Discussionator -

Opinion

All this complaining about socialism is ridiculous because socialism is awesome!
– Scarletxstarlet, 2009-08-20 at 16:49:03 (19 comments)

	On 2009-08-20 at 16:49:58, Scarletxstarlet wrote... a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
	On 2009-08-20 at 17:01:53, Lee J Haywood wrote... Socialism is an economic ideal, in some ways comparable with communism - both systems are derided because they threaten existing norms rather than because there's actually anything wrong with them. Capitalism has the advantage that it makes some people very rich, at the expense of others, and those rich individuals want capitalism to stay for obvious reasons. With communism, people can be contented but won't feel like they have any room for improvement. Socialism is mocked in the US, not because it's a genuine threat to the status quo but because it's a label that can be used to beat down policies that actually have little to do with true switch to socialism.
	On 2009-08-20 at 17:21:06, DigitalBoss wrote... I complain about it because it runs against my liberties assured by the Constitution.
	On 2009-08-20 at 17:25:51, DigitalBoss wrote... OK, lets put it in terms that you may understand. If you were a straight A student, and worked hard for your grades, what would you think if the school came up and said "we are going to take some of your A's and give them to some of our less than achieving students because they NEED them.
	On 2009-08-20 at 19:36:52, Lee J Haywood wrote... So they get a grade C and I get a grade C, and we're all equal. Sounds fine to me. On the other hand, promoting equality in a capitalist society is not the same as introducing socialism. Socialism either applies to everything or nothing, and having some 'socialist' policies is not always a bad thing.
	On 2009-08-21 at 03:31:14, Scarletxstarlet wrote... @DigitalBoss: That's not a valid comparison. There is no finite amount of A's. Having an A does not prevent someone else from having an A. People do not need A's to live. A's are not a tradeable commodity.
	On 2009-08-21 at 08:20:14, BorgClown wrote... What about a job? You want to be an astronaut, but your country needs you repairing trucks or something. A true socialist would comply for the communal wellbeing.
	On 2009-08-21 at 09:44:59, Lee J Haywood wrote... It's not like your academic performance counts for nothing. The Russians still sent people into space under communism - it's just a case of people doing as much as they can with less individual money. On the other hand, in the UK we used to have very rich families with huge inheritances. The gentlemen had huge amounts of time on their hands and set to inventing lace-making machines and building canals (and finding fossils), etc. Now we have inheritance tax and people have to work for a living, reducing the time they have to innovate.
	On 2009-08-21 at 11:54:59, DigitalBoss wrote... Oh, so now it is just for stuff that you need. So let me get this right, you think that the government should dole out stuff that people need, but stuff that they want they should have to work for. Well, I think I need cable television and a cell phone, should the government supply me with that with taxpayer money? When I look for a job, should I wait for the government to tell me where to work, and where to live? I WANT THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE. If they want to build roads or bridges, or go out in space, fine, but leave me alone, I want to make my own way.
	On 2009-08-21 at 11:56:48, DigitalBoss wrote... I enjoy my freedom. Maybe yours is not so hot, if not I am sorry, but do not take away mine because you can't or won't manage yours.
	On 2009-08-21 at 16:22:03, Scarletxstarlet wrote... @DigitalBoss: The fact is, you DON'T need a cell phone or cable TV in order to live.
	On 2009-08-21 at 16:23:31, Scarletxstarlet wrote... @BorgClown: Rather than telling people what they can or can't do professionally, why not just give incentives to repair trucks? If a profession pays well, people are more likely to take it up, even if it's not enjoyable.
	On 2009-08-21 at 17:36:32, DigitalBoss wrote... The reason these incentives do not work is that there is no politician smart enough to second-guess the free market. They always come up with some idea that has unintended consequences. In a free market hundreds or thousands of decisions are made for each transaction. If there were a big demand for truck mechanics, the market would be short, supply would be low, and the wage rates would go up for truck mechanics, thereby increasing the amount of people that would want to learn how to work on trucks. My brother is an ASIC engineer. There are very few people with the intelligence and/or training to do this type of work. The supply of ASIC engineers is tight. This raises the wage that companies will pay for the people with these skills. He makes about $130.00 per hour, and works 60 hours a week. He was not fortunate in getting this work, he studied hard and learned it. He got a degree in electrical engineering and went out of is way to get an internship to learn these skills.
	On 2009-08-21 at 17:42:54, DigitalBoss wrote... Ok, so who is going to decide what you need to live? That is my point. Do you want a bunch of politicians deciding your fate? Ok, what if the Democrats give you a nice cell phone. What is going to happen when the Republicans take over? Are they going to take it away? Oh, I have to vote Democrat because the Republicans will take away my cell phone. Who is making the best decisions for the country? Are they making decisions based on what is good for the country, or are they making decisions based on what will get them re-elected? Looting the treasury and the taxpayer to buy votes, that is all the Democrats are interested in.
	On 2009-08-22 at 08:54:23, BorgClown wrote... Mmmh, I have to agree with that. Regulating job incentives would make a helluva mess on the law in the long term, it's better to implement overall balances and let the free market decide.
	On 2009-08-22 at 10:07:37, Lee J Haywood wrote... Allowing free market capitalism still a government decision, and it's the basis of a growth economy. But who says that a growth economy is a good thing? Sure, people get rich and buy things they don't need - but we end up with a huge first world population that consumes both non-renewable resources and takes more of the renewable resources than the Earth can replenish.
	On 2009-08-22 at 18:21:51, DigitalBoss wrote... The NAZIs were socialists. Great job they did with it. NAZI = National Socialist Party.
	On 2009-08-22 at 18:26:24, DigitalBoss wrote... @LeeJ: What we end up with is a country full of free individual citizens who would like the government to leave them alone.
	On 2009-08-24 at 17:40:29, Thelevellers wrote... But what about the people that AREN'T in your country, the people who's food and labour us 'first worlders' are using/abusing at entirely unsustainable rates? Infinite growth is not possible in a finite universe, therefore free market capitilism is by definition doomed.