Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
For the purposes of this discussion I'm fine with the definition you provided.
Upvote
0
A clear and consistent use of socialist is what I'm looking for. Do you have one?
The one I stole from that Rob guy, right? Then we'll add your clarification that it specifically refers to products not services. That means that if the government takes control over all the hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices then that isn't socialist, right? Which would make "socialized medicine" a paradox.For the purposes of this discussion I'm fine with the definition you provided.
The one I stole from that Rob guy, right? Then we'll add your clarification that it specifically refers to products not services. That means that if the government takes control over all the hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices then that isn't socialist, right? Which would make "socialized medicine" a paradox.
Is surgery a service or a product?
Going by what you said is an acceptable definition, then it isn't about how much of the industry is controlled by the government, it would be about which aspects of the industry are controlled by the government.Why are you asking? Is it only socialized healthcare if every single aspect of the entire industry is socialist?
Going by what you said is an acceptable definition, then it isn't about how much of the industry is controlled by the government, it would be about which aspects of the industry are controlled by the government.
Going by what you said is an acceptable definition, then it isn't about how much of the industry is controlled by the government, it would be about which aspects of the industry are controlled by the government.
So let's say the government takes over all the hospitals, but they don't take over the pharmaceutical companies. That isn't socialist at all, right?
If it was vice versa, and the government took control over the pharmaceutical companies, but not the hospitals, then that would be socialist.
What's wrong with my analysis of the definition after adding your clarification on products vs services?I didn't say that.
I've long thought that your tax returns should include a section in which to direct distribution. Where you could direct say 10% to Defense and 25% to social programs and 20% to foreign aid and so on, up to 100%. It would be interesting to see where people would actually put their money.We don't get to directly pick...
In terms of private charity, if I have $100 in my pocket, I can choose to give it to anyone I'd like for charitable purposes, or only give them part of it, or keep it all to myself.
In terms of our federal government spending, we basically get to pick between 1 of 2 "option packages" every few years. (Both of which contain some things I agree with, and some I disagree with).
While I think funding college would be a better use of our funds than subsidizing corn, if it were up to me, I wouldn't want the "college funding" concept to be as wide open as the democrats (or at least many of them) seem to want it.
My model for that would employ the same concepts of discretion as my model for crop subsidies...which would be a model of specificity and discretion. Much like I'd be okay with limited subsidizing for things like carrots and broccoli, but not not corn & soy, I'd be okay with limited subsidizing for degrees that marketable and have a higher job placement rate, but not art & philosophy degrees, as I don't see much merit in paying $40k for a philosophy degree so that the person can work at starbucks after graduation.
That too. It's the 'bad time to be a farmer' trifecta.And flooding and not enough workers to pick the crops...
US farmers, desperate for help, increasingly turn to Mexico
What's wrong with my analysis of the definition after adding your clarification on products vs services?
Ducking my questions already, I see. I'll just take my victory now instead of drawing this out for a long time like we usually do.Do you understand why things like law enforcement, the military, or foreign aid aren't considered socialism?
Ducking my questions already, I see. I'll just take my victory now instead of drawing this out for a long time like we usually do.
Not socialism...enforcement of the law and protection of the citizenry are two of the most basic functions of every nation, socialist or otherwise.
Foreign aid and military support for allies doesn't have anything to do with socialism. Try again.
One could arguably call the military a public service...but it's not a service the public really has any control over, nor can they opt out of it. The same can be said for law enforcement and firefighters and the other "examples" you mentioned. These are more accurately described as "functions of the state". They are quite literally what nations "do". I can't even think of a nation which existed without laws or their enforcement or a military. Without laws you cannot really own property or have rights....without some fundamental protection of those concepts, you would have a hard time organizing beyond the size of a family.
Medicare....that's socialism. ACA....socialism. They involve actual products regulated or where the "means of production" (which is a weird way to describe insurance) are publicly owned. Social Security? Socialism.
It's more like the fact that it doesn't make sense to privatize them. Fighting fires requires specific tools and skills...and people willing to train for those typically require money. It's hard to imagine a private business model that would work for this....most places simply wouldn't have firefighters.
The fact that a public need was once fulfilled by a private business doesn't make it socialist. Another poster pointed out the business conflict in private firefighting. There was a similar problem before the FBI was created. We used to hire private detectives to investigate cross state crimes and major crimes/criminal organizations. There's an inherent problem with that though...since a detective agency's detectives aren't necessarily loyal to the interests of the USA.
Does that mean the FBI is somehow a socialist agency because it's function was once performed by a private business? Of course not.
They perform a service....they don't produce a product. That may seem like a meaningless distinction to you...but it's not to those who came up with the phrase "means of production" during the industrial revolution.
The problem with taking every service like "the military" or "law enforcement" or literally anything the government spends tax money on and calling it "socialism" is that socialism then becomes a meaningless term for "government spending"....and its not.
If these things are socialism....then every government in history is socialist and so is every nation....and they always will be.
Your definitions are grossly inconsistent. Medicare doesn’t produce a product; it pays for them and services. ACA paid for services. If they’re “socialism”, then so are all the other things you’ve claimed aren’t socialism.
They act as a form of medical insurance which is a product.
I'll just dismiss the rest since you started off wrong.
Only when you answer my questions with questions.Lol you've ducked multiple questions in a row
Funny you should mention that. You mean like this?and the others you answered with questions.
Okay, then there's no such thing as "socialized medicine" because healthcare is a service and not a product?
What are you looking for here? You want me to explain all of socialist theory to you as I understand it?
That means that if the government takes control over all the hospitals, clinics, and doctors offices then that isn't socialist, right?
Is medicine a service or a product?
So let's say the government takes over all the hospitals, but they don't take over the pharmaceutical companies. That isn't socialist at all, right?
Do you understand why things like law enforcement, the military, or foreign aid aren't considered socialism?
What's wrong with my analysis of the definition after adding your clarification on products vs services?
Do you understand why law enforcement, the military, and foreign aid aren't considered socialism?
Am I? I asked this before you responded with your question:We can have a dialogue, and I'll gladly answer your question....but you're way past due for answering mine.
So I'm pretty sure I'm due before you, pal.So let's say the government takes over all the hospitals, but they don't take over the pharmaceutical companies. That isn't socialist at all, right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?