Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Socialism on the rise?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NightHawkeye" data-source="post: 69258297" data-attributes="member: 265226"><p>To be blunt, I don't care what your definition of socialism is.</p><p></p><p>I simply want to know how you intend to implement it without a strong authoritarian government. This should not be a hard question if you have thought the process through.</p><p></p><p>OK. Since you seem to sincerely believe that somehow the "citizens" will own the means of production ... what is the mechanism through which these citizens own the means of production?</p><p></p><p>Unless you provide these citizens with ownership certificates or some such, I would submit that it is the state which owns the means of production. Therefore the state wields tremendous power.</p><p></p><p>You're welcome.</p><p></p><p>Please do.</p><p></p><p>By the way, I'm all with you on wanting the small limited government you speak about. That's what the founders of the USA wanted as well. In fact, their initial attempt at a nation, the Articles of Confederation, failed because they gave the federal government too little power. They called it liberty. Some call it freedom. Personally, I think libertarian might be the better name.</p><p></p><p>Where I differ with you is that I don't believe the government can own the means of production without wielding tremendous power ... which power, being vested in a single entity, will sooner rather than later be very badly abused. (History is full of ugly examples.) As the saying goes; Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.</p><p></p><p>The beauty of free-enterprise competition is that it allows efficiency of scale while simultaneously limiting the ability of any single person or group to fully monopolize the playing field. Socialism, by definition, can't offer that safeguard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NightHawkeye, post: 69258297, member: 265226"] To be blunt, I don't care what your definition of socialism is. I simply want to know how you intend to implement it without a strong authoritarian government. This should not be a hard question if you have thought the process through. OK. Since you seem to sincerely believe that somehow the "citizens" will own the means of production ... what is the mechanism through which these citizens own the means of production? Unless you provide these citizens with ownership certificates or some such, I would submit that it is the state which owns the means of production. Therefore the state wields tremendous power. You're welcome. Please do. By the way, I'm all with you on wanting the small limited government you speak about. That's what the founders of the USA wanted as well. In fact, their initial attempt at a nation, the Articles of Confederation, failed because they gave the federal government too little power. They called it liberty. Some call it freedom. Personally, I think libertarian might be the better name. Where I differ with you is that I don't believe the government can own the means of production without wielding tremendous power ... which power, being vested in a single entity, will sooner rather than later be very badly abused. (History is full of ugly examples.) As the saying goes; Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The beauty of free-enterprise competition is that it allows efficiency of scale while simultaneously limiting the ability of any single person or group to fully monopolize the playing field. Socialism, by definition, can't offer that safeguard. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Socialism on the rise?
Top
Bottom