Do You View Socialism Positively?

[Mac1958]

See?

.

 

[Claudette]

Americans are well-trained when it comes to obeying their corporate masters, and it is unlikely that they would embrace such a "horrible" thing as socialism--even if they do not even have a full understanding of what it is. Most Americans don't actually know how to define Capitalism--they confuse it with "free market" processes and "competition." Capitalism infers neither of those.

Sorry to say it, but most Americans are somewhat retarded in varying degrees.

Sorry to say it but I think your an idiot. Corporate masters my ass.

Socialism is working Americans being forced to bankroll those that don't work, don't contribute and are basically having their lives payed for with other peoples hard earned money.

Socialism is a freeloaders paradise.

 

[Mac1958]

Socialism is a freeloaders paradise.

Pure socialism is worse than that.

It removes virtually all incentives, which significantly lowers the standard of living across the board.

They don't or won't see this. Perhaps they don't care.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

I looked at it, he's completely unrealistic and contradicts himself. For example:

"
The Idea of a Private Law Society

In light of the multiple errors of classical liberalism, then, how is law and order vis-à-vis actual and potential lawbreakers maintained? The solution lies in a private law society — a society where every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws! No public law granting privileges to specific persons of functions (and no public property) exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by any other means than through original appropriation, production, or voluntary exchange; and no one possesses the privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one in a private law society is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production and compete against whomever he pleases."

So how does that work? You can only have private property but you cannot prohibit anyone else from using it? He doesn't even understand the concept of private property. Plus there is no way to enforce anything. A disagreement will come down to which side has a superior force. You want to live in a Mad Max movie? Not me.

 

[Mathbud1]

The Idea of a Private Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

I looked at it, he's completely unrealistic and contradicts himself. For example:

"
The Idea of a Private Law Society

In light of the multiple errors of classical liberalism, then, how is law and order vis-à-vis actual and potential lawbreakers maintained? The solution lies in a private law society — a society where every individual and institution is subject to one and the same set of laws! No public law granting privileges to specific persons of functions (and no public property) exists in this society. There is only private law (and private property), equally applicable to each and everyone. No one is permitted to acquire property by any other means than through original appropriation, production, or voluntary exchange; and no one possesses the privilege to tax and expropriate. Moreover, no one in a private law society is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production and compete against whomever he pleases."

So how does that work? You can only have private property but you cannot prohibit anyone else from using it? He doesn't even understand the concept of private property. Plus there is no way to enforce anything. A disagreement will come down to which side has a superior force. You want to live in a Mad Max movie? Not me.

I believe he meant that person A cannot prevent person B from using person B's own property to enter any line of production he wants to and compete against any person(s) he so chooses.

 

[Iceweasel]

I believe he meant that person A cannot prevent person B from using person B's own property to enter any line of production he wants to and compete against any person(s) he so chooses.

That would make more sense but he should have said using their property. But still, where's the enforcement? Suppose person A has a successful business going then person B comes along and sets up shop next door that greatly impacts person A's livelihood. Let's say they make metal products that involve screaming loud machines and the customers in person A's restaurant say fuck that, I can't eat with all this racket.

Did the author ever own a business? It sounds more like a thought exercise than reality and not considered too carefully.

 

[regent]

Socialism is what is called a "loaded word" it comes with a built in emotion for many. Some other loaded words examples are, democracy, capitalist, pig sty, free loader.
When Marx said communism must be preceded by Scientific Socialism, it was the beginning of the load. Loaded words are used to get an immediate emotion. Had the question been, should government pay for the health care of wounded vets the responses might have been different, wonder if that is socialism?

 

[boedicca]

Social Security is gov't mandated retirement insurance, paid for by the recipients. It is not a transfer of gov't confiscated wealth from one individual to another.

I have to disagree with you on this. Insurance companies are required to have capital and reserves to pay future claims. SS is just a claim on future generations via taxation. Our SS taxes are not invested for us; they are spent by the government.

The two are morally quite different.

 

[Mac1958]

Socialism is what is called a "loaded word" it comes with a built in emotion for many. Some other loaded words examples are, democracy, capitalist, pig sty, free loader.
When Marx said communism must be preceded by Scientific Socialism, it was the beginning of the load. Loaded words are used to get an immediate emotion. Had the question been, should government pay for the health care of wounded vets the responses might have been different, wonder if that is socialism?

A big mistake that conservatives have made is by badly over-using the terms "socialist" and "socialism", diluting them to the point of near irrelevance. Much like the way the liberals over-used the terms "racist" and "racism". Unfortunately, all these terms are important and do describe things, but the wingers on each end don't care.

By over-using the terms, conservatives have become the boy who cried wolf, and are providing liberals cover to push the country in the direction they really want, which is clearly a Euro-social democracy. In other words, many conservatives are literally, indirectly helping the liberals get precisely what they want.

This is why calm, reasonable, mature, honest conversation is so important, and why we remain in decay because of the lack of it.

.

 

[Iceweasel]

A big mistake that conservatives have made is by badly over-using the terms "socialist" and "socialism", diluting them to the point of near irrelevance. Much like the way the liberals over-used the terms "racist" and "racism". Unfortunately, all these terms are important and do describe things, but the wingers on each end don't care.

By over-using the terms, conservatives have become the boy who cried wolf, and are providing liberals cover to push the country in the direction they really want, which is clearly a Euro-social democracy. In other words, many conservatives are literally, indirectly helping the liberals get precisely what they want.

This is why calm, reasonable, mature, honest conversation is so important, and why we remain in decay because of the lack of it.

Blaming conservatives is calm and honest? The word socialism doesn't have the stigma it once did. Schools have been successful in presenting it in a positive light so it's hard to believe using the word is the cause of increasing socialism in our society.

I put a lot of the blame on media and pop culture where anything remotely conservative is lampooned and scoffed at. It's tough to overcome that kind on ongoing agenda driven press. I don't think using the term socialism is particularly useful though. I do think conservatives need to draw pictures, in crayon if necessary, for the average American to see how economies have dipped when liberals control the purse strings and rule books.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

You have to admire rants by clueless individuals who argue against their misunderstandings and just roll with it...

Embarrassing eh weasel ?

Unbeleivable.... Lol

 

[Mac1958]

A big mistake that conservatives have made is by badly over-using the terms "socialist" and "socialism", diluting them to the point of near irrelevance. Much like the way the liberals over-used the terms "racist" and "racism". Unfortunately, all these terms are important and do describe things, but the wingers on each end don't care.

By over-using the terms, conservatives have become the boy who cried wolf, and are providing liberals cover to push the country in the direction they really want, which is clearly a Euro-social democracy. In other words, many conservatives are literally, indirectly helping the liberals get precisely what they want.

This is why calm, reasonable, mature, honest conversation is so important, and why we remain in decay because of the lack of it.

The word socialism doesn't have the stigma it once did. Schools have been successful in presenting it in a positive light so it's hard to believe using the word is the cause of increasing socialism in our society.

I put a lot of the blame on media and pop culture where anything remotely conservative is lampooned and scoffed at.

Correct and correct.

The American Left has patiently but consistently changed American culture through education, media and popular culture over the last few decades, and the American Right has been an abject, feeble failure at stopping them. Pointing at the Left's actions and screaming "Socialism! Communism! Marxism!" clearly doesn't work and is making the Right look like reactionary clowns as the Left continues to turn the country into a Euro-social democracy.

My guess is that it's clearly too late, but if the Right wants to reverse this trend, it needs to improve its messaging skills by a factor roughly two thousand.

.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe he meant that person A cannot prevent person B from using person B's own property to enter any line of production he wants to and compete against any person(s) he so chooses.

That would make more sense but he should have said using their property. But still, where's the enforcement? Suppose person A has a successful business going then person B comes along and sets up shop next door that greatly impacts person A's livelihood. Let's say they make metal products that involve screaming loud machines and the customers in person A's restaurant say fuck that, I can't eat with all this racket.

Did the author ever own a business? It sounds more like a thought exercise than reality and not considered too carefully.

State or Private-Law Society - Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Mises Daily

"If one wanted to summarize in one word the decisive difference and advantage of a competitive security industry as compared to the current statist practice, it would be this: contract. The state, as ultimate decision maker and judge, operates in a contractless legal vacuum. There exists no contract between the state and its citizens. It is not contractually fixed, what is actually owned by whom, and what, accordingly, is to be protected. It is not fixed, what service the state is to provide, what is to happen if the state fails in its duty, nor what the price is that the "customer" of such "service" must pay.

Rather, the state unilaterally fixes the rules of the game and can change them, per legislation, during the game. Obviously, such behavior is inconceivable for freely financed security providers. Just imagine a security provider, whether police, insurer, or arbitrator, whose offer consisted in something like this:

I will not contractually guarantee you anything. I will not tell you what specific things I will regard as your to-be-protected property, nor will I tell you what I oblige myself to do if, according to your opinion, I do not fulfill my service to you — but in any case, I reserve the right to unilaterally determine the price that you must pay me for such undefined service.

Any such security provider would immediately disappear from the market due to a complete lack of customers. Each private, freely financed security producer instead must offer its prospective clients a contract. And these contracts must, in order to appear acceptable to voluntarily paying consumers, contain clear property descriptions as well as clearly defined mutual services and obligations. Moreover, each party to a contract, for the duration or until the fulfillment of the contract, would be bound by its terms and conditions; and every change of terms or conditions would require the unanimous consent of all parties concerned.

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party.

And as for this third party, it too is freely financed and stands in competition with other arbitrators or arbitration agencies. Its clients, i.e., the insurers and the insured, expect of it that it come up with a verdict that is recognized as fair and just by all sides. Only arbitrators capable of forming such judgments will succeed in the arbitration market. Arbitrators incapable of this and viewed as biased or partial will disappear from the market."​

 

[Iceweasel]

You have to admire rants by clueless individuals who argue against their misunderstandings and just roll with it...

Embarrassing eh weasel ?

Unbeleivable.... Lol

What are you babbling about now Einstein? Do you have any thoughts on the subject or are you just jerking off as usual?

When are we going to see some logic and/or reason?

 

[Iceweasel]

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party.​

That's got red flags all over it. It assumes the market will weed out "untrusted" arbitrators but the winner in a dispute isn't going to call them untrusted so it's all a matter of perspective and speculation. That's why we need laws and a legislator to write them and a means to enforce them.​

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Moreover, no one in a private law society is permitted to prohibit anyone else from using his property in order to enter any line of production and compete against whomever he pleases."

Difficult to grasp.... Lol

 

[Mac1958]

.

Quite a few posts in either clear or implied defense of socialism on this thread already.

Come on, folks, just come right out and say it.

What, do you think your head is going to explode if you do?

.

Bump!

 

[KissMy]

“Alibaba put customers first, employees second and shareholders third”

 

[Mathbud1]

I believe he meant that person A cannot prevent person B from using person B's own property to enter any line of production he wants to and compete against any person(s) he so chooses.

That would make more sense but he should have said using their property. But still, where's the enforcement? Suppose person A has a successful business going then person B comes along and sets up shop next door that greatly impacts person A's livelihood. Let's say they make metal products that involve screaming loud machines and the customers in person A's restaurant say fuck that, I can't eat with all this racket.

Did the author ever own a business? It sounds more like a thought exercise than reality and not considered too carefully.

I agree that it seems all very theoretical. I haven't finished reading it yet, but I had some of the same concerns you mention.

 

[bripat9643]

Specifically, in order to appear acceptable to security buyers, these contracts must contain provisions about what will be done in the case of a conflict or dispute between the protector or insurer and his own protected or insured clients as well as in the case of a conflict between different protectors or insurers and their respective clients. And in this regard only one mutually agreeable solution exists: in these cases the conflicting parties contractually agree to arbitration by a mutually trusted but independent third party.​

That's got red flags all over it. It assumes the market will weed out "untrusted" arbitrators but the winner in a dispute isn't going to call them untrusted so it's all a matter of perspective and speculation. That's why we need laws and a legislator to write them and a means to enforce them.​

The winner in a dispute won't, but the losers sure will. Furthermore, anyone who learns about the behavior of such an arbiter will decline to use them. Phhhhhttt, there goes their arbitration business.

What do you do when the government arbiter (the courts) hand down an unjust decision? In all decisions involving the government, the chance that the citizen will get an even break are indistinguishable from zero. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the government virtually every time a case challenging federal power has come before it.

Your government solution isn't working.