GENIUS FORUMS

Then your view is wrong, or at least not consistent with normal definitions of "socialism."

Nick Treklis wrote:In my view socialism occurs when government employs a system of taxation and redistribution.

I would be interested to know how a government in the usual sense of the term could even exist without a system of taxation and redistribution -- at the very least, redistributing money from private citizens to government agencies and employees.

It seems to me that all governments, not just socialist ones, employ taxation and redistribution of wealth to some extent.

Dan Rowden wrote:Re: Bill's original post. I don't believe Bill's effort is even worth addressing seriously. What is one supposed to do with mindless caricatures like:

If higher consciousness means sitting around on hard mats, sipping black tea and admiring each others sandals and beards, then count me out.

There's nothing one can do with that sort of insipidity.

You can find it funny... or not.. depending on your level of po- facedness.

I don't think it matters either way - serious, there's nothing to respond to; funny - still nothing.

Dan Rowden wrote:Re: Bill's original post. I don't believe Bill's effort is even worth addressing seriously. What is one supposed to do with mindless caricatures like:

If higher consciousness means sitting around on hard mats, sipping black tea and admiring each others sandals and beards, then count me out.

There's nothing one can do with that sort of insipidity.

Personally, I think it was simply the all-too-human attempt to rally some allies and, by doing so, make it a little more comfortable for himself to open up and ask all those questions he thinks might be really, really stupid so he can learn something here. The trouble with that, of course, is what to do with those allies once they've fulfilled their purpose.

One has to stand alone entirely with their own mind, eventually.

I like to plunge right in with the hard, even if seemingly really dumb, questions/positions straight up. No point beating around the bush.

Of course, you could be right and I could be wrong. It might---in actual fact---just as simply have been one of those really stupid questions/positions and he might have no other motive than to be here to make friends. Ha!

Philosophaster wrote:I would be interested to know how a government in the usual sense of the term could even exist without a system of taxation and redistribution -- at the very least, redistributing money from private citizens to government agencies and employees.

Well it wouldn't be much of one. My ideal government would be a direct democracy of the people that operate within the constraints of a National Constitution that provides basic rights and laws for every citzen to live by and follow. Only the most basic services such as fire/emergency systems, law enforcement, and defense should be socialized, and it should be done in such a way that the people are taxed indirectly. I don't think people would have much of a problem with socializing these things because of their importance and they know exactly where their money is going. The market will determine how important everything else is and how much the cost should be.

Philosophaster wrote:It seems to me that all governments, not just socialist ones, employ taxation and redistribution of wealth to some extent.

Indeed, but I think you'll find that the countrys with the least amount of socialization are generally worse off than the countrys that are, e.g. westernized countrys v. eastern. Where I work there are many Romanians, many of which lived there during the control of Comminism, and the conditions they describe are horrible. The wages they recieved were heavily taxed, Government owned all the land, and much of what the government did provide was a joke.

Without getting too deep into it, there are three fundamental problems with socialism. One, people are neccessarily taxed against their will which basically means they are getting robbed. Two, is inefficiency and waste. When the people's taxes are concentrated into the hands of a small group of people there will be some who inevitably wont get their money's worth, and what a few people end up accomplishing could have been done with less expense due to the costs of the project being dictated by the free market. Three, it concentrates much of the people's money(and power) into the hands of a small group of people which is a very risky scenario. Even if these people are elected, the hearts and minds of men are easily corrupted so you can see how this can lead to major problems. So it's actually quite ironic that Unidian would claim Feudalism is the direct ancestor of capitalism when what I just described is nearly identical to what Kings and Queens had been doing for centuries. Which is owning all the land, taxing the population to the brink of economic collapse, and spending most of the money on their own personal ambitions and interests with the people getting back next to nothing in return. Even the wikipedia article on Feudalism claims that governemnts that operate today based on a feudal-like system tend to embrace Marxism.

There are some things governments suck at doing and other things that they are good at. If you have a government that tries to do everything, your country will suck (Stalin, Ceausescu, name your Communist dictator). If you have a government that does nothing (or have no government), then your country will also suck (see Afghanistan under the Taliban).

The point of a government is to provide incentives that the free market would not provide on its own; and it provides a very strong incentive, namely, jailing those who fail to comply. The free market provides great incentives for people to do things that have obvious individual benefits, like making, selling, and buying consumer goods, but little incentive to do things whose costs or benefits are heavily socialized by their very nature (e.g. building of roads, maintenance of national parks, anti-poverty protection (welfare), fire and police departments, military).

Philosophaster wrote:If you have a government that does nothing (or have no government), then your country will also suck (see Afghanistan under the Taliban).

Eliminating socialism doesn't mean getting rid of the people's rights and common law. Without the rule of law then government becomes nothing more than a Mafia type organization eventually leading to tyranny and all the rest.

Philosophaster wrote:The point of a government is to provide incentives that the free market would not provide on its own; and it provides a very strong incentive, namely, jailing those who fail to comply.

Right, but I'm not saying that we should eliminate government, I'm just saying it should be extremely limited.

Philosophaster wrote:The free market provides great incentives for people to do things that have obvious individual benefits, like making, selling, and buying consumer goods, but little incentive to do things whose costs or benefits are heavily socialized by their very nature (e.g. building of roads, maintenance of national parks, anti-poverty protection (welfare), fire and police departments, military).

In my experience some of the finest roads and parks I've been to are privately funded. Turn Pikes are paid for with a user fee and these highways are in spectacular condition compared to state funded highways. I also live within a few miles of a city run park and a park paid for by motorists who pay a fee for driving there as opposed to people who walk and ride a bike who get in free, guess which park is the better.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Re: Bill's original post. I don't believe Bill's effort is even worth addressing seriously. What is one supposed to do with mindless caricatures like:

If higher consciousness means sitting around on hard mats, sipping black tea and admiring each others sandals and beards, then count me out.

There's nothing one can do with that sort of insipidity.

Personally, I think it was simply the all-too-human attempt to rally some allies and, by doing so, make it a little more comfortable for himself to open up and ask all those questions he thinks might be really, really stupid so he can learn something here. The trouble with that, of course, is what to do with those allies once they've fulfilled their purpose.

One has to stand alone entirely with their own mind, eventually.

I like to plunge right in with the hard, even if seemingly really dumb, questions/positions straight up. No point beating around the bush.

Of course, you could be right and I could be wrong. It might---in actual fact---just as simply have been one of those really stupid questions/positions and he might have no other motive than to be here to make friends. Ha!

Wrong, wrong.. and eh, fuck off a minute - wrong again. So much for the power of arrogant second guessing. Kiss kiss.

Unidian wrote:Society doesn't fund Noam Chomsky.

I was using the word fund in a loose sense. My point is that Chomsky's existence, like almost all of our intellectual hero's, depends on people valuing (paying into) what he does, whether as a professor, a lecturer or a writer. Intellectual heroism is generally a luxury afforded usually to only those who have the talent to succeed at something that society already values - whether it's journalism, art, academic philosophy, engineering, music, physics, linguistics, etc.

He works as a professor, and he has deep misgivings about it due to his deep mistrust of the academic community.

That maybe so, but his ability to have his misgivings propagated so widely is a luxury that he affords because he is skilled at producing something that his peers want to pay him for.

Hamburger flippers and pencil pushers are simply menial jobs usually reserved only for college students and those who haven't the intellect and character to be received as intellectual heroes. Chris 'Alexander Supertramp' McCandles (from Into the Wild) is an interesting exception, someone who was both an academic high achiever and a hamburger flipper, and is now celebrated as a hero for his moral/intellectual strivings. He is reasonably regarded as a bit of an idiot as well, but it's hard not to be inspired by his ruggedness.

I'm not too impressed with McCandless myself. I don't find it "heroic" to randomly decide you can beat the Alaskan wilderness with nothing but your own distorted self-image. He didn't even bring a map, for heaven's sake. The guy starved to death 20 miles from a highway.

My interpretation of McCandless is that he is someone who was deeply bothered by the meaninglessness of what passes for "normal" life and he developed a subconscious death wish as a result. He fulfilled this subconscious wish in Alaska. Heroic? Perhaps to some, but I don't see it much differently than putting a gun to one's head, with the exception that suicide of that sort is at least done with full conscious understanding.

I see Timothy Treadwell in similar terms, for the record. This is another guy with a history of enormous psychological upheaval and a deep sense of alienation who secretly wanted to be killed, and after going to extreme lengths to make that happen, he finally got his wish.

I saw Into the Wild. Beautiful scenery, ridiculous (and, heh, self-indulgent) subject.

I haven't seen the film, although I'd like to. I learned of McCandless by stumbling across him while exploring this sort of thing online.

I think it's partially this whole idea of "heroism" which Cory talks about that motivates guys like McCandless to do foolish things and get themselves killed. Essentially, a guy like McCandless is deathly afraid of the likely future in front of him, either consciously or subconsciously. He's disenchanted and disillusioned with society, and on some level, he knows what that means in terms of what his life is going to be like. Rather than "man up" (so to speak) and get down to the complex and often frustrating business of learning to live in a world that does not welcome one's existence, guys like McCandless see an opportunity to transcend all of that by taking on some Herculean (or more likely Quixotic) task. They figure it's their last chance to avoid the life that is a natural consequence of seeing through society's games. They want to have their cake and eat it too - to reject society and yet earn its admiration. But, of course, various levels of destruction lie down that road. Guys like McCandless figure "go for broke" and end up dead.

Interesting and admirable criticisms, Nat.

My first instinct was that, yes, his mentality was in some respects ridiculous (the guy renamed himself Alexander 'Supertramp', 'nuff said) - but after reading the book, I really can't help but respect the degree to which he admired and put into practice Tolstoyian ideals of asceticism. He gave life enough thought to be disgusted by it, he had spiritual ideals, and he really pushed himself in terms of renouncing worldly comfort - and he did so after earning honors and scholarships in University. The criticism he's gotten has mostly been apt, but the character required to renounce comfort to the degree he did is admirable.

Nick wrote:Socialism creates the need and desire for welfare with the countless negative effects it has on the lives of each and every citizen. Don't find fault with the people on welfare, find fault with the system that creates the welfare class.

Whilst that’s clearly a possibility, what is often missed is that Capitalism creates this very same problem as well. This should be obvious, since we see welfare classes in he Capitalist West. It’s easier, of course, to chalk it down to “Socialism” only because of one’s assumptions about socialistic and capitalistic ideology. In fact, I think these ideologies are actually inseparable. However, spare a thought for this: the capitalist (or Capitalist) cannot exist outside of society. He thrives on the division of labour (a bunch of people doing specialised work that benefits everybody else). With wage labour in capitalist society, we get to a point where some jobs ain’t worth more than what’s paid in welfare. So, in this scenario, when you hang it on the “low-life” welfare recipient, you implicitly support the profit guzzling super-capitalist who actually performs no (wage) labour and no service to society other than to use it as a commodity for his own egoistic gain.

Are you sure you have a problem with the effects of “socialism”?

So, in this scenario, when you hang it on the “low-life” welfare recipient, you implicitly support the profit guzzling super-capitalist who actually performs no (wage) labour and no service to society other than to use it as a commodity for his own egoistic gain.

Well put. +1 for Leyla today. :)

Unidian wrote:Well put. +1 for Leyla today. :)

Seconded.

Leyla,

Whilst that’s clearly a possibility, what is often missed is that Capitalism creates this very same problem as well. This should be obvious, since we see welfare classes in he Capitalist West. It’s easier, of course, to chalk it down to “Socialism” only because of one’s assumptions about socialistic and capitalistic ideology. In fact, I think these ideologies are actually inseparable. However, spare a thought for this: the capitalist (or Capitalist) cannot exist outside of society. He thrives on the division of labour (a bunch of people doing specialised work that benefits everybody else). With wage labour in capitalist society, we get to a point where some jobs ain’t worth more than what’s paid in welfare. So, in this scenario, when you hang it on the “low-life” welfare recipient, you implicitly support the profit guzzling super-capitalist who actually performs no (wage) labour and no service to society other than to use it as a commodity for his own egoistic gain.

I think you are missing Nick's point that the affects of an out of control liberal socialist type of government are far worse than the affects of out of control CEOs in large companies.

For instance: If liberal socialists are not kept in check then the result is as follows: As the government increases in size, federal spending increases, which causes the deficit to increase, so the government is forced to borrow money from foreign investors, which causes inflation, and so the quality of living goes down, and so consumer spending decreases, so the FED prints more money to lower interest rates, but this action hurt the value of the currency as well, so people panic and stop spending and the GDP decreases, and the demands for goods and services decreases, so companies go out of business, and people are out of work, so the middle-class suffers, creating more poor people who go on welfare and feed the entire cycle.

The wisdom of libertarian philosophy is that there is faith in limited government over big socialist government. Big government puts too much strain on people’s disposable income/value of the currency, which has too many negative affects as listed above. The fact of the matter is that many out of control CEOS cause much less devastation on a national level than an entire federal government that is out of control. This is true because an immoral CEO only affects the disposable income of a relatively small number of employees, whereas the behavior of a socialist liberal government affects the disposable income (and the value of the currency) of an entire nation.

Do you see the huge difference here?

Do you see the huge difference here?

I do, but do you?

Libertarianism's faith is in the inherent goodness of self-interested people in general and of business in particular. It is aptly called a faith, because the evidence has certainly indicated that big business is no more trustworthy than any government, and arguably far less so. The Gilded Age of robber barons and Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is only one of countless examples, all with the same results.

Like Marxism, for libertarianism to work would require the creation of a "New Man." But libertarianism's New Man is even more fantastic and opposed to human nature than that of Marxism, because while history has shown gradual but ongoing progress in the level of human consciousness and our conception of humane behavior, it has *never* shown that leaving people entirely to their own devices results in anything but some variation of a Lord of The Flies scenario.

Anarchism (which is a more intellectually honest form of libertarianism) has always been a fundamentally misguided idea. Its folly is far greater than that of socialism, which will in fact work given sufficient human development. Socialism is simply ahead of its time. Anarchism is a disaster in any day and age, because it simply replaces coercion and oppression by governments with far worse and infinitely more ruthless coercion and repression by the naturally strong. Social Darwinism is not a legitimate social movement, it is simply an effort to overturn the entire edifice of human progress in order to enable the strong to rule by the law of the jungle.

Good people don't fall for it, no matter how appealingly it may be packaged.

Leyla Shen wrote:However, spare a thought for this: the capitalist (or Capitalist) cannot exist outside of society. He thrives on the division of labour (a bunch of people doing specialised work that benefits everybody else). With wage labour in capitalist society, we get to a point where some jobs ain’t worth more than what’s paid in welfare. So, in this scenario, when you hang it on the “low-life” welfare recipient, you implicitly support the profit guzzling super-capitalist who actually performs no (wage) labour and no service to society other than to use it as a commodity for his own egoistic gain.

Just because there's capitalism doesn't mean there wont be laws and enforcement there-of to protect workers rights which at base would include safe working conditions and the ability to form Unions and go on strike to improve their wages. I also second what Ryan said, that even if the scenario you described does happen, the damage is far far less than any damage the Government can inflict when it gains too much power. When you read history books you don't read about tyrannical companies(even though they existed and still do), you read about tyrannical governments.

Unidian wrote:Libertarianism's faith is in the inherent goodness of self-interested people in general and of business in particular. It is aptly called a faith, because the evidence has certainly indicated that big business is no more trustworthy than any government, and arguably far less so. The Gilded Age of robber barons and Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is only one of countless examples, all with the same results.

Like Marxism, for libertarianism to work would require the creation of a "New Man." But libertarianism's New Man is even more fantastic and opposed to human nature than that of Marxism, because while history has shown gradual but ongoing progress in the level of human consciousness and our conception of humane behavior, it has *never* shown that leaving people entirely to their own devices results in anything but some variation of a Lord of The Flies scenario.

That's just it! Capitalism embraces human nature, which is inherently selfish. How might you ask? Because it allows everyone's selfishness to be expressed equally and evenly within The Rule of Law, which generally has a very good outcome. Socialism on the other hand necessarily allows a small group of peoples selfishness to out-weigh that of an entire nations. It's not faith in capitalism or libertarianism, it's just an understanding of human nature and how best to turn a negative into a positive.

Unidian wrote:Anarchism (which is a more intellectually honest form of libertarianism) has always been a fundamentally misguided idea. Its folly is far greater than that of socialism, which will in fact work given sufficient human development. Socialism is simply ahead of its time. Anarchism is a disaster in any day and age, because it simply replaces coercion and oppression by governments with far worse and infinitely more ruthless coercion and repression by the naturally strong. Social Darwinism is not a legitimate social movement, it is simply an effort to overturn the entire edifice of human progress in order to enable the strong to rule by the law of the jungle.

Socialism is a step back wards. All through-out history we see many examples of Socialism where the people are taxed to the last penny and Big Government, whatever kind it may be, sets every policy and owns all the land there is, eventually leading to Absolute Tyranny. There are far fewer examples where the people own their own land and are allowed to spend their money as they see fit. Like I said before, only in the past 200 or so years have we really began to experiment with Liberty, property ownership, and limited taxation of the people, and look how far we've come in that time. Let's not forget a fundamental part of Libertarianism is the Rule of Law, something Anarchy is against. Without it, it matters not what system of Government you have.

Unidian,

Libertarianism's faith is in the inherent goodness of self-interested people in general and of business in particular. It is aptly called a faith, because the evidence has certainly indicated that big business is no more trustworthy than any government, and arguably far less so.

Private property laws are supported by libertarians and some regulations at the state level are also supported, so big business wouldn’t be totally unrestrained by a libertarian government. One major point is that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to make national regulations in every state because most of them don’t understand the economic consequences of their actions. Sometimes they apply rules that put companies out of business or severity damage the ability for an industry to compete or function properly. Frankly, politicians don’t understand things deeply enough to weld such economic power.

A limited libertarian government with some checks and balances would function much better than the current oversized liberal socialist government in the US. Also, Adam’s Smith’s idea of the invisible hand forces businesses to act more ethical as consumers become more aware, and there has been a recent boom in ethical business practices in the absence of government influence, so I believe that this trend will continue without the babysitting of the federal government. Although, the state government can still oversee things at the local level, and apply some regulations, but libertarians are not against this type of thing anyway.

it simply replaces coercion and oppression by governments with far worse and infinitely more ruthless coercion and repression by the naturally strong. Social Darwinism is not a legitimate social movement, it is simply an effort to overturn the entire edifice of human progress in order to enable the strong to rule by the law of the jungle.

I don’t think the west could ever degrade to such a dire state after the progress that has been made over the last century; I think you are a little paranoid, the consciousness of humanity has changed quite a bit in the west. Laws and regulations are only the byproduct of a significant shift in collective consciousness.

In my view, the liberal socialist movement is like training wheels for a libertarian ideal. And so when a child rides his bicycle, eventually you need to take off the training wheels, and give him a push, and let go without him knowing, allowing him to feel the freedom of no parental guidance and safety. One needs to allow the child to experience death in its purest form, and that is the only way that child will learn how to be moral.

The liberal socialism movement believes that government should baby, nurse, and look after people from crib to grave. Actually, it is quite feminine in its nature compared to the freedom of total libertarianism. And that is probably why so many people fear libertarian speakers because they aren’t as comforting as the soothing promises of the Hilary Clintons of the world.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:The liberal socialism movement believes that government should baby, nurse, and look after people from crib to grave. Actually, it is quite feminine in its nature compared to the freedom of total libertarianism. And that is probably why so many people fear libertarian speakers because they aren’t as comforting as the soothing promises of the Hilary Clintons of the world.

LOL. Argh...

I wish people could stop treating this as a dichotomy. What I would like to see is an economy that is unregulated apart from laws regarding workplace safety, truth in advertising, and the environment, plus welfare and health insurance for those who (for whatever reason) don't have enough money to afford necessities like food and medical care. Not some "crib to grave" bullshit that libertarians always try to pin on me.

Check out the video posted in this topic in Worldly Matters. It explains in depth the immense benefits within the causal chain of events provided by limited government, capitalism, the free market, and private property ownership.

I wish people could stop treating this as a dichotomy. What I would like to see is an economy that is unregulated apart from laws regarding workplace safety, truth in advertising, and the environment, plus welfare and health insurance for those who (for whatever reason) don't have enough money to afford necessities like food and medical care. Not some "crib to grave" bullshit that libertarians always try to pin on me.

Same here, actually. I'm actually quite a lassiez-faire guy, as long as there is a guaranteed minimum income and universal health care. Beyond that, if people want to get involved in a loosely-regulated business culture where there is intense competition to rip each other to shreds, more power to them. There need to be some basic laws to prevent such people from totally poisoning the environment, but beyond that, let them have at it. Their feverish efforts will generate the wealth necessary to maintain subsistence for the unemployed class. As long as I am not forced or coerced to participate in that sort of thing by economic pressures, I have no objection to others being involved in it.

My often-misunderstood position is actually quite simple. Free markets for those who want to be involved in them, plus basic economic security for those who don't. There's nothing complex about it, and I think of it as a position that is explicitly based on maximizing real, tangible freedom in society, despite the fact that American-style "libertarians" are among the first to poo-poo it.

I am not an actual socialist for a number of reasons - not the least of which is that most forms of socialism put entirely too much focus on mandatory work and are as bad (or in some cases worse) than capitalism in this regard.

Philosophaster,

I wish people could stop treating this as a dichotomy. What I would like to see is an economy that is unregulated apart from laws regarding workplace safety, truth in advertising, and the environment, plus welfare and health insurance for those who (for whatever reason) don't have enough money to afford necessities like food and medical care. Not some "crib to grave" bullshit that libertarians always try to pin on me.

I don’t mind a temporary welfare program that provides workers with relief from injury, loss of job, or other health related incidents. However, the welfare system is usually always abused by large numbers of citizens, and that is where I see the danger. There should be no permanent welfare system, people can leech off of family, friends, or live on the handouts of non-profit organizations without relying on a nationally funded permanent wellfare program.

Moreover, the problem with giving ‘free’ welfare is that it interferes with natural selection. In my opinion, the weakest among us SHOULD feel the burden of survival strongly, as this will provide a de-incentive not to reproduce thus increasing the overall health of the genepool. The problem with the philosophy of the welfare state is that it gives financial incentives for the unintelligent to reproduce much more frequently than they would in raw nature, thus their offspring survive easier, and actually end up having higher numbers of offspring than the intelligent educated minorities. And so the ones that know there is always a free safety net for them feel perfectly comfortable getting knocked up by criminal men, and living off the welfare money supplied by the working class.

As for the health care system, most diseases are self-inflicted by prolonged exposure to poor diet, drugs, and toxins in the environment, and so there needs to be more preventative education. And those that suffer due to their own ignorance should be encouraged to educate themselves using the latest technology to find their own solutions. Moreover, the ones that are lying in hospital beds dying of terminal diseases should be encouraged by doctors to family members to have them killed in the most humane way possible. There is no reason to keep these people alive, and actually it is more inhumane to pump them them full of Morphine, and have them drugged up on tax-funded dope for months until their body finally dies out.

The present western style health system could be reformed significantly.