Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll need to know what definition of Socialism you're referring to before I can determine if I have any objections and what they might be.
Our basic instinct in self-preservation and self betterment and we expect to be the sole masters of that which we have earned. We are charitable, but we, as individuals make the the decision as to who we give to, how much, and when, not a "committee". We, as a species value the worth of the individual far more than we do the collective. We are not bees in hive. We value the individual records in sports far more than the team records.
Liberalism always believes the false notion that humankind has evolved far more than we actually have. When in times of shortage we will be more than happy to see our fellow man starve and die in order to feed ourselves and our immediate families. We see that behavior in famine prone regions all the time.
There are other major problems with equal outcome based systems. They destroy initiative, incentive, and effort. If I get nothing more for achieving more, I will chose not to bother.
And who decides what the resource distribution is? The "intellectual elite"? "Councils of workers" are a joke because most workers lack the education, intelligence, or training to even remotely understand economic issues on a macro scale.
Socialism doesn't scale at all. It only marginally works in small, ethnically homogenous societies that are already wealthy to begin with as in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and break down in larger more diverse societies with wide ranging social differences and economic ranges (Soviet Union, and now Germany and France).
The REALITY of the human condition and the core of our nature is that at the end of the day, you are entitled to ONLY what you can TAKE and what you can KEEP. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.
It relies upon proactive aggression to take from the productive, in order to feather the nests of the unproductive.Objections to Socialism
It relies upon proactive aggression to take from the productive, in order to feather the nests of the unproductive.
What other objection matters??
You first sentence makes sense if it was 10,000BC. We have gone beyond that. Personally, I put team and individual efforts on an equal platform depending on the sport.
Where collectivism loses the way is when liberal zealots start being silly. Bit like conservative zealots who would, given liberty, take, take, take....
I like a mixture of capitalism and liberalism.
Wanna see capitalism unchecked? look at the US economy now. Great advertisement for the folly of pure capitalism and greed..
It's an economic system that runs counter to basic human nature.
It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.
On what basis do you make this claim? Could you elaborate?
Social Darwinism. Totally disowned and held as contemptable by Darwin himself.
So, you're so short on actual analysis of a brief, yet cocise, objection that you feel you need to come at me personally??So you're not embarrassed to use that trite bumper sticker slogan to highlight your light weight intellectual prowess?
good for you.
Moi
It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.
I can't envision how this would be executed in practice. For example, are you suggesting that the amount of food my family would recieve is decided by popular vote at a community assembly? And what about healthcare? Do I have to lobby for and await a favorable vote before I can get treatment for my daughter's case of kroop? I would certainly object to that.
Which would still rely upon the proactive use of force to give any of its collectivistic proclamations any credibility.It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.
It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.Who gets to decide how the means are allocated and how the products are distributed?The collective ownership of the means of production.I'll need to know what definition of Socialism you're referring to before I can determine if I have any objections and what they might be.I'd like to conduct a little experiment here.
State a few.
So, you're so short on actual analysis of a brief, yet cocise, objection that you feel you need to come at me personally??
Even though such a retort is pedantic, it does have the virtue of being witless.
It depends on the variety of socialism, but in a libertarian setting, it would be through direct democratic governance in community assemblies and workers' councils.
On what basis do you make this claim? Could you elaborate?
I'm underwhelmed, but an A for effort is in order.
Give the Dude an A for effort.
I can't envision how this would be executed in practice. For example, are you suggesting that the amount of food my family would recieve[sic] is decided by popular vote at a community assembly? And what about healthcare[sic]? Do I have to lobby for and await a favorable vote before I can get treatment for my daughter's case of kroop[sic]? I would certainly object to that.
Which would still rely upon the proactive use of force to give any of its collectivistic proclamations any credibility.
FWIW, there's little to nothing inherently libertarian in the mob rule of democracy.
you have gotten into the minutiae in the hypothetical about a yet to be agreed upon system. Why not start out with the macro first? A broad agreement of what ag, imagines a socialist system to be or ...
Why are you objecting to something you yourself are proposing? I am puzzled here.
