Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[Hans Blaster]

Buddhism is about community and compassion - but both must be voluntarily and freely offered and given, not by force of arms (government). I explained more fully in my last post.

What mechanism does the community use to enforce its justice or compassion or the reinforcement of community?

 

[Speedwell]

Socialism is when the government gives my hard-earned tax dollars to people whose lifestyle choices I don't approve of.

 

[ananda]

What mechanism does the community use to enforce its justice or compassion or the reinforcement of community?

Justice belongs properly to government.

Compassion and community belongs to individuals and individual choice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Justice belongs properly to government.

And how does government maintain the application of justice?

Does it require income to support justice activities (the operations of courts, the impositions of remedies)? If so does it acquire those resources by enforcing payments from all members of the community or does it impose service on those persons enacting justice (judges, lawyers, police) without compensation? How does it maintain any facilities for justice (courts, jails, etc.)? If it imposes payments upon members of the community or impress their service without compensation, how does it acquire the authority to do so?

 

[Speedwell]

Justice belongs properly to government.

Compassion and community belongs to individuals and individual choice.

What about practical necessity? It would be a danger to me if my next-door neighbor's house burned to the ground unchecked because he couldn't afford to hire a private fire company. I'd rather that there was a "socialist" fire department near by. Likewise it would be a great practical nuisance to all of us if there were large numbers of poor people hanging around without effective access to food, housing, medical care or education. "Compassion" needn't even come into it, or any other ideological concerns

 

[MIDutch]

As I read and understand the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha taught wholeheartedly about voluntary compassion, not forced "compassion" directed to specially selected individuals and causes selected by the government.

Forced "compassion" is not compassion at all.

"Forced compassion"?

As in making sure that the "specially selected individuals" known as the elderly have safe medical care and nursing homes if they need it and aren't targeted by financial scam artists trying to steal all of their retirement savings?

As in making sure that the "specially selected individuals" known as children get an education?

As in making sure that the "specially selected individuals" known as citizens don't have to worry about the chemical plant down the street dumping toxic wast into the stream their drinking water comes out of?

Etc..

You mean that sort of "forced compassion"?

 

[ananda]

And how does government maintain the application of justice?

Does it require income to support justice activities (the operations of courts, the impositions of remedies)? If so does it acquire those resources by enforcing payments from all members of the community or does it impose service on those persons enacting justice (judges, lawyers, police) without compensation? How does it maintain any facilities for justice (courts, jails, etc.)? If it imposes payments upon members of the community or impress their service without compensation, how does it acquire the authority to do so?

It should voluntarily supported by all those who agree to the burden of that justice. Anyone who disagrees should be allowed to leave its jurisdiction and protection.

 

[ananda]

What about practical necessity? It would be a danger to me if my next-door neighbor's house burned to the ground unchecked because he couldn't afford to hire a private fire company. I'd rather that there was a "socialist" fire department near by. Likewise it would be a great practical nuisance to all of us if there were large numbers of poor people hanging around without effective access to food, housing, medical care or education. "Compassion" needn't even come into it, or any other ideological concerns

Sure ... and there are countless other concerns and sufferings in the world. Like I said, the amount of perceived sufferings are endless, my point being that government literally cannot end them all.

 

[ananda]

"Forced compassion"?

As in making sure that the "specially selected individuals" known as the elderly have safe medical care and nursing homes if they need it and aren't targeted by financial scam artists trying to steal all of their retirement savings?

As in making sure that the "specially selected individuals" known as children get an education?

As in making sure that the "specially selected individuals" known as citizens don't have to worry about the chemical plant down the street dumping toxic wast into the stream their drinking water comes out of?

Etc..

You mean that sort of "forced compassion"?

Yes.

I agree that all those things are concerns, I'm not debating that. I'm pointing out that there are countless other concerns too, and it is impossible to address them all. You're choosing select causes, at the expense of other causes.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure ... and there are countless other concerns and sufferings in the world. Like I said, the amount of perceived sufferings are endless, my point being that government literally cannot end them all.

So that's your position? End them all or do nothing? But you spoke of "community." For us, "We, the people..." government is an agent of that community.

 

[ananda]

So that's your position? End them all or do nothing? But you spoke of "community." For us, "We, the people..." government is an agent of that community.

IMO it is meant to be a community of justice. Not a community of compassion.

Providing for one group must necessarily mean depriving other groups, and though the former may be seen as "compassionate", the latter - the flip side - is discompassionate at best.

Compassion for sufferings can be endless. Justice has limits.

 

[MIDutch]

Sure ... and there are countless other concerns and sufferings in the world. Like I said, the amount of perceived sufferings are endless, my point being that government literally cannot end them all.

No one claims that it can, but it's silly to think that it's NOT part of a government's purpose to protect and help it's citizens when it can.

Here's a simple question, have you ever been to one of the "evil socialist" countries that are such an example for conservative Republicans for what all is wrong with socialism? Such as, say, Sweden or Norway or Switzerland or the Netherlands?

 

[Speedwell]

IMO it is meant to be a community of justice. Not a community of compassion.

Providing for one group must necessarily mean depriving other groups, and though the former may be seen as "compassionate", the latter - the flip side - is discompassionate at best.

But it may be justice to require those to whom the community has provided the opportunity of a livelihood to give something to those to whom it has not.

 

[ananda]

No one claims that it can, but it's silly to think that it's NOT part of a government's purpose to protect and help it's citizens when it can.

Why is it silly? "Can" doesn't equal "should".

Here's a simple question, have you ever been to one of the "evil socialist" countries that are such an example for conservative Republicans for what all is wrong with socialism? Such as, say, Sweden or Norway or Switzerland or the Netherlands?

I have not, and I'm not a conservative Republican.

 

[ananda]

But it may be justice to require those to whom the community has provided the opportunity of a livelihood to give something to those to whom it has not.

Who gets to determine who "has not been provided opportunity", why should that be the measure, how is that objectively measured, and who elected them omniscient god?

 

[MIDutch]

Yes.

I agree that all those things are concerns, I'm not debating that. I'm pointing out that there are countless other concerns too, and it is impossible to address them all. You're choosing select causes, at the expense of other causes.

And yet you say that none of those (and further, nothing at all) should be addressed by government.

 

[MIDutch]

I have not, and I'm not a conservative Republican.

You certainly sound like one.

 

[Speedwell]

Who gets to determine who "has not been provided opportunity", why should that be the measure, how is that objectively measured, and who elected them omniscient god?

We have elected policy makers who make that decision. If we don't like the policy they make we can elect others. What it boils down to is, "Hey, guys, we don't have jobs for everybody so those of you who are working need to give a little to those who can't."

 

[ananda]

And yet you say that none of those (and further, nothing at all) should be addressed by government.

They shouldn't be addressed by government because of the fact that sufferings are endless, and resources are limited. To select a few select sufferings to support is to disparage the other sufferings of others.

 

[ananda]

You certainly sound like one.

I am a libertarian, and have little love for Republicanism.