Third Party & Independents: Archives

I don’t understand Rhinehold why folks such as yourself, very intelligent, continue to be drawn to the either, or, black and white polarization of free capitalism and socialism.

China tried total socialism and it failed them, and so, they moved to a mix of socialism and capitalism, which is propelling their nation to the forefront as the economic giant of the future as America falters.

Russia tried it and it was a dismal economic failure. They have been trying to find the mix that will work for them and to overcome their paradigms of the past, but, they aren’t managing it very well.

Europe is rapidly unknotting its constrictions toward ever better balance of capitalism and socialism through the European Union and their own domestic economies.

The U.S.’s huge push away from the Elymosenary system toward a more socialist mix with its capitalist foundations propelled it toward achieving the greatest and most well off middle class any society has seen in modern times. Now that mix has become imbalanced along with many other systems previously checked and balanced by various mechanisms.

So, if modern history teaches us anything on this subject, it is that socialism like capitalism alone and without the other is doomed to fail. It is the mix of the two that succeeds to varying degrees depending on the mix and the circumstances. Socialist policies grow civil content and elevate a nations workers to a level of middle class mininum standards without regard to race, religion, or political bent. Capitalism fuels the economic growth and jobs that minimizes the need for too much socialist policy, which can drain the nation of its fiscal reserves and resources.

So, when I hear folks say capitalism is evil, or socialism is evil, without historical context or qualification, I just shake my head. Because socialism works in most nations in the world, right along side capitalism in those same nations.

One without the other begs either 1) revolution or civil war, or 2) such massive accumulation of wealth into so few hands as to strangle the nation’s economic free flow of resources, or 3) such a drain on fiscal resources as to bankrupt a nation.

Togehter, capitalism and socialism have the potential to moderate economic extremes, and complement each other, fueling each other’s success if the right mix is maintained and adjusted to changing circumstances.

Rhinehold:

I was going to sleep when I heard you rattling cages.

I think it isn’t a big surprise that I agree with your premise that socialism inhibits excellence by not rewarding effort and punishing ambition. Socialist governments can only function well if the populace is culturally homogenous and shares a common view of the goals of society and the role of government. I don’t believe that true individualism is possible under a socialist system.

This will be a lively thread. Good job.

Rhinehold,
Good post, but could it be that the “Learned of Society” did not grasp the idea of what was meant by “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

While Society by Law is to provide their Citizens with their wants and needs, IMHO the Founding Fathers used the terms Self-Sufficent to mean that A Consumer would be able to afford to purchase what they consume. Given the modern day economy I would say that this would mean in todays terms being Economically Viable and Financially Independent. Therefore, IMHO the translation would go something like this; Government is to oversee a Society that can give every Citizen a job according to his/her ability so that the person my live a Simple Productive Life according to his needs and become Financially Independent by investing in his Own Inherent Best Interst.

Certainly, the Corporations have that ability do they not?

goodkinged, we are a socialist nation in part. Of late we have gone overboard, but, please tell me which of these socialist programs you would cut:

The military
Public Schools
The Interstate HighWay System
Border surveillance and enforcement
The National Park system
Printing Money and anti-counterfeit efforts
The Congress
The White House
OMB
CBO
Wildlife Preserves
Dams
Bridges
State Parks
Road and Traffic Signs
National Safety Board
The entire Court system of the U.S.
Foreign Diplomatic Corps
State Dep’t.
Foreign Aid
The Iraq War effort
Indonesian Tsunami Aid
Rebuilding Katrina Devastation
Aiding Katrina victims

All these and a great, great deal more are socialistically supported by taking taxes from those who can afford and providing the benefits to all, or others.

If all this is socialism, and it is by defintion, and much of it has been with us for the last century, how do you explain the US’s rise to global prominence in the last century if socialist policies and programs are such killers of individualism in this the greatest individualist society on earth?

David:

Please. You have dug a pit and covered it with a handful of sticks and leaves for the unwary to stumble into.

We both recognize that all forms of government have a responsibility to provide for the general welfare of the populace. Generally, these governmental obligations are composed of services and infrastructure that can’t be supplied without the resources of centralized government. Governmental obligations include items that are too expensive, cumbersome or logistically infeasible to be provided by the individual or local government. Considering the laudry list of societal infrastructure you listed above, you apparently believe that governmental infrastructure in nonsocialist countries consists of a lonely ballotbox set up at a crossroad.

Offer a serious list of services to be debated and I’ll bite. Until then, goodnight.

goodkingned and Rhinehold,

I agree with David, your characterization of Socialism and Capitalism as diametric opposites is false. A true freemarket economy would be akin to the catastrophic business cycles of the late 1800’s and 1929 in the USA. Pure socialism or more precisely communism has never existed in the real world, to my knowledge. Painting socialism as an evil and capitalism as angelic is the bottomless pit of pits. We all know Russia failed. Tell us something new.

Rhinehold adn goodkingned,

I can’t find any modern examples (or any examples, really) of pure Capitalism OR pure Socialism at work. Every historical example I can find, from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. and everywhere in between, involves some manner of free enterprise on the part of the people, with some level of government services on top.

Socialism only works in small groups of people.

Not really, but you’re getting VERY close to the real issue here. Social programs, while by no means evil, work better on a local scale. At one time, we had a tiered government in this country, where the States had actual power. Today, most of that power has been surrendered to the Federal level, where social programs are mired in inefficiency.

I believe in what I call, “A Communist family; a Socialist community; a Capitalist nation.” In other words, the closer you live to someone, the more responsibility you have to help them.

David,

I guess I’ll be the first to bite at your list. I think the following items should be handled at a Federal level:
The military
The Interstate HighWay System
Border surveillance and enforcement
Printing Money and anti-counterfeit efforts
The Congress
The White House
OMB
CBO
Federal Courts
Foreign Diplomatic Corps
State Dep’t.
Foreign Aid
The Iraq War effort
Indonesian Tsunami Aid

The following should be handled at a State or Local level, with little-to-no involvement by the Federal government:

Public Schools
Dams
Bridges
State Parks
Road and Traffic Signs (except on U.S. highways)
National Safety Board
State Courts

And the following should be the primary responsibility of the States, but with Federal funding where appropriate:

The National Park system
Wildlife Preserves
Rebuilding Katrina Devastation
Aiding Katrina victims

Of course, we can bicker about individual items on the list, but the general point is that we should expect a different level on the Socialism-vs-Capitalism scale for our State governments than we do our Federal government.

Rob,

I’m pretty much with you on that one. States each have extremely different cirumstances to deal with, and the federal government has no place making policies the way they do.

There is one problem, if everything was devolved to the states, the states who are extremely poor would have less ability to implement these policies. I actually think this is a good thing because the states will then compete in a free market model, meaning that the best off states would attract the most people, and the deep south would be depopulated, and eventually could be closed off.

whooops let my anti-redneck/anti-any-areay-that-is-that-goddamn-hot prejudice show on that one.

Even if you can solve all the human/social problems, socialism fails for a simple technical reason: it doesn’t have an accurate price mechanism so nobody can tell the relative scarcity of goods and services. This leads to very inefficient and wasteful activities.

Government bureucrats step in to run the economy, and try to take the place of price, supply and demand, but they ALWAYS lack sufficient knowledge and expertise. Nobody, no planners, nobody can assemble all the data necessary to make such decisions that the market makes effortlessly.

So socialism can work in small, homogeneous societies that are not changing very much. That’s it.

When we talk about government ownership and management in a basically free market society, we are not talking socialism or even a “mixed” economy. The difference between socialism and market economies is reliance on market mechanisms. The key to the free market is choice and price set by market forces. To the extent you allow them, it is good and it works.

ian,

pollkatz has a great (if old)graphic comparing a states politics and their dependencies on the Federal dollar.

Jack,

You need to think beyond the “Free market is the answer to everything” mantra. It’s tiresome and fatally flawed. Among other things, socialism talks about ownership. Bush wants to be the owner along with a few of his buddies, socialism says the owners should be more equally distributed.
The problem as I see it is political corruption. Socialism fails because the government is too powerful and becomes unresponsive to individual needs, kind of like the GOPer rule we have now.

Jack said: “When we talk about government ownership and management in a basically free market society,…”

You are talking about socialism. There goes Jack redefining words to make his spaghetti stick to the wall.

Gov’t. ownership and management take from all and give to a few. Can anyone say Haliburton, Lockheed-Martin, or how about the Big Pharma industry or energy industry now being subsidized in ever larger amounts by the Bush Administration. And we can argue all day long which small groups of private persons and investors should benefit from governments taking money from everyone. But, it is still socialism. Now if government is going to do these socialistic things, why, many will argue, shouldn’t government aid those who can’t aid themselves like Katrina victims (the poor) or the afflicted (senior citizens)?

You see, there is no escaping the mixed economic concept of a large society as a blend of socialism and capitalism, we being the biggest example in all the world of that successful marriage, until recently.

Our mix is out of whack today because too much socialism is benefitting the very wealthy as well as too many poor without being paid for from collections revenues from all, creating debt that cannot be sustained and supported without horrendous opportunity costs.

But, Jack, it is intellectually dishonest to redefine definitions in order to support a 1960’s perverted view of ideology which was never valid, socialism bad, capitalism great! Even in those days our system chose to bail out the private corporation called Chrysler and subsidized giant corporation’s R&D like Dow Chemical. Things got so bad that now the government takes money to underwrite workers pension plans, banks, defunct savings and loans (which we are still paying for).

It is about the proper mix and the naive polarization arguments about one system being inherently better than the other no longer has a basis in reality. For in reality, ALL societies on the face of the earth are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems.

David, brilliant reply. I agree completely— a mix is key.
I also thought of a few other instances of socialism you left out: The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Child Labor Laws, The Smithsonian, The Library of Congress, and all Public Lending Libraries. There are probably many many more that others could think of.

Dave, I agree with you, too. You wrote:
“The problem as I see it is political corruption. Socialism fails because the government is too powerful and becomes unresponsive to individual needs, kind of like the GOPer rule we have now.”

Exactly. And let’s be clear here, when we say “GOP” these days what we’re truly saying is that Big Business has completely taken over our govt. Check this out: Want Proof of the Hostile Takeover? Read This.

Rob, I agree. I too would like states to compete for ideology and to divest the federal government of many of its involvements in the personal lives (Terry Schiavo), and local responsibilities of states and community.

On the other hand, we the people want our society as a whole to prosper, be secure, and protect our rights and freedoms, and so there is a role for national educational standards which directly impinge upon the nation’s future economic viability, and a role for the feds in protecting our rights and freedoms, and a role in insuring the highways and roads, bridges and dams that support commerce in America are not degraded by individual states inability to maintain them.

These and millions more are the problems that attend a society whose population grows beyond local villages and hamlets and agrarian based ecnomics. I have been railing against overpopulation in the U.S. for these very reasons since the mid 1960’s. The greater the population, the greater the geometric complexity of the people trying to maintain a common defense, rights and freedoms, and economic independence.

iandanger, would you like to see New Mexico fail border security while competing with Arizona which exceeds all expectations, if those coming through New Mexico reach Dallas, Denver or your hometown with a dirty bomb?

Is it OK for slavery to be reinstituted in S. California to make its agriculture the most profitable in the world while union workers in Michigan bankrupt the Big 3 automakers and the State of Michigan? Allowing states to be competitive can be a good thing in many areas, and in many others, the worst.

David

We probably disagree little in practical method.

I rarely use the word capitalism because I don’t think it describes any system that has existed. I use free market, which includes market mechanisms, the rule of law and a reasonably democratic political system. That is why I don’t advocate capitalism because it is a non-functional idea. I don’t advocate socialism for the same reason. The difference is that nobody really advocates capitalism. In fact, the term capitalism tends to be much more used and defined by the detractors of the free market than by its proponents.

What I do advocate is the use of market mechanisms in the context of rule of law and democracy. Government can achieve many goals and some of them are legitimate. But it cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. So government should build infrastructure that everyone can use. It can support facilities for R&D that will benefit society. It can run parks and set up regulations to protect the environment. What it cannot do successfully is manage business or choose winners and losers among its people. That is a job for the people themselves, not their government.

Let’s take your Katrina example. Government can (and did) support the refugees in their initial needs. It can rebuild roads and infrastructure to help get the region back on its feet. It should not rebuild places that are unstable (very low lying places) and it should not continue to support individuals who by now are not getting on their feet.

It should also NOT go against the market mechanisms (and the environment for that matter) by trying to restore economic and social relationships that were severed by the storm and now make no sense. Let the market determine (within the rule of law) where and what will be rebuilt. I guarantee that without government mandates and money, the underwater parts of New Orleans will not be rebuilt. That would be good.

Thanks, Adrienne. I felt pretty good about that reply myself. And you are right, the number of programs which are socialized in part in this country reach from corporate board rooms to agricultural workers in farm fields. And would take a few books to list, define, and explore.

Given the fact that all systems of government for modern nations must provide numerous services in order to satisfy the needs of the populace, it is not possible to define socialism or capitalism in terms of expenditures. All first world nations must have roads, schools, healthcare, defense and a plethora of other necessities and all of these items will be subsidized to some degree by the federal government. Modern society has many needs that cannot be met by a decentralized system and this is increasingly true as the cost of providing these services rises. But, the existance of centralized services and institutions, such as a judicial system, does not indicate that the government is socialistic.

Rather than examining the expenditures of a nation to determine where that nation rests on the continuum between socialist and capitalist principles, I suggest that is more appropriate to study the revenue stream. How governments generate funds and the underlying principles of wealth redistribution they adhere to are more reliable indicators of the political philosophy of nations.

If a nation subscribes to a policy of funding social needs by drawing a disproportionate share of revenue from those relatively wealthy citizens and corporate entities, this reduces the assets available to grow the economy, further reducing the government’s revenue stream. Due to the decreased revenue, the government is required to increase the amount of wealth redistribution to sustain the economy. If this cycle continues there are not enough assets available to the investor class to stimulate economic growth. The working poor and the middle class also suffer from unfair taxation policies reducing the value of their labor. The logical conclusion of the this cycle is an overall reduction of the national wealth and diminished potential for economic growth.

Perhaps more damaging than the deterioration of a nation’s economic indices, is the damage done to the citizens receiving unwarranted economic aid. If goods and services are delivered to citizens without requiring investment of effort or capital on their part, there is no incentive to strive to achieve selfsufficiency. This practice enables the development of a mindset where aid becomes entitlement.

The role of government, as I see it, is to facilitate the personal and economic growth of the citizen. Socialism, in my humble opinion, does not meet these needs.

We can not all live at the expense of everyone else.

That is a myth perpetuated by pandering politicians, and those that are envious and jealous of those that have more than them.

Now, people can interpret that many ways, and draw all sorts of non-sequiturs, but it stands the test of time.
_________________________
… the “great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else” — by Frederic Bastiat 1848

_________________________________________
Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them !
_________________________________________

david, i was being sarcastic.

I do believe that under most circumstances education is a regional issue, best managed by the states. Can there be national standard curriculum, yes, but why? The government shouldnt be sanctioning funding and making broad requirements, because the testing process itself changes the nature of schools, ask any teacher.

The only time the federal government should step in to state issues is when the supreme court decide on a case and the state doesn’t follow it.

Border Security should be run by the states with federal money because each state has vastly different circumstances regarding illegal and legal immigration.

What is ironic is that what you are saying sounds more like Tom Tancredo than anyone else I’ve heard. His opinion is that the border should be strictly enforced, immigration should be allowed, but that all industries should have to pay at least minimum wage. As it stands, the agricultural system depends on migrant workers that can be exploited, and minimum wage work will make those farms harder to run.

Well, whats going to happen is either theyre going to fix the problem with technology or go bankrupt. It is their responsibility to run their industry in a profitable manor under the law, so if they can’t make a profit without breaking laws, i say let them go. If your business is not profitable under the law, breaking the law is not an option, do it differently, or get a new job. I don’t care what it does to our economy or the price of vegetables, I buy from local farmers who grow organically on family farms, and they still get by.

But that doesn’t really change the fact that the federal government is coequal to the states, and can ONLY do what is mandated in the constitution, which does include protecting the borders.

Iandanger wrote this extremely sensitive and tolerant bit:

I actually think this is a good thing because the states will then compete in a free market model, meaning that the best off states would attract the most people, and the deep south would be depopulated, and eventually could be closed off.

whooops let my anti-redneck/anti-any-areay-that-is-that-goddamn-hot prejudice show on that one.
Posted by: iandanger at April 13, 2006 10:48 AM

What states and what percentage of the population do you consider expendable to achieve your utopian goal of enhancing state’s rights and citizen protection?

IMO, the function of government is:

• legislate within the framework of the Constitution (which is not written in stone),
  
• enforce the laws to protect every citizen’s civil and human rights,


• provide for the national defense,


• provide for the truly needy (which is a very small percentage of the population),


• manage foreign policy to build relationships, promote human rights, and sustain a united front with our allies,


• and have vision when no corporation or person(s) are motivated to (e.g. alternate energy solutions, disease research, etc.)

That’s about it.

But, look at what happened !
Look at what how our bloated government has grown to nightmare proporations. It is out of control. Government is FOR SALE. Politicians are bought-and-paid for, and slumbering voters allow it.

Unfortunately, people have grown too dependent on government. They want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave, provide them with healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc., etc., etc. It is so utterly ridiculous, even illegal aliens have come to expect (even demand) these things too, with 32% of 12 million illegal aliens receiving welfare.
I’m not sure who is getting the worst deal here.
We are teaching our neighbors some very bad habits.

It won’t be long before people want the government to wipe their butt for them too.

Where did we go wrong?

Anybody have any examples of “socialism” in the US Constitution?
Just curious.

kctim:
“Anybody have any examples of “socialism” in the US Constitution?”

Absolutely.
The Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Bzzzt. Although the term ‘general welfare’ has been hijacked recently, a quick perusal of constitutional history shows that it is not referring to socialism.

Promote and Provide are two seperate words with altogether different meanings as well.

It also helps to note that socialism as a well formed concept wasn’t really in existence in the late 1700s, in English anyway. The idea did not really catch hold until the mid 1800s as a means of political governance.

goodkingned,

Does that not sound just a bit like a joke? I was making a point about how some people like to apply the free market model as solving every situation, it was supposed to be ironic.

I still don’t like rednecks (or anyone who’s particularly anti intellectual or embraces the flag of a nation who’s founding principle is that some people are inherently unequal and therefore can be subjugated), and I still don’t like the heat (I can’t be outside for more than 5 minutes in Florida, I swear to go that state is actually what Hell feels like) but as for my southerner extermination plan? We’ll kill as many of them as we have to, whatever it takes to stop them from breeding.

Rhinehold,
You’re just so wrong. How were we to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice and insure domestic Tranquility if we weren’t willing to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty?

“Promote and Provide are two seperate words with altogether different meanings as well.”

Indeed.
The meaning of Promote — To raise, advance, further
The meaning of Provide — To supply. To take precautionary measures. To prepare.

“It also helps to note that socialism as a well formed concept wasn’t really in existence in the late 1700s, in English anyway.”

True, but that is neither here nor there. Certain aspects of the same underlying ideas were part and parcel with the founding of our nation.

to be technical, you can’t for a more perfect anything, you’re either perfect or you aren’t.

Our founders couldn’t speak the damn language.

Thanks Adrienne. I really am just curious as to what you all read as socialism in the Constitution.
Of course, even though your wrong about what “promote the general welfare” means, reading into it in order to justify feel-good legislation and all, I still thank you for your answer to my question.

Iandanger:

Re your extermination plan. You might find it easier in the winter because we are sluggish in cold weather.

kctim:
“Of course, even though your wrong about what “promote the general welfare” means,”

I thought I made it pretty clear to Rhinehold. It means to raise, advance and further the general welfare of our people. You disagree? Then what do those words in the Preamble mean to you?

“reading into it in order to justify feel-good legislation and all,”

We can disagree on what kinds of legislation might raise, advance and further our population, but it sounds to me like you’re the one who wants to “read into” what I wrote by dismissing me with the term “feel-good”.

Southerner extermination plan?
The hell with that, lets do a “big city” extermination plan and get the country back to what it was meant to be.
The land of the free.

Adrienne
“It means to raise, advance and further the general welfare of our people. You disagree?”

Bigtime.
“raise, advance and further” does NOT mean to “coddle”, “do for” or to “know better than.”

“dismissing me with the term “feel-good””

Not at all ma’am. I am simply saying socialism is nothing but “feel-good” legislation.

kctim:
“raise, advance and further” does NOT mean to “coddle”, “do for” or to “know better than.”

I agree. Though it might mean “educate”, “help out when and where needed”, and “allow for choices and opportunities”.

“I am simply saying socialism is nothing but “feel-good” legislation.”

And I am simply saying that unchecked and unregulated capitalism is “feel-bad” legislation. Hence, I agreed with David’s assertion that a uniquely American mix of both is, has been and will be, the key to our societal health, success and happiness.

Iandanger & Kctim

Not to worry. Look at the demographic & economic trends in the U.S. The South is where much of the action is. Didn’t the south steal much of the auto industry just recently? The North Carolia’s research triangle has more PhDs per capita than anywhere else in the U.S. Greenville/Spartanburg, SC is one of the favorite places for foreign investment. four of the top ten public universities are in the south (two are in Virginia - UVA is #2; William & Mary #6 - only California with nearly five times the population does better)

Iandangers books are old.

Socialism, capitalism, who cares what you call it? In practice, lefties are called socialists by the righties and righties are called capitalists by the lefties.

Instead of analyzing an issue to determine if it’s good or bad for most of the people, we use words like “socialism” to denigrate the people who make suggestions.

I do not use these words. I believe that if a bill helps Big Business but hurts most of the ordinary people it is a bad bill - never mind how academics would describe it. And if a bill improves the common good it is a good bill - though opponents may call it socialistic.

Our political discussions are filled with name calling. Let’s talk instead of what’s good for the people.

kctim,

Anybody have any examples of “socialism” in the US Constitution?

The first things that came to mind were Post Offices and post roads (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). If a Government-owned postal service isn’t Socialist, I don’t know what is.

Southerner extermination plan? The hell with that, lets do a “big city” extermination plan and get the country back to what it was meant to be. The land of the free.

Yeah, ‘cause the last thing we want are people who know how to live near each other in peace. Let’s get rid of those people and give the country back to those who can’t stand having neighbors less than a quarter-mile away…

iandanger,

The Southerner Extermination Plan was already tried — back in the early 1860s. It was scrapped in favor of the Southerner Persecution Plan — a.k.a. “Reconstruction”. That plan was ultimately scrapped about the time of the Great Depression — when the stock market collapsed, the Northerners decided they needed people who were experienced at being poor, and so embraced the South once again. (Most Southerners, on the other hand, didn’t know that there was a depression, or even what the stock market was.) Ever since then, more and more of us escape from the South every year to cooler lands to the North. This includes not only me (who left Arkansas in 1980), but also our last two presidents! Then again, with all of your old people moving down there to retire, there’s not a lot of room left for hard-working hillbillies anymore.

Ya know, we recently had a debate here about increasing defenses on the border to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country. Are we to assume that you would prefer to put those defenses on the Mason-Dixon line?

:-)

Adrienne
“I agree. Though it might mean “educate”, “help out when and where needed”, and “allow for choices and opportunities”.”

I could agree with maybe educate, but still have a hard time with that one at a federal level.

“And I am simply saying that unchecked and unregulated capitalism is “feel-bad” legislation. Hence, I agreed with David’s assertion”

I know you agreed with that. That is why I was asking where you all think it says anything like that in the Constitution. I was wanting your all’s opinions.

“that a uniquely American mix of both is, has been and will be, the key to our societal health, success and happiness”

Well, no surprise I’m sure, but I totally disagree.
I believe they compete with each other in order to get absolute power.
Socialism is winning and therefore we have the dependency problem we have now.
Dependent people are controlled people.
We are now being controlled by our govt and its special interests.

Adrienne & kctim,
Actually, the role of our Elected Officials is to use the Evidence given to them by All Parties and Indiduals on a certain issue and attempt to make the best guess on how to use their Limited Resources (Tax Dollars) to Level the playing field so that Every American has Equal and Fair access to the Commerce Market. Thus, promoting General Welfare.

In fact one of the major movements in the production of Low Income Home Ownership in the 90’s came about by pressuring the Democrats and Republicans to realize that their Domestic Tranquility and General Welfare was at risk by the growing gap between the Working Poor and the Silver Spoon of Society.

KCtim, you are right about the Democrats and Republicans misusing their power to promote Social Welfare Reform and Corporation Welfare; however, I will still be making fun of both political parties 20 years from now unless the Conservevative and Liberals WAKE UP and RECOGNIZE that the role of Government and “We the People” is to find a way through both sides of Human Nature and start using Our Power to do what is Politically Unalienable Correct for All Consumers not the Who can Zoom Whom mentality that came out of the Republicans in the 1980’s. Just thenk God that the Youth Generation of the 21st Century understands that math.

Rob C.
“The first things that came to mind were Post Offices and post roads (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7). If a Government-owned postal service isn’t Socialist, I don’t know what is”

Very interesting. Thanks for your input on that. I will try to read over that some and from your view.
Thanks again.

kctim:

I think the cities have an extermination plan that they already implementing. If we teach them how to shot straight they could make great progress. Them city folk has initiative.

Hear! Hear!

Paul Seigel thanks for recognizing the divisive and
red-baiting nature of this argument.

Jack, Red-Blue isn’t enough for you? You want to re-explore the U.S. Civil War, too?

ian,

If one of those rednecks you so despise had made a racist joke, would you not feel compelled to call them racist? Would you be happy that you had to read that on Watchblog?

Assuming, yes, how is anything that you said in your joke any different than that?

Btw, I grew up in the South and moved to the North after college. In my experience, there are as many people per capita that fit your redneck stereotype up here as there are in the South.

This seems to be a non-issue. Extremely centralized and extremely decentralized economies are failures, we all know that. A well understood and practically harnessed market serves to better mankind. Our arguments should be about which goods, services, resources, and factors of production should be regulated, by whom, and why (i.e. David and Rob’s discussion). This has been the real discussion in our society since the beginning.

By the way, as for my two cents, I think our constitution does a darned good job laying out those concerns in most cases. I’m proud of it. Whether we choose to follow it, abuse it, change it, or ignore it is another matter.

Jack, yes, on substance we agree for the most part. I do indeed agree with you that free market forces, to the extent they actually exist, would resolve all issues over time. But, where we differ is that I don’t believe free markets are a humane answer to ALL of life’s problems, and free markets are rare.

Free markets have and will destroy all other value systems for profit IF regulation which defends other values besides profit are not in place or exercised. And that makes free markets rare. Monopolism is the end product of truly free markets. And most liberals and conservatives agree that monopolism is inherently bad for society except perhaps within the military which is not a free society by any civilian standard from the gitgo!

Now, we do agree that free market forces countered by defense of other and equal priority values (social values), can accomplish amazing things for society like our Interstate Highway system and the tremendous advances in medical science in the span of 100 years. And when discussed in this fashion, real, productive, and beneficial programs, products, services and policies can and do result.

Where so many intellectuals on both the right and left fail to live up their graduate degrees is when they try to argue for real world policy based on a tug of war between socialist and capitalist ideologies.

You and I have a great deal of common ground because as I read your writings, you are more centered in predominantly positive outcomes without being derailed by ideological tugs of war.

And I join you in common ground in recognizing that that no answer to any problem can be implemented without creating additional problems. There is an opportunity cost to any choice. We both seem to agree that policies and national decisions should resolve more problems than they create, and that should be the performance test for decision makers.

Man, now i know not to make any of my pro-abortion jokes, you guys take things too seriously. I don’t actually dislike the south (besides that weather, jesus), I’m planning an extended road trip there at some point in the comming year. I do dislike people who wear/hang the flag of the confederate states of america, because it is the flag of a nation which waged war against the United States based on the principle of inequality.

Now, I am aware that there was a whole lot more to the Civil War than slavery, but it is undeniable that the Northern attitude toward slavery was one of the main tipping points toward cessesion.

I make jokes about basically everything, and I really don’t mind any kind of humor, I think just about everything is fair game. What bothers me is actual acts of intollerance, or advocating intolerance. See, the point of my statement was that the deep south has such a woefully bad education system (k-12) that without federal money, they would have to make a major change in their system in order to improve. I think the change would be preferable to having the central beaurocracy do it, but it isn’t going to happen.

I live in Maryland by the way, the “old line state,” so I see my fair share of Urban, Suburban, and rural areas, and I gotta say I prefer rural.

By the way, lets recall that in Alabama it was illegal to marry someone of another race until the year 2000, and in the referendum on the law, 40% of the population voted to keep it.

That means 40% of voters in Alabama in the year 2000 thought that it was wrong to “mix blood.”

Anyone else find that disturbing, since it was 33 years after the supreme court case that struck down Anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitional?

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is the slogan used by Socialists.

It’s also the credo of a fellow named Jesus of Nazareth. He went about well before the 1700’s telling people about it.

(The funny thing is, most of the people who claim to follow him are exactly the sort of Social Darwinists who hate the idea of Socialism…)

As it happens, there are eight rather heavily Socialised democracies ahead of the United States on the World Quality Of Life Index:

and we, with our Spencerian/Hooverian supply-side VooDoo deficit bullshite are Falling on that list rather rapidly…

ian,

Issues such as miscegenation bring Yugoslavia to mind. How much really stands between 1 nation and 50 nation-states? How long before DickBushRovian politics stretch the bonds beyond their breaking point again?
The proximity of that point is why I’m having my kids taught Mandarin and Spanish.

I was driving through Alabama a couple of years ago listening to a Rock and Roll Station near Birmingham. The DJ played Lynyrd Skynyrd’s retort to “Alabama” and pronounced that Neil Young was someone who just didn’t get it, he wasn’t from Alabama. I thought that was rather odd this many years later and given the history of the civil rights movement….But Osama wants us back in the 16th century.

It’s also the credo of a fellow named Jesus of Nazareth. He went about well before the 1700’s telling people about it.

Betty, please provide any evidence that this was the credo of Jesus. I think you will find your assertion a very large stretch…

I don’t remember Jesus remarked at all on governmental policies. The philosphy he expused was mostly Taoist in thought. There was nothing socialist in his teachings, unless you really don’t understand the meaning of the word.

Betty

And all the bottom ones are heavily socialized.

The other thing is that if you add the populations and GNP of all the countries together, they make about 1/4 the population and GNP of the U.S.

Beyond all that, all those countries have strong market economies. You also probably know that a place like Sweden has very low corporate taxes and some have NO taxes on captial gains. And all those countries have homogeneous populations.

International comparisons are hard. There are only a few hard and fast rules. Countries with freer economies are almost always better than those without. Globalization and prosperity are stongly linked. And democracy goes with both.

I don’t dislike socialism. Of course you have to have some price mechanism. I lived in Norway and liked lots of its social democratic aspects. It just does not work in a large and diverse system. And it does not adapt well to change.

Even in Scandinavia, it breaks down as the population gets more diverse. Among the trade offs in socialism is integration of diversity. That is a big problem for Europeans and why they have such trouble with immigrants. Ours are nothing by comparison.

Rhinehold,
Point of Order. Jesus did speak out about Government policies when e said that a Rightous Nation wil be judged by how well they treat their “Poor.” Sorry, but just trying to keep the record straight.

Jack,
If Nations/Societies are to provide All the Needs and Wants of their Citizens than tell me how your Free Market plans to make that happen. However, Greed is no longer in the question because if it was than the area effected by Katrina would have money running out of the ground.

Henry,

Can you point me to that bible verse please?

If capitalism were to fail, what would that look like? How would such a failure unfold?

Is the free-market system sympathetic to democratic values? Does corporatism take into account the needs of society as a whole? Does capitalism have any responsibility to future challenges and national goals?

If, as some have suggested in this thread that America is a unique blend of socialism and capitalism, who decides how the mix shall be? Is this decided by the voters, the political and business elite, corporations?

Do we as American citizens have real imput in how these decisions are made, and in what directions these polices are formed? If we are the model of economic and political justice for the world to emulate, if the free-market system and capitalism in general is the ideal, if this is all self-evident and socialism doesn’t answer the call for individual freedom to succeed—then what doesn’t capitalism satisfy, what doesn’t the free-market and globalization answer in the human realm?

Is the free market and capitalism responsive to human desires, to human frailty, to human needs? Is our government concerned about your ability to search for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Is it responsive to injustice and inequity, does it strive for open doors for everyone who wants a chance to succeed?

Are our economic and political leaders committed to truth and justice? Fair play and well-being of our children and grandchildren?

Are we as a nation and as a people committed to the truth—wherever the truth takes us?

Rhinehold,
Sorry I don’t quote the Bible; however, if you read the New Testement of the King James Version I do believe you will find it. The Book of Mark comes to mind, but be warned I haven’t looked it up in years.

so what about the general welfare clause! well lets go right to the horses mouth himself mr james madison president and CONSIDERED the father of our constitution, and creator of the sacred bill of rights. mr madison said quote. ‘” with respect to the two words ‘general welfare’, i have always regarded them as qualified by detail of powers connected with them .to take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was NOT CONTEMPLATED BY ITS CREATORS”

Why does capitalism screw the public?

Ever wonder why monopolies protected by their K street groupies (congress) are screwing you?

Insurance scam

Jack:

Your definition of Socialism indicates to me that you were brought up in a Political Education Camp somewhere in either China or the Ukraine in the 1970’s.

What totalitarian dictators call Socialism is as accurately relevant to actual Socialism as the phrase “Compassionate Conservative” is to the actuality of Conservative Social Darwinism. How many nations have styled themselves to be “Democratic Republics” - or, even worse, a “People’s Democratic Republic” - when they are neither of The People, nor democratic, nor a republic? And they are certainly not an example of Socialised Democracy (or Democratic Socialism, if you prefer).

What you want is absolute run-amok unbridled Industry and Commerce: a Plutocratic Oligarchic Hegemony (or, an Oligarchic Hegemonic Plutocracy, if you prefer). This is in keeping both with your status as the owner of a Pulp Mill (as I believe you recently confessed to), and as a True Dyed-In-The-Cotton Southron Gennelman. I don’t blame you for it: you are likely more the product of your environment than of any inherent defect of character.

Still, it would be wise for you to smell the Kool-Aid burning: you have been called time and time again for Spinning Talking Points in this forum, by posters wide and varied, who have been here far longer than I have. I see it in different articles here several times a week. And when you go about defining Socialism exactly as Joseph Stalin and Mao Tsetung did, you rather make my point better than your own…

There has never been a Communist government on Planet Earth. Not one. They all fail and become tyrranical oppressive dictatorships because of an inherent flaw in Marxist Communism, to wit: Human Nature. The so-called “caretaker government” becomes a dictatorship of nomenklatura oligarchs, who ride about in Mercedes sedans whilst the proletariat are confined to Trabants or Bicycles.

Socialism, on the other hand, is simply the putting into practise the dictum: No Government Should Exist Which Does Not Serve The Needs Of the Governed. And what are the Needs of People? Why, they are what they have always been: Food, Shelter, Healthcare, Education, Security, Defence, Transportation.

Now, if Government cannot or will not provide these Basic Needs to those Citizens who cannot do so for themselves, you will not only see America looking like Calcutta or New Delhi, but there will not be any purpose served by Government save to Serve Itself.

Or, of course, the interests of the National Pulp Manufacturers Association Of North America (NAMBLA).

And the like (Halliburton, Enron, Exxon, Bechtel, McKesson, ADM, URS, Colgate-Palmolive, Ford, General Dynamics, General Motors, Tycho, IBM, Etc.) - is that why you depise Socialism so much? Too many resources going to The People and not enough going to Corporate Welfare?

Rhinehold:

The phrase in question was: “From each, according to their Ability, to each, according to their Need.” I stated that this was the credo of Jesus. There is no mention in that phrase of Governments whatsoever. However…

The New Testament is absolutely chock full of Examples (and, by the way, there are quite a few in the Old, as well). Here are a few:

Matthew 19:21 : Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the Poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me.”

Mark 10:21 :
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, “One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the Poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.”

Luke 6:30/34/35 :
“Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest.”

Luke 14:12-14 :
Then said he also to him that bade him, “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the Poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the Just.”

James 2:2-8 :
For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a Poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, “Sit thou here in a good place,” and say to the Poor, “Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool,” are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of Evil Thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the Poor of this world rich in Faith, and heirs of the kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him? But ye have despised the Poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

And so forth…

It is notable that Jesus also advocated paying one’s Taxes (good Socialist that he was). Of course, Rome had for many decades at the time of Christ (and for several hundred years thereafter) fed its poorest residents - Citizens and Non-Citizens alike - by the means of grain-allotments. Taxes, collected largely in the form of coins bearing the image of one or another Roman ruler, paid for this grain allotment, which was second in National Expenditures only to the maintenance of the Legions. Hence, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s,” - i.e.: Pay Your Taxes.

Jesus had quite a Socialist Programme going: he provided Food, Education, and Healthcare to all who applied. And whereas he might have made a good living as a Court Magician or a Wine Merchant (if he set up his warehouse near a River, that is), he chose to practise amongst The Poor.

From each, according to their Ability, to each, according to their Need.

There is hardly a closer sentiment to that which he taught! Until the Pharisees - who were making a killing on the exchange-rate between Temple Coins and all other specie - caught him at it, that is…

Ah, just as I thought. You have mistaken compassion with socialism.

Sorry, but you are mixing your terms in a way to lead you to believe something that is just not reality. I don’t have time to get into it right now but later I will explain how Socialism is a form of governing, Compassion is a way of treating our fellow human beings regardless of what the government does or doesn’t do and is a part of most philosophies, not just Socialism.

Tim Crow,

If capitalism were to fail, what would that look like? How would such a failure unfold?

Start with the Great Depression and extrapolate. That’s one option.

Another option involves the formation of unregulated monopolies that gain too much control over the government. Once they can remove the rights of We The Consumer through legislation, the rest is just clean-up.

Both Socialism and Capitalism have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is well-suited — in its purest form — for running a government. The best place is somewhere in the middle. The biggest difference between the US and many Eurasian countries is that we’ve started with Capitalism, and added enough Socialism to fix the problems of Capitalism. Many other countries (i.e. China) are going about it the other way around. We’ll probably all end up in about the same place (much as the European monarchies-turned-parlaiments did).

The saddest thing about this article is that it’s necessary for liberals to hear.

They think that the advancement of engineering and medicine would’ve occurred naturally. They think it’s natural for someone to spend hours and days and weeks away from frineds and family just to produce something which would raise their pay 1/4 of a cent per day … once the benefits of invention or entrepreneurship are spread across the entire populous that is.

Yes, socialism is the perfect answer … only thing getting in the way is that little ole darn thing called “human being common sense”. If a person is going to struggle to achieve, they need to be the one who reaps the most benefits of a struggle. Otherwise, why struggle? Joe down the street will eventually make things better for everyone anyway … . right??!!

Brian:

You display too much common sense to be given credance here. Successful application of personal iniative and the resulting accumulation of wealth is baad. Hmm, ok.

Brian S.

Typical American Pig. I guess you believe everything is for sale. There are never advancements in science or medicine unless someone can make a huge killing.

I think you’ve just described yourself, not most scientists I know.

I wonder why so many advances come from European countries with socialized medicine?

Gergle

We have a significant free rider problem with Europe (and Canada). Most new drugs and procedures are invented for the American market and the R&D costs are defrayed here. As you know, the first kind of any pill costs millions, after that it is pennies. The socialized medicine comes in and takes the lower prices after they are absorbed.

European medicine is not particularly innovative. Even European drug makers aim first at the U.S. market. We subsize the world in this fashion. BTW - the same economics are at work in U.S. television shows and movies, although that is changing.

You don’t have to be greedy to understand why money matters. Money buys the labs and tests that make new procedures possible.

Price is important to sort out the true costs of something. The biggest problem of socialism is the technical one of inefficient pricing. If you sell steak and hamburger at the same price, which one do you think will run out first?

Right Jack, we have three different forms of viagra.

Actually, Jack, a lot of useful research does come from Europe, hate to burst your American bubble there.

Conflating Hollywood with medicine is just plain weird, Jack.

My point wasn’t that money isn’t needed for research, it’s that the prime motive for scientists isn’t money, not that they don’t want it.

Gergle, Read our policy and observe it or you won’t be permitted to comment here anymore. This will be your only warning.

Jack, where do you think the idea for the Nuclear Bomb came from? Hint, it wasn’t the USA.

Einstein, who revolutionized Physics, was from Germany. It wasn’t money that brought him to the US. Most of the scientists at Roswell and in Chicago were European.

The largest accelerators in the world are in Europe, not the US. They started one in Texas but killed it, after wasting millions. The big accelerators are where all the leading edge physics is occuring today.

This is an interesting link on medicine:

healthcare myth

To Watchblog: manager exactly where do you see a violation? perhaps I’m just too stupid to understand. I actually agree with Jack on some issues. I attack arguments, not people. If it was the comment to Brian S., Perhaps I should use sarcasm in italics. I was refering to the way Americans are percieved.

Watchblog Manager;

I truthfully am not sure what violation you are refering to. If his argument, condescending to liberals as stupid, then why isn’t my argument condescending to piggish American-centric thinking valid?

I sincerely do want to smear anyone here, i just use fire to fight fire. Please edify me.

Gergle

I didn’t find anything offensive.

Anyway, Einstein. European yes. Came to U.S. - why?

The same is true of many Euro scientists and researchers. I read an article in German press that something like 75% of the German researchers that go to U.S. never return to Germany to live (although they talk about it a lot).

I believe that someone coming and choosing to stay say a lot about conditions. You don’t find nearly as many of such Americans going to Europe permanently and they are different. They send us researchers, scientists etc. We give them retired folks, art students and leftist professors. We get the better part of the business.

OOPs, please enter “is valid ” after stupid on post above and ” do not want to smear” instead of the Freudian slip above. You rattled me.

Gergle

Just what we were talking about. It is joint research between the right leaning AEI and the left leaning Brookings, so I figure it is in the middle.

Thanks Jack,

Umm…Einstein, being Jewish, as were many of the nuclear scientists, had a little problem with Hitler. He wasn’t seeking fame and fortune.

More currently, I do think our schools attract a lot of scientist. I’m not saying America is slovenly in science, just not the only game in the world.

And the primary motive of most scientists is curiosity, and serious work, not money. Some are motivated by greed, fame, sex,etc…..they ARE human after all.

Interesting link Jack, not what I expected either.

Gergle, the following comment is an attack on another participant at Watchblog. I don’t care to hear what others do, we will deal with them as we go. I am addressing what you did in saying:

Brian S.

Typical American Pig. I guess you believe everything is for sale.

Gotcha. You didn’t catch the sarcasm. I will note that for the future, and will refrain from that type comment. Thank You. By the way, I am American, too, and don’t consider myself a pig, but I do understand the reaction.

To Brian S.: I apologise if I offended you.

Gergle

It is not fame and fortune that drives many people. But money buys better facilities. They can do better work in the U.S. because facilities are better and conditions are better and some of that has to do with money and competition.

Money is a “hygiene factor” for most intelligent people. At some point they have enough and getting more is no longer a strong motivator for them. BUT not having enough is a real problem. It is also true that money shows value. If I pay you to do something, it shows I think it is a good thing. If I ask you to do it for nothing or a little money, I may be less serious. That is why professional experience (i.e. paid) is usually better than volunteer experience (i.e. unpaid) in similar situations.

Mr. Remer,
I agree with you that we are largely a socialist nation. Unfortunately socialism is a lot like crack cocaine. Once you are hooked, it’s extremely difficult to break the habit. However, if you can break the habit, and make it through the period of discomfort that follows, your life is infinitely better. That being said, and with some authority I might add, here are the programs that if the Federal Gov’t were not involved, would be run more effeciently, and provide a better service for the people. They could all be done privately, or by state and local govt’s, and done better. We would also be a wealthier country, by far.

The military
Public Schools
The Interstate HighWay System
Border surveillance and enforcement
The National Park system
Printing Money and anti-counterfeit efforts
The Congress
The White House
OMB
CBO
Wildlife Preserves
Dams
Bridges
State Parks
Road and Traffic Signs
National Safety Board
The entire Court system of the U.S.
Foreign Diplomatic Corps
State Dep’t.
Foreign Aid
The Iraq War effort
Indonesian Tsunami Aid
Rebuilding Katrina Devastation
Aiding Katrina victims
and of course…WELFARE!

I know the probable response is to claim that I have no compassion, and those who support socialism do. WRONG! If you want to help someone in need, do it. If you get 50 million people to voluntarily join you, great! When you vote to confiscate hard earned money from EVERYONE who works so you can feel compassionate, and save a buck because you’ve forced millions who may not agree with you to contribute, YOU SIR ARE THE PERSON WITH NO COMPASSION. In fact, that is theft, and it’s evil. That is why SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS. Eventually Atlas will shrug, and the 49% will no longer agree to support the 51%, no matter how many elections they win.

David C., since little of your comment accurately reflects what I have written, I don’t see a lot to respond to.

I am even confused about your list. Are you saying the military would be better run by private organizations? If so, do you really think national security would be better served by a privatized force which could be invaded and infiltrated by organized crime and criminals? And would patriotism be as large a factor if soldiers were dying and losing limbs for someone else’s profit instead of their nation?

If you meant the military is best run by the government, then how do you propose getting rid of the OMB and CBO which provide the hard data government officials need to make their decisions?

Your list needs clarification - are the crossed out ones to be run by gov’t or private industry?

There is a funny thing about this thread, Irregardless of what you say positive about capitalism, any tendency toward a more socialist model brings out arguments that socialism is ineffective and failed in the Soviet.

I haven’t read one post that stated scialism alone was preferencial to capitalism. There has only been points made that capitalism alone does not make good government.

I feel like I’m in a Robert Altman movie or Joseph Heller novel and someone keeps shouting “Better dead than red”

As I stated from the start, I think this is a false argument. It’s simply a cheering section. Sis! Boom! Bah! There doesn’t even appear to be agreement on the meaning of the words. For those that care to explore this I offer two links.

Socialism

Capitalism

Rhinehold / (Jack):

No, I am not at all confused; in fact, I think you are:

“Socialism” is not what obtained in the former Soviet Union, nor what is presently practised in the “People’s Republic” of China. What they had/have is a ruthless totalitarianism far closer to Fascism than to either Socialism or Communism (as it is defined).

Socialism is merely any form of governance whereby basic Needs of The Governed are met by The Government. Basic Needs include: Shelter, Sustenance, Education, Healthcare, Security (both Personal [Police / Fire / EMT] and National [Military]), and Transportation. Socialism says that any Government which does not meet the Needs of the Governed should not exist. In order to pay for meeting those Needs, Socialism relies upon taxing the Governed - from each according to their Ability to pay - and then directing those revenues into programmes designed to prevent: Exposure, Starvation, Ignorance, Ill Health, Disaster / Theft / Trauma /Foreign Subjugation, and Immobility - the Needs of the Governed.

That is what Socialism truly is. It is the conscious decision of a Society to ensure that its Government provides for its People: nothing more, and nothing less. It does not require the abandonment of Capitalism, Commerce, or Free Enterprise. It does not require the nationalisation of Industry (although, this may be a Good Idea under certain circumstances).

Democratic Socialism simply adds the component of Democracy to the idea: within the existing framework of Socialised Government, the People get to Vote in both the election of representatives and in referenda. Socialism no more threatens Democracy than the Constitution of the United States does.

And if you disagree with the concept that one of the things Christ told his followers is identical with “from each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need,” then you have missed his point entirely.

But then, that’s what the fabled “Pro-Life” Pro-War, Pro-Gun, Pro-Death-‘Penalty’ “Christians” are all about, isn’t it? Talking the Talk without actually Walking the Walk…

gergle:

I like the Wikipedia - but to define Modern Socialism in the terms used by the Nomenklatura of the former Soviet Union is a grievous error.

At the time in which the UK was the most heavily Socialised, there were no dicta demanding that all Industry or Commerce be owned Collectively by “the people” or by the State.

THIS IS A FACT.

And yet, no one (least of all, Jack or Rhinehold!) would deny the fact that the UK was heavily Socialised (much more so than presently) within living memory.

Since these two things conflict, one must necessarily draw the conclusion that the definition of “Socialism” given in the Wikipedia makes a common error: conflating it with Marxism or even the so-called (not actual) “Communism” of the Soviets and the “People’s Republic” of China.

We must recognise the actual nature of Modern Socialism (particularly of Democratic Socialism) if we are not to fall into error.

Where do you stand?

It’s pretty simple, I think. Socialism fails because people who benefit from the socialized resource have no ownership in terms of feeling responsible or being responsible for it. I think most people are at some level cognizant of the fact that we are each responsible for the military, the legal system and safety services.

It really just sticks in my craw to hear Limbaugh and others of his ilk railing against the “communist” tendencies of the “left” wanting to solve everyone’s problems from cradle to grave, but does he think the military, the legal system and safety services (fire, ambulance, health departments, etc.) should be privatized? Not at all. No, but liberals are commies - don’t forget that.

It wasn’t all that long ago when you would receive the services of the military, the legal system and safety services only if you could afford it. Not all that long ago, if you wanted someone to come try to put out a fire pon your property, you paid the firemen a yearly subscription. If you hadn’t paid and you had a fire, too bad. I assure you it was not conservatives who came up with the concept of a municipality levying a tax to support a fire service.

Now we’ve got people such as those who frequently post on this blog wanting to do away with basic services like schools and water systems because they’re socialist.

Betty,

Nope, I have not gotten anything wrong. I accurately describe socialism just as you did, a form of government not mentioned by Jesus.

(btw, you lose a lot of weight when you suggest I am christian… It often helps to know what you’re talking about especially when attacking someone you should try to be accurate)

However, let me explain.

The concept of a rightous man helping those who are less fortunate is not isolated to socialism. THAT is not what makes socialism. Heck, if that were the case, religious that are nearly 5000 years old like Taoism and the more recent Hebrew and even more recent Christian philosophies would be considered to take from socialist thought, when socialist thought is really only a few hundred years old.

Jesus never mentions, to my recollection and I couldn’t find it, that GOVERNMENT should be charged with taking care of everyone’s needs. HE does mention that people should be more concerned about the needs of those who are in need instead of collecting more wealth that they don’t need. THAT IS NOT SOCIALISM, that is being human. That is compassion.

No, socialism is just as YOU explain “Needs of The Governed are met by The Government”.

Now, what does this mean? Why can’t the needs of the people be met by the people, why must it be met by the government? Well, simple. Some people are greedy bastards and those of us who are compassionate and want to help others feel like they are being let off scott free! They don’t have to do their job and help their fellow man. So, some people who believe in socialism, like Betty, believe the only fair way to deal with this is to use the force of government to make them.

So, the basic idea of socialism in a society that is not like minded (or Diverse, as I explain in my original post) is to use the Police Power of the government, their legal right to kill their citizens if need be, to take what someone works to earn and give it to someone else.

Of course, the real problem is that when a government is charged with such things they invariably get it wrong. Government is bureaucratic by nature, especially one as large as we have in the US. So instead of determining those who are really in need, we just code up some rules and follow them. The result is that people who know how can abuse the system while those who need help are often left out of the system and not helped.

So basically, Socialism is Forced Compassion.

I personally find this concept abhorrant. Forcing anyone to do what they should, as good human beings, do is legislating a morality that we should not be involved in. Instead, we who do care and do have compassion should be working with charities and like minded people to help those in our communities who need it. In fact, we do that now, because so many people currently fall through the cracks of the mindless bureauracracy that is the modern welfare system.

But, without the government helping, the poor would get poorer and the rich richer! That’s the mantra we hear day after day. But, let’s take a look at America’s foray into socialism.

The New Libertarian has an article about how our redistribution programs have been working. It’s not exactly what I’m talking about but the two graphs detailed on this page point out an interesting thing that happens when government starts taking care of everyone.

Going from all of 3% in 1943, this has now ballooned to over 64% in 2005, suggesting the government has not so much been an agent of governance as a political agent of wealth redistribution. Consider the total percentage of the nation’s wealth that has been redistributed and it is very clear who is winning the ideological battle of economics.

Going from under 2% in 1947 to, now, a full 12% of GDP redistributed. Now, consider that the two largest wealth redistribution programs (Medicare and Social Security) are going to balloon in the next 20 years.

The charts provided show exactly what has been going on.

And people say that I am crazy and want to ‘go back to the government of the 1800s, which isn’t exactly true and used as a way to try to ‘poo poo’ my arguments, but Betty here is talking about the time of Europe when it was first tinkering (and some abandoning) socialistic methods of government.

In fact, I believe that necessity is going to point out that forced charity is not worth it in order to make those self-rightous who can’t stand that someone else might not be sharing their load feel better.

As Harry Chapin once said, you can’t expect the rich to do anything, they’re too busy trying to keep ahold of what they have. And you can’t expect the poor to do anything because they are doing everything they can to get by. No, it is us, the middle class, the farmers, the lawyers, the doctors, the machinists, the office workers, etc. It is up to US to band together and take care of people who need it.

Forcing someone to be compassionate, that is the height of self-rightousness, IMO.

But what is one of the main reasons that people such as this can’t stand the thought of people like the Red Cross and Goodwill taking care of the people who are in need? Well, because they might turn down helping someone because they are abusing them. Government can’t do that. We must take care of EVERYONE and that’s just not right, is it?

Nevermind the people who *I* know who refuse to work because they don’t have to. I was told by one woman that she would rather stay home than to get a job, the money she gets from the government is enough to live on so why bother?

WE’RE suppose to pay for them to do nothing? Excuse me, but *I* have a problem with that. I have a problem with the 3rd generation welfare recipients that we’ve created in this country. I have a huge problem with encouraging this type of behavior and basically breeding hard work and self-initiative out of americans because we want to force our compassion on others.

What most people who are really down on their luck are people to help them. A mentoring program would be much more beneficial than giving people a check. If one person would just take the charge of helping one other person, giving them someone to talk to, give advice, answer questions, suggest ‘anti-depressants’ when needed, etc. then we would be helping out all of those people who are in need and get them back into the society in a healthy way.

Instead, we create people who feel there is nothing wrong with living off of the hard work of others because they were raised that way.

That’s the problem with Forced Compassion —- Socialism, it takes the humanity out of helping others and turns it into a clean governmental program. How nice is that, we can now saftely ignore those poor people, since our ‘government’ is doing something about it.

Betty

You are arguing against a point I didn’t make and you are defining socialism is such a way that it encompasses most types of system. As I write all the time, I believe in a free market that includes a market mechanism, rule of law and democracy. I don’t much care what you call it. I generally like what we have now in the U.S. It depends on what you want. The current systems in Ireland, Netherlands, Finland and New Zealand are also working well. The interesting things about ALL these places is that they were working much less well until they instituted market based reforms. France and Germany have not done so and are in trouble now and in the future with their systems. The difference is not what they give the people; it is how much and well they use the market mechanism.

If you allow the market mechanism to work, your system can work. If not, it cannot. It doesn’t matter what you want or how good people are. The market mechanism is what tells you how hard it is to make things or how scarce things are. If you charge the same for steak and hamburger, you will quickly run out of steak.

The U.S. has special needs because of our diverse society. Europeans have a much harder time with immigrants than we do. One reason is their greater state sectors and the rules and responsibilities that entails.

The Soviet Union, China and the like were socialist by most definitions. You are right that they are similar to fascism. That is because fascism is another form of state control. The state determined prices and tried to control supply and demand in all these systems. The Italian fascists and German Nazis called themselves socialists. Rembember the National Socialist Workers’ Party. Leftist have always chose not to remember that.

You can tax and redistribute income if you want. This kind of thing is like alcohol. A little is good for you. A little more makes you feel real good. A lot ruins your health. The UK was indeed more socialized. It almost collapsed until Mrs. Thatcher put it right.

Betty, your facts about China are very undernourished. China practices collectivism, has since the time of Mao, though less so today. Farms are collectively owned though farmers may sell produce freely for earnings and profits in sem-free markets, many industries are still collectively owned and even babies born are governed by socialist economic policy rewarding one baby families and backing penalties for infractions of the policy (China simply could not allow population growth to and the subsequent starvation to foster another revolution).

While China is open and receptive to free enterprise, and more so to free markets ( I noticed this week they announced their inten to allow the Yuan to float), their state still dictates what economic policies are good for China and her people and which are not, and it changes as the nation’s needs change.

China is rapidly moving toward the mixed capitalist socialist model of western nations. That is why China is such an economic threat. Their middle class is going to grow like ours did after WWII, but 6 times as big and 4 times (approximately) as fast.

As for China being fascist, you are quite mistaken. There is no single dictator. There is the people’s Congress which is acquiring greater power in increments from the politburo, or the governing inner circle of executives/advisors, who can be ‘vetoed’ by Ju Hintao, the President. This is a far cry from a dictatorship or fascist state as we knew it in Hitler’s Germany or Moussolini’s Italy.

China’s government today is actually pretty unique, and more closely parallels Plato’s Philosopher Kings, military, and merchants/craftsman tiers than any other society in history. Having not visited China, I can’t say from first hand experience, but what I have read of the nation today, it is still closer to Communism in government than Democracy, though it is changing, and as I said, their economy is moving rapidly toward the mixed model from Mao’s socialist/communist model.

Betty, consider this. All who are born in America or become citizens after birth, derive the benefits associated with that exclusive membership, opportunity, societal support for achievement, and recognition for performance, and the freedom to choose the course of one’s endeavors, for the most part.

Economics dictates that only a small number will achieve great fame, or wealth, or power. But, for all that do, first and foremost, that fame, wealth, or power derived from citizenship in the U.S. and would have been less likely anywhere else all other things being equal. In addition, those who achieve fame, wealth, or power, derive the benefit of having their status protected by our laws, culture, and social structure, for the most part.

Consequently, those who achieve fame, wealth, or power in America have an exceptional debt to America for their status. There is no doubt that personal incentive, effort, and persistence play a part in folks achieving such status. But, it is also fair to say, that there are a huge number of circumstances beyond their control which also facilitated their rise to fame, wealth, or power, not the least of which is the fact that they are in the U.S. with all its protections, support, and infrastructure which rewards fame, wealth, and power.

To me, that success dicates an extra obligation back to the society that allowed such status to be achieved. Some champion causes they believe will support America’s future, some become philanthropists to support the many people who didn’t have the breaks, luck, or innate qualities and will that fostered their success.

But, when it comes to economics, the wealthy do have a moral obligation to channel some of the wealth back into the society to support the country that protects their success. And since government cannot seek to fulfill even its most basic functions without the capital and revenues to support those efforts, taxation is necessary. Who but the most selfish and self centered would not say the wealthy have a greater obligation in taxation than the less wealthy?

How to fairly assess that obligation is at the heart of the the tax reform debate. But polls are showing of all the plans out there, the flat tax proposal makes sense to the greatest number of people as being the fairest, because it insures that those most fortunate pay most, and those least fortunate pay least or not all if incapable. Under any moral or ethical system the flat tax comes up as the fairest.

But, taxation is a purely socialist concept where the people of a society agree to be taxed to support the needs of the nation as a whole, (not just themeselves). If they agree freely, it is very likely a democratic society. If they agree under coercion, then it is likely a less democratic society if at all. But, in this basic economic function of government, all societies are socialist in part as they extract funding from all who can pay, and distribute the proceeds to small groups within and without the society to meet the needs of the government and in many cases, the society as a whole.

In democracies, this inherent function of goverment mandates at the most fundamental level, that the people have the responsibility for electing responsible, ethical, and duty to the people oriented leaders. A responsibility that has been abdicated through ignorance or apathy by a majority of Americans. I say a majority because almost half don’t vote, and of the half that do, only a portion spend the time and effort to insure their vote is based on an informed choice about the candidate’s record, character, and history; using instead the shortcut of party affiliation.

[TMR Syndrome: Too Many Replies]

*sigh*

Still, I suppose it’s nice to be noticed (said the squaddie with the LASER-dot on his dickie)…

`Not possible to reply in-depth to ALL FOUR (large) posts - TMR… - but, for a short reply:

1.) Advocating wholesale redistribution of wealth according to the meaning of “From each, according to their Ability, to each, according to their Need,” IS Socialism, at its very heart.

2.) The government of the PRC operates (and operated even more so, as was mentioned in passing) much more like a Fascist Dictatorship than it did either a classically-defined Marxist Communist state OR (certainly!) a Modern Socialised Democracy.

3.) Modern Socialism IS NOT ABOUT either Collectivism or Nationalism. (Good Lord! How many times do I have to repeat this Self-Evident Fact???)

2.-3.[a]) Calling an Apple a Peach does not make it a Peach - especially when it is really a Turd. If Wishes were Horses then beggars would ride. Soviet Russia was neither true Marxist Communism nor was it any sort of responsible Socialism (however, the one saving grace of the Old Soviet - as any present-day Muscovite will tell you - is that they ensured food on the table and a roof over the head). Post-Mao China is not Modern Socialism. Socialism as it is practised (successfully) today is merely putting into effect the premise that no Government which does not serve the Needs of its People should exist. How many times must I repeat these Facts?!

4.) *GOD*, how annoying! >:o[

5.) Some good comments, esp. re.: paying for Fire Services, etc. and the nature of Taxation as a Social Responsibility.

Sort it out amongst yourselves, boys: it’s 3:20AM and I am destined for the Hair Salon tomorrow, so you’ll have to apply the above Reply to yourselves as best you can puzzle it out.

David Remer,
Clearly, I did not cross off the military on my list. That means this is a job best done by the Federal Gov’t. We can’t have a discussion if you can’t even understand that. This is crossed off, this is not.

Basically the Feds should build interstate highways, manage interstate and international trade and agreements, and defend the country and our borders. Right now they do everything but that.

David C., then why did you remove OMB and CBO from the list since these are the research arms of the Executive Branch and Congress to obtain data the costs of decisions, proposed decisions, and past decisions?

David Remer,
The Federal gov’t was more effecient in the past without the OMB or CBO. It’s only when the Fed’s (i.e.: we the people) decide they must be involved in, and fund every aspect of our lives that those offices become “neccessary”. If the Federal gov’t only funded what the Constitution prescribed, minus the “penumbras” and fanciful tea leaf readings that socialists ascribe to it, those offices would not be neccessary. I suppose if you want to have a France-like, bloated socialist gov’t we can’t live without them (/sarcasm).

David C., I suggest you research the purpose and function of CBO and OMB. But, I get your drift. You are libertarian in your approach, the government that governs best is the government that governs least. I can’t agree with Libertarians on one basic issue, our society is not simple like it was in the 1700’s, and we are not a nation unto ourselves anymore, but immersed in a global economic and political web of interdependencies, very much like our domestic institutions and cultural groups.

Libertarians have many great arguments for downsizing government, cutting spending, and leaving folks to fend for themselves. I have heard them all, and they sound good, until the details and consequences of such an approach are unfolded.

I am glad there is a libertarian influence on our government, it has the potential of checking excesses of which there are many. But, at the heart of libertarian philosophy is “me” and to hell with everyone else. That is a hard heart to acommodate.

rinehold please check your dates, the founder of taoism was lao-tze he was born in 600 bc. and the works date from the 4th century bc to the 2nd century bc. according to the scholars. Abraham father of the hebrews and islam and the christians faith was born in 2000 bc. and the hebrew bible was in full use and complete by 650 bc, according to the scholars.

Betty

The system I advocate is free market, with rule of law and democracy. This allows to the greatest extent people to make choices in the products they buy and the choices they make. It taxes and regulates at a reasonable rate. Most economic decisions are made by firms and indivi