What is so wrong with socialism?

[GoldenBoy89]

Rest assured that if I had wanted to say that "taxation = theft," I would have written exactly that.

So you weren't saying exactly that when you said this?

I think you're right that most Americans are opposed to Socialism. What's wrong with it is pretty obvious, I'd think--it's morally wrong to steal, whether it's done through the government's police or by an individual. Sure, those who get some of the loot say they like that. Why wouldn't they? And that's to say nothing of the fact that Socialism doesn't work. The best that its fans can say is that it sometimes works somewhat well if it's not really Socialism but a mixed economy.

I agree. It is morally wrong to steal, and thieves should be prosecuted. I disagree that taxation (which is what I believe you were referring to here, I could be wrong though) is theft. Usually when you get robbed, you are left with nothing. That doesn't seem to be the case with these terrible social democracies that are offering free public healthcare, free education, subsidies that help people start businesses, provide for the common defense of the nation, provide regulatory commissions that oversee industries to ensure they follow safety guidelines and regulations... etc. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

 

[Jan Volkes]

That may be true. Socialists don't want to come clean about what Socialism really is, so they describe a mixed economy or laud Social Security and try to make out that that is Socialism...and so the average person thinks that's the case because they've heard this mischaracterization used so often and, after all, it sounds reasonable enough to them. Of course, you could also describe Communism or Monarchism the same way--by picking out a few agreeable social characteristics--and implying that this is all that it's about.

OK please let me clarify something for you, what we call socialism in Europe is what we call socialism, what you call socialism is more in line with communism, that is not the socialism we are talking about, in future would it be possible for you to talk about our kind of socialism? if you don't know what we mean when we say socialism please tell us then someone can explain to you what we mean.

 

[Albion]

So you weren't saying exactly that when you said this?



I agree. It is morally wrong to steal

Then you got the point after all.

I disagree that taxation (which is what I believe you were referring to here, I could be wrong though) is theft.

So what really is your game here? I never say that taxation = theft. You follow up to ask if I meant that. I say that it isn't. So you come back and state that you think it is what I meant anyway.

There's no discussing a subject like this if that's how it's to be--deliberately misrepresenting the other person's views so you can have something to oppose.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I agree. It is morally wrong to steal, and thieves should be prosecuted. I disagree that taxation (which is what I believe you were referring to here, I could be wrong though) is theft. Usually when you get robbed, you are left with nothing. That doesn't seem to be the case with these terrible social democracies that are offering free public healthcare, free education, subsidies that help people start businesses, provide for the common defence of the nation, provide regulatory commissions that oversee industries to ensure they follow safety guidelines and regulations... etc. Pretty sweet deal if you ask me.

It's such a sweet deal dozens of countries have adopted it and are doing very nicely thank you, and the majority of the people living in those countries would not have it any other way..

 

[Jan Volkes]

Then you got the point after all.
So what really is your game here? I never say that taxation = theft. You follow up to ask if I meant that. I say that it isn't. So you come back and state that you think it is what I meant anyway.

There's no discussing a subject like this if that's how it's to be--deliberately misrepresenting the other person's views so you can have something to oppose.

You said:
I'd think--it's morally wrong to steal, whether it's done through the government's police or by an individual.
What government police should not steal your money?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Then you got the point after all.


So what really is your game here? I never say that taxation = theft. You follow up to ask if I meant that. I say that it isn't. So you come back and state that you think it is what I meant anyway.

There's no discussing a subject like this if that's how it's to be--deliberately misrepresenting the other person's views so you can have something to oppose.

Now you are just being deliberately obtuse. I misrepresented nothing. I quoted your exact post where you likened taxation to theft from the government. I'll quote you again, just so everyone can see...

I think you're right that most Americans are opposed to Socialism. What's wrong with it is pretty obvious, I'd think--it's morally wrong to steal, whether it's done through the government's police or by an individual. Sure, those who get some of the loot say they like that. Why wouldn't they? And that's to say nothing of the fact that Socialism doesn't work. The best that its fans can say is that it sometimes works somewhat well if it's not really Socialism but a mixed economy.

There it is, in its entirety, in plain black & white, without a single word changed or removed.

I know that's what you meant because that is the usual mantra that comes up in a discussion about socialism. Well, usual for people who have no idea what they are talking about, but that is to be expected.

And now, I'm done talking to you. I have shown that you wont even back up what you yourself said in this very thread and that is not my idea of an honest and open discussion.

Good day, Sir.

 

[Willtor]

That may be true. Socialists don't want to come clean about what Socialism really is, so they describe a mixed economy or laud Social Security and try to make out that that is Socialism...and so the average person thinks that's the case because they've heard this mischaracterization used so often and, after all, it sounds reasonable enough to them. Of course, you could also describe Communism or Monarchism the same way--by picking out a few agreeable social characteristics--and implying that this is all that it's about.

Ah, those sneaky socialists... always fooling people into think that the self-described socialist countries have socialism. That way, the people will ask for socialism, thinking they're asking for what the self-described socialist countries have. But those wily socialists will then implement "real socialism" in America, and the people can't complain because there's no takes-backsies. Brilliant!

Or, maybe socialism has come to mean what these self-described socialist countries mean by it. And maybe you're quibbling over vocabulary rather than ideas.

 

[keith99]

Not completely true. We love socialism that benefits the middle class. Our Social Security retirement and Medicare are beyond a doubt the most popular government programs of all time. Federal unemployment insurance not quite so much. It's those programs that everyone pays for, but only benefit selected persons that raise some ire. Like Medicaid, food stamps, and TANF.

Just for the record, both Social Security and Medicare are having landmark birthdays this year. The Social Security Act will be 80 years old on Aug. 14. And Medicare was 50 on July 30. These are now as much a part of American life as the World Series and Superbowl. So much so that many folks don't even recognize them as socialism.

Social Security retirement is nothing more or less than forced saving form retirement with a poor rate of return. it is based on how much you and your employer match put in. I'd much rather have been able to invest my Social Security in a 401K system. I'd be retiring fat and happy. That said I'm not in favor of simply doing away with Social Security, even if it was currently sound because there are those who would not invest soundly and they would then end up on the dole at retirement.

 

[jayem]

Social Security retirement is nothing more or less than forced saving form retirement with a poor rate of return. it is based on how much you and your employer match put in. I'd much rather have been able to invest my Social Security in a 401K system. I'd be retiring fat and happy. That said I'm not in favor of simply doing away with Social Security, even if it was currently sound because there are those who would not invest soundly and they would then end up on the dole at retirement.

SS is not meant to be a long-term growth investment. It's a safety net. A last resort so that people don't hit rock bottom when they retire from work. Since a safety net must be as secure as possible, these benefits must be protected from market swings. As you note, many people are not astute investors. Allowing SS contributions to be invested in the financial markets could be disastrous. You remember stock performance back in late 2008 and early 2009? What would be the nationwide reaction if people saw this happen to their SS? (Here's the S & P 500.)

Sure, stocks have since recovered have hit record highs in the last year, but I strongly doubt most people can tolerate these risks.

 

[keith99]

SS is not meant to be a long-term growth investment. It's a safety net. A last resort so that people don't hit rock bottom when they retire from work. Since a safety net must be as secure as possible, these benefits must be protected from market swings. As you note, many people are not astute investors. Allowing SS contributions to be invested in the financial markets could be disastrous. You remember stock performance back in late 2008 and early 2009? What would be the nationwide reaction if people saw this happen to their SS? (Here's the S & P 500.)

Sure, stocks have since recovered have hit record highs in the last year, but I strongly doubt most people can tolerate these risks.

Taking 13% of everything I made over 40 years is a heck of a lot for a safety net. It should be more than enough for everyone out there to retire with as much as their peak paycheck. Somehow it isn't.

 

[Willtor]

Taking 13% of everything I made over 40 years is a heck of a lot for a safety net. It should be more than enough for everyone out there to retire with as much as their peak paycheck. Somehow it isn't.

That doesn't add up. 13% * 40 years = 520% of your average paycheck. That's 5.2 years of retirement at your average paycheck.

 

[Gracchus]

“Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” – NIV Matthew 19:21

"When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." – NIV Luke 18:22

“Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'” – NIV Mark 10:21

“But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” – NIV Timothy 6:9-10

Just a reminder to all you pious Christian capitalists.

 

[stamperben]

We Americans love some sorts of socialism. It's loved when the government gives away huge tax breaks to the largest corporations. It's loved when the government gives huge sums of money to arms builders in the guise of "Defense." Etc, etc.

What our real problem here in the United States is we've lost the idea of the Common Good. Jim Wallis writes about this in Time a couple of years ago.
Whatever Happened to the “Common Good”?

There is an ancient idea that we have lost, but can and should find again. It’s called simply the common good. It goes back many centuries, but the need for a new dialogue about what it means and what its practice would require of us has never seemed more critical. Our politics have become so polarized and increasingly volatile; and our political institutions have lost the public trust. Few Americans today would suggest their political leaders are serving the common good.​

 

[Mediaeval]

So you are against any form of taxes?

That is correct. The objective moral principle, "Thou shalt not steal," should apply to everyone, including politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you're right that most Americans are opposed to Socialism. What's wrong with it is pretty obvious, I'd think--it's morally wrong to steal, whether it's done through the government's police or by an individual. Sure, those who get some of the loot say they like that. Why wouldn't they? And that's to say nothing of the fact that Socialism doesn't work. The best that its fans can say is that it sometimes works somewhat well if it's not really Socialism but a mixed economy.

If it's so bad and if it doesn't work...... then why are 7 of the top 10 best countries to live in, worldwide, all socialistic secular democracies from Europe?
Why isn't the US in that top 10?

 

[amanuensis63]

To make it easy why don't you point out a country [other than Greece] where properly implemented democratic socialism hasn't worked?

I find it frustrating that so many of my fellow Americans have this bizarre view of European capitalism. As if Greece is exactly what they are all like, completely ignoring the stronger economies (obviously Germany and places like Belgium, The Netherlands, Finland, etc.)

I have been working with several European corporations in my job over the past few years and they are just as capitalistic as anyone else...the big difference is they don't mind giving up a few cents more of their money to programs that assist everyone.

I used to travel to Norway every-so-often and I heard once that in Norway to stand out as ostentatiously wealthy (to have the fanciest car or the biggest house on one's street) is actually something they AVOID.

But in America it is about the highest virtue we know of.

 

[amanuensis63]

That is correct. The objective moral principle, "Thou shalt not steal," should apply to everyone, including politicians and bureaucrats.

This "theft" of which you speak is like if you wanted to go to Disneyland. If you were able to get through the gate without paying and someone came up to you and said "Yeah, you have to pay your money to get in the park"...is that "theft" likewise? Because it's the EXACT SAME THING. If you get an advantage from living in the US (which you DO) then why wouldn't you pay for it? And why wouldn't you set up a system by which payment is made automatically?

How is taxation "theft" unless you believe the rules that make you pay for entry to Disneyland are also theft.

At which point your argument fails as absurd.

 

[amanuensis63]

If it's so bad and if it doesn't work...... then why are 7 of the top 10 best countries to live in, worldwide, all socialistic secular democracies from Europe?
Why isn't the US in that top 10?

I think you forgot the RULE: America is ALWAYS #1 in EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. Therefore all metrics against which America is measured are hence relative. If the top 10 countries to live in are in Europe that means "Apart from living in the USA where else on this godforsaken hellhole would you want to live?"

Hope that clears it up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Taking 13% of everything I made over 40 years is a heck of a lot for a safety net. It should be more than enough for everyone out there to retire with as much as their peak paycheck. Somehow it isn't.

It's 45% over here.
And I don't mind it at all.

Few years ago, I required surgery.
First house doc visit on thursday. Went into surgery 6 days later on wednesday. Followed by 30-ish sessions of fysiotherapy for revalidation.
6 weeks paid sick leave (first 10 sick days of the year are paid for by the employer, all subsequent sick days for that year are paid by the government social security services).

Total cost: 216 bucks. And that was because I did an additional 10 sessions of fysiotherapy which I didn't really require, I just needed to speed up the recovery because I couldn't play the drums anymore for 100% and that was killing me.

If I wouldn't have done that, the total cost for me would have been 40-ish bucks.

You don't hear horror stories over here of people who went bankrupt because they broke their leg at the wrong time.

In the US, I would have ended up in a quagmire of insurances, would have to wait for weeks on my surgery and would have cost me thousands of dollars - all the while paying for private insurance every month (which are private companies out to make a profit... meaning that they earn money by NOT PAYING THE BILL).

2 years ago, my other half had a nasty illness. She was unable to work for 5 months.
During those 5 months, we received 80% of her net pay check from social security.

I went to university for 4 years.
Total cost of those 4 years: 800 euro - and that was primarily for books.
I didn't require to get monster loans, nore did I require to get several jobs to pay for school. Nore did my parents require to scratch pennies together to pay for school.

Life is good.

To each his own I guess.

I just can't stand it when people start to yap about how these systems are "terrible" and how they "don't work". Clearly, they do work. Very well. So good, in fact, that 7 of the top 10 best nations in the world to live in are social secular democracies in Europe.

 

[OSAS Apostle]

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” ~ Margaret Thatcher

Did she really say that ! Surely 'free' market capitalism has run out of tax payers money. Hence many countries printing money like confetti and calling it QE.