish most of its industry into extinction, but that was Thatcher a conservative, not the socialists.

3. Government CANNOT do it right. Period. Look at Canada, for their problems with health care! Long waits, government bureaucrats deciding what is best for you on a formula... limited resources. It's horrible.

That is hardly true of all. Huge generalization, based on anti-government bias. The only big government run organisations in Europe are education and healthcare (for the most part), and in the case of healthcare, we get all people covered for far far less than the US uses per person (and covers less). In fact, the facts speak for themselves... private run healthcare is much more expensive than public run healthcare. The health of people in private run healthcare is worse than in public run healthcare systems, and the number of doctors and hospital bed are also less in private run systems. So the "governments" must be doing something right....

Yes European countries provide healthcare and education for all.. but is that socialism? And is that bad?

So is it "largely"?

Remember, one of the key points of socialism is that government owns the production capacity and land... non of those apply with Europe and never have. So is your "largely" based on our healthcare system and safety net, something that can be debated if it is in fact "true socialist" per say.

 

[Renae]

Your answers are vague, and weak pete.

Punish as anyone who understands the discussion, means taxes. Higher taxes. You, the individual, are forced to give more to "society". I wasn't talking about large corporations, I was talking about the individual. Because that's what America is about, you, the person. That's part of the problem with Europeans, they ignore the person and are so indoctrinated into group think it's hard to discuss the situation.

US Healthcare is the best in the world, and yes, it's expensive, but that's more due to litigation and legal problems then anything else. Do you know how much a doctor, a clinic a hospital has to carry in "mal-practice" insurance? It's almost absurd.

We could go back and forth all night about how many doctors and beds are available to each country, but Europe imposed 40 hour work weeks on doctors, forcing them to hire more to cover this requirement.