Is "socialism" a scare word in America?

[Vanellus]

IMO the simple solution for legitimate government is to not engage in the business of relieving any sufferings. This is not the sphere or domain of any legitimate government.

Government should stick to the bare task of administering justice (and defending from external threats), where measurable wrongs are put to right.

So do you think it's good that people suffer?

 

[Nithavela]

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.

You're "solution" appears to be "do nothing and feel bad".

 

[Belk]

That's just laughable. To have any government at all is not the definition of Socialism.

Very well, what definition of socialism are you using?

 

[Andrewn]

I had no idea that Buddhism could lead one down a path of rugged abolutist libertarianism. I always thought it was more community oriented.

In Buddhism, attachment is the root of suffering. All those who are suffering need to do is meditate to eliminate their attachment .

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's just laughable. To have any government at all is not the definition of Socialism.

I agree, but the dominant "anti-socialist" voice in this thread is one of libertarian extremism. My argumentation against that point of view is not one in favor of "socialism".

 

[Vanellus]

Socialism is the government's attempt to solve, or appear to solve, the problems of its society. It is paid for by taking resources from individuals, making them less capable of solving their own problems, especially their unique problems.

Socialism makes for bigger government, increasing its power relative to the individual. The one who solves the problems is the one who makes the decisions. Hence, the decision maker will more closely resemble the lowest common denominator of a mostly godless society, and the god-fearing individual is not permitted to make his decisions independently.

Socialism is a greater dependence on man, with a reciprocally diminished reliance upon God.

What about people who have little or no resources?

 

[Nithavela]

Socialism is a dead end. The Shakers were Socialists, how are they doing these days?

I think they opened a relatively successfull burger franchise.

 

[Albion]

Very well, what definition of socialism are you using?

Socialism is a form of government in which wealth production is controlled by government and wealth itself is redistributed by force according to whatever moral code appeals to the rulers.

 

[Vanellus]

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

Demonising the poor in a society designed to be unequal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In Buddhism, attachment is the root of suffering. All those who are suffering need to do is meditate to eliminate their attachment .

Wow. I didn't know that. There are a lot of bad ideas in religions I didn't know much about.

 

[Vanellus]

The sufferings of those who don't own a house but want to, and are stymied by the high prices as a result of government giving socialized relief to homeowners.

How does this work? Not excess profits by builders or overpriced land values?

 

[ananda]

So do you think it's good that people suffer?

To an extent, yes. A measure of suffering causes growth: take for example, a baby who struggles and suffers somewhat to keep its head up as it tries to crawl. Such suffering causes the development of muscles which eventually leads to proper posture. Depriving a baby of that experience causes stunted growth, poor posture, and other defects down the line. Too much suffering would also stunt growth.

 

[ananda]

You're "solution" appears to be "do nothing and feel bad".

No amount of government or socialism can eliminate all "feels bad" in the world.

 

[ananda]

In Buddhism, attachment is the root of suffering. All those who are suffering need to do is meditate to eliminate their attachment .

That isn't wholly true. For us, "meditation" is simply another word for concentration; we use concentration in our daily tasks to learn anything in life. The degree our mind is concentrated is the degree we perceive our task clearly, and the degree we perceive our task clearly is the degree we can master it, to conquer the sufferings associated with non-mastery.

 

[Nithavela]

No amount of government or socialism can eliminate all "feels bad" in the world.

This is just a copout to do nothing because perfection is unattainable.

Then again, that's a very buddhist thing to do. Pave your temples roof in gold and go out with a bowl to beg for meals.

 

[ananda]

How does this work? Not excess profits by builders or overpriced land values?

I'm sure that also contributes to high prices.

 

[ananda]

This is just a copout to do nothing because perfection is unattainable.

I'm not arguing that "perfection is unattainable". I'm mainly pointing out the fact that relieving the suffering of one group necessarily means increasing distributing the suffering on to other groups (due to the fact that worldly resources are limited), and I'm speaking up for this latter group.

Then again, that's a very buddhist thing to do. Pave your temples roof in gold and go out with a bowl to beg for meals.

That's not the form of Buddhism I follow, so non sequitur.

 

[Vanellus]

To an extent, yes. A measure of suffering causes growth: take for example, a baby who struggles and suffers somewhat to keep its head up as it tries to crawl. Such suffering causes the development of muscles which eventually leads to proper posture. Depriving a baby of that experience causes stunted growth, poor posture, and other defects down the line. Too much suffering would also stunt growth.

So do the rich do the poor a favour by taking money from them and making them poorer?

 

[Albion]

This is just a copout to do nothing because perfection is unattainable.

That's not what Marxism holds, and we are here talking about Socialism which is always promoted as the solution to all of society's ills.

 

[ananda]

So do the rich do the poor a favour by taking money from them and making them poorer?

No, of course not. If you read my posts in this thread, you'd see that I am against that.