Socialism and the purpose of government

[alang1216]

Europeans were freer under monarchy than they are now under democracy. They paid far lower taxes - 5% or less, and there was almost no regulation. They didn't even have conscription. The king was subject to law just like any commoner.

Seems to me that serfs, who were bound to the land and dad's vocation, were hardly less free than almost any Frenchman today.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A healthy society can make most any form of government work, in some fashion. Likewise, a society that is morally decimated will make a mess of pretty much any kind government.

This goes back to the fundamental question regarding human existence. Do you want liberty or not? When half the population want liberty and the other half not, those two groups have hostile goals. The conflict over fundamental goals is what causes Venezuela and Somalia.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong. Nothing can ever make socialism work. A healthy society is a free society, which means it doesn't impose socialism on its members.

I disagree. The complete absence of free will can make socialism work.

The problem is that socialists naively believe that socialism and free will can co-exist.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you'd agree that workers should receive pay equal to the productive value of their work, not the market value of their job skills?

Yes, but the only fair way to establish the productive value of one's work is by what another person is willing to pay for said work.

Without a minimum wage, McDonalds could choose to pay its workers $0.20 per hour. But, if Wendy's and Burger King are paying $10 per hour, McDonalds is shit out of luck. MickeyD's has to pay $10 per hour or have no employees.

We call this the free market.

.

 

[ph3iron]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

So what is Medicare and SS in your mind?
Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the trumpie said

 

[dblack]

Who decides what the true "productive value of their work" is?

The question should be 'how', not 'who'. It can be determined by simple equations. Any University has mathematicians that could figure it out for any company.

LOL --- Ok, who decides 'how'?

 

[ph3iron]

Wrong. Nothing can ever make socialism work. A healthy society is a free society, which means it doesn't impose socialism on its members.

I disagree. The complete absence of free will can make socialism work.

The problem is that socialists naively believe that socialism and free will can co-exist.

I just thought it was having a few brains, get an engineering degree and it doesn't matter who is in power?
Free will?? A big laugh. Look up Rockefeller and Israel

 

[dblack]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

So what is Medicare and SS in your mind?
Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the trumpie said

I think the purpose of government is to protect our rights, not to provide for our general needs. So, in my view these programs aren't valid uses of government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I just thought it was having a few brains, get an engineering degree and it doesn't matter who is in power?

You really believe that?



.

 

[ph3iron]

So you'd agree that workers should receive pay equal to the productive value of their work, not the market value of their job skills?

Yes, but the only fair way to establish the productive value of one's work is by what another person is willing to pay for said work.

Without a minimum wage, McDonalds could choose to pay its workers $0.20 per hour. But, if Wendy's and Burger King are paying $10 per hour, McDonalds is shit out of luck. MickeyD's has to pay $10 per hour or have no employees.

We call this the free market.

.

Glad you have an education.
Actually even with a PHD tried walking into a drug companies board room and demanding more?
I and the board have laughed at such rubes.
After a history of fixing drug prices we laugh at the free market.
I remember when my cable bill was $10 a month and promised it would stay there because of the free market.
The free market is a myth, money has and always will control

 

[bripat9643]

They already had government. All they brought it with them. The Indians lived there for thousands of years with no formal government. They had no means of enforcing laws other than social pressure.

once again your knowledge of history is lacking, to put it nicely.

All of the Indian tribes had a system of governing with leaders and rules.

They had leaders. There was no organized means of compulsion. You are redefining government to the point of meaninglessness.

Yes they did, you followed the rules of the leaders or you were killed or banished. Seems a pretty good means of compulsion.

That's wrong. The tribe might kill you for treason. Otherwise you were free to do what you liked.

Do you know ANYTHING about the AZTECs?

What about them? They were a fully developed Empire, not a tribe in the anthropological sense of the term.

 

[ph3iron]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

thats why the constitution is so important,,,

all we have to do is read it then apply it,,,

I wish it were that simple. Sadly, if there is not a strong public consensus backing it, the Constitution is - truly - just a piece of paper.

Written by slave owners and rapists.
Can't be all bad?

 

[bripat9643]

So you'd agree that workers should receive pay equal to the productive value of their work, not the market value of their job skills?

Yes, but the only fair way to establish the productive value of one's work is by what another person is willing to pay for said work.

Without a minimum wage, McDonalds could choose to pay its workers $0.20 per hour. But, if Wendy's and Burger King are paying $10 per hour, McDonalds is shit out of luck. MickeyD's has to pay $10 per hour or have no employees.

We call this the free market.

.

Glad you have an education.
Actually even with a PHD tried walking into a drug companies board room and demanding more?
I and the board have laughed at such rubes.
After a history of fixing drug prices we laugh at the free market.
I remember when my cable bill was $10 a month and promised it would stay there because of the free market.
The free market is a myth, money has and always will control

Cable television is a government protected monopoly, and drug companies also have lots of government protections. Neither has any relevance to the free market.

 

[bripat9643]

A question for all the anti-government folks in this thread.

Other than doing a lot of bitching and name calling on an internet forum...what are you doing about your complaints?

what actions have you taken to rectify the situation?

What the fuck are you doing in this forum if you aren't interested in changing anything in this country? About the only thing you do is defend the status quo.

It is good entertainment and I get to hear ideas and thoughts I would not otherwise see as most people do not talk about these things in public.

Why do you think bitching on an internet forum will change anything?

You vote for one of the established parties, but think coming on here and bitching will change things?

I'm spreading ideas that most Americans have never been exposed to. Before you can change things, you have to convince people that they should be changed.

On the other hand, you are just flapping your gums for no useful purpose.

I am truly laughing out loud. Your whole course of action is to keep voting for the establishment while coming here and bitching....and you think that is going to make a difference!




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What do you think I should do, blow up the Pentagon?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

After a history of fixing drug prices we laugh at the free market.

How do you "fix" drug prices?

Are people willing to pay ridiculous amounts of money for those drugs?

You fixed nothing. You set a price people are willing to pay. They set the value. Not you.

You are one arrogant motherfucker to believe you "fixed" anything.

.

 

[bripat9643]

You've been supporting all day today.

liar

America: love it or leave it.

That's you.

That is not what I said at all. Are lies all you have left? I will take that as a win

Yes, that is essentially what you said. You just don't like it when someone points out what a redneck thug you are.

The problem here is that you are just not a very smart person so you see everything as black and white...in your little mind one is either totally anti-government or they are for an all powerful government.

But that is simply not the case for most thinking people. Which leaves you out


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One thing I know is that you're a thug who supports the status quo and has no core principles.

I believe what I believe because I think it's right, not because the average boob on the street believes it. The latter seems to be your measuring stick.

I fully realize that not many people support my view of things, but every day more and more do.

 

[bripat9643]

High school kids follow directions out of social pressure. A highschool clique is not government.

Maybe we are working from different perspectives on what it means to be governed or to govern. You are focusing on a more formal structure or organization. I am focusing on the process.

A high school clique could be a form of government. High school organizations have governing bodies. Hell, the student body has its on government.

A family is a form of government. That's really all tribes are made of. Family units on top of family units, all related to each other.

Government is nothing more than the prescribed method certain humans have adopted to solve problems and resolve their disputes. Those accepted methods ALWAYS result in someone having authority.

That's why anarchy can never exist. It is impossible.

I'm talking about government in the sociological context. You're trying to define government as any kind of social organization. The question here is what makes government a unique kind of social organization, and what makes it so important for us to understand it. That unique quality is the monopoly on the use of force. Without that criteria, government is just another harmless social clique. The term is meaningless.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm talking about government in the sociological context. You're trying to define government as any kind of social organization. The question here is what makes government a unique kind of social organization, and what makes it so important for us to understand it. That unique quality is the monopoly on the use of force. Without that criteria, government is just another harmless social clique. The term is meaningless.

The point is that anarchy is impossible. Humans will naturally and immediately create governments.

 

[Hum Dinger]

It is NOT the job of government to Social Engineer and try to install Communist concepts such as Economic and Social "Justice". That means GOVERNMENT is picking winners and losers and they are using people's predicaments to grow, create dependency, and further control the populace. It is a POWER GRAB veiled in altruism.

You're correct, it should not be the government's job to install social or economic Justice. It should be the government's job to stop gross social and economic Injustice.

Of course that's what we mean by 'Justice' in all forms. It is not ever installing 'Justice', it's stopping injustice.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I remember when my cable bill was $10 a month and promised it would stay there because of the free market.

How did I miss this hilarious little gem?

Remember when cable didn't exist? How the hell did we get cable in the first place?

Remember when cable was really limited in content? How the hell did we finally get ESPN?

Remember when our government kept printing money and $10 wouldn't buy shit anymore?

Remember when a new car cost $300. Remember when inflation made a new car cost 10,000 times that much.

But, also, remember when a new car only went about 20mph? Remember when a new car had no air bags or other safety features and still cost less than the cars that cost $300 (because of that whole inflation thing)?

THAT GODDAMN FREE MARKET SCREWED US AGAIN!!!