Socialism and the purpose of government

[Norman]

I don't know what the purpose of socialism is, but the end result is always the same.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

By committing MORE social and economic INJUSTICE?

You fucking commies are all the same.

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

Is it an injustice when one person is born with rare talent, and can exploit that talent and become socially unjust (rich)?

.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Governments seldom "evolve" in the direction of freedom and liberty. They almost always go in the other direction, like Venezuela.

Most of Europe was governed by hereditary monarchies, but no longer. Most governments of South America are far less tyrannical today than they were 100 years ago.

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.

Voting is not the measure of freedom. It's the measure of mob rule.

Democracy: The God That Failed | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

What total and complete nonsense!

There may have been a few monarchies that subjected the King to the same laws as everyone else, but in the vast majority the King WAS THE LAW. The avarage person had no rights whatsoever and was considered to be the property of the King.

They paid whatever the King said they had to pay ion taxes. Usually the Kings took whatever they produced as taxation. The vast majority had no money at all.

Businesses would be taxed at whatever rate the King decided - people were not allowed to accumulate wealth since they could eventually become a threat to the King.

Democracy is far from perfect and is sometimes a dictatorship of the majority - but we have the court to prevent a such a dictatorship.

Democracy is a method of preventing war - a substitution for war- most of the time whichever side has more people will win any war. So we settle thru democracy.

 

[Pilot1]

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

Medicare and SS are something I PAY INTO my entire life where the government can steal from and that I would have done much better had I invested that money myself.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

By committing MORE social and economic INJUSTICE?

You fucking commies are all the same.

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

Is it an injustice when one person is born with rare talent, and can exploit that talent and become socially unjust (rich)?

.

Very few are born with 'rare' talents, and those that are a greatly rewarded in our society. John Lennon, Bill Gates...etc...

If your idea of being a 'rare talent' is being a great thief, then no, you can not exploit that talent.

The French rights-of-man documents says something like:

People should be free to do what they like up to the point that their freedom infringes on other people rights. That's where their freedom ends.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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

Medicare and SS are something I PAY INTO my entire life where the government can steal from and that I would have done much better had I invested that money myself.

So the U.S. government taking U.S. government dollars is 'Stealing'?

If you want U.S. government dollars, you play by their rules. Period.

Besides, you do not know for a fact that you would have done much better investing it yourself. You may have lost it all. Then you'd be screaming for the government to help you.-

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Democracy is far from perfect and is sometimes a dictatorship of the majority - but we have the court to prevent a such a dictatorship.

Democracy is a method of preventing war - a substitution for war- most of the time whichever side has more people will win any war. So we settle thru democracy.

Democracy is better than a dictatorship, but pure democracy is tyranny. That's why our founders saw fit to create a republic where the people are represented by democratic choice and those representatives are limited under a divided powers.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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,,,

The Constitution has been a dead letter since at least Woodrow Wilson...Time to quit pretending that it has any magical powers to keep politicians and bureaucrats in their lanes.

View attachment 258799

You and Spooner both misunderstand. The Constitution itself isn't supposed to stop anything. The power to keep politicians and bureaucrats in their lanes has always resided in the people. The Constitution is supposed to be our set of instructions on how to accomplish it. If we refuse to follow those instructions and exercise that power and make them behave, then we can't blame the Constitution; we have to blame ourselves.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

.

They fix drug prices by having a patent on them, and they have many devious ways of doing that. Simply creating a novel combination of existing drugs can allow a firm to get it patented. Then they get doctors to prescribe the new combination rather than the old versions of the drubs.

However, customers can still get the old versions of the drugs at much cheaper prices.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So the U.S. government taking U.S. government dollars is 'Stealing'?

So, you're telling me that the U.S. Government owns everything? Individuals own nothing?

FRNs are nothing but representations of value to allow more freedom of exchange of goods and services. FRNs are the same as gold was for thousands of years. The only difference is that there is a finite amount of gold.

If you want U.S. government dollars, you play by their rules. Period.

I don't disagree with that, but how does that justify government forcing me to use my rightful acquisition of those value markers in a certain way?

So, you're saying that I can make my own money or get paid in gold/silver and government is not going to take it at the point of a gun?

Besides, you do not know for a fact that you would have done much better investing it yourself. You may have lost it all.

That's his choice.

Then you'd be screaming for the government to help you.-

And that's when we would all say "TOUGH SHIT" and he would be required to keep working for his living or die.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

No, we want the government to be a referee to keep corporate America from fucking the working man and trashing our environment.

No one wants govenment run companies. This running in circles screaming " OMG OMG OMG Socialism" is an attempt to rile up the ignorant in the same manner it riled you up.

Wow. There was not one single true and accurate point in that whole post.

 

[bripat9643]

Democracy is far from perfect and is sometimes a dictatorship of the majority - but we have the court to prevent a such a dictatorship.

Democracy is a method of preventing war - a substitution for war- most of the time whichever side has more people will win any war. So we settle thru democracy.

Democracy is better than a dictatorship, but pure democracy is tyranny. That's why our founders saw fit to create a republic where the people are represented by democratic choice and those representatives are limited under a divided powers.

.

The evidence shows that monarchies tend to be better than democracy.

 

[Edgetho]

You're all missing the elephant in the room.

The question should be: "Should government be more powerful than The People?"

But I've learned to not expect much in here

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I said monarchy, not Feudalism. Modern Frenchmen, on the other hand are about as free as a serf.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

The Constitution has been a dead letter since at least Woodrow Wilson...Time to quit pretending that it has any magical powers to keep politicians and bureaucrats in their lanes.

View attachment 258799

You and Spooner both misunderstand. The Constitution itself isn't supposed to stop anything. The power to keep politicians and bureaucrats in their lanes has always resided in the people. The Constitution is supposed to be our set of instructions on how to accomplish it. If we refuse to follow those instructions and exercise that power and make them behave, then we can't blame the Constitution; we have to blame ourselves.

dont include me in that because after 30 yrs of voting I have not once voted for a dem or republican for this reason among others,,,

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Not even that would make socialism work.

 

[Edgetho]

Democracy is far from perfect and is sometimes a dictatorship of the majority - but we have the court to prevent a such a dictatorship.

Democracy is a method of preventing war - a substitution for war- most of the time whichever side has more people will win any war. So we settle thru democracy.

Democracy is better than a dictatorship, but pure democracy is tyranny. That's why our founders saw fit to create a republic where the people are represented by democratic choice and those representatives are limited under a divided powers.

.

The evidence shows that monarchies tend to be better than democracy.

Where is there a practicing monarchy in this World?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

It is so satisfying when leftwingers reveal their fundamental hatred of America.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They fix drug prices by having a patent on them, and they have many devious ways of doing that. Simply creating a novel combination of existing drugs can allow a firm to get it patented. Then they get doctors to prescribe the new combination rather than the old versions of the drubs.

However, customers can still get the old versions of the drugs at much cheaper prices.

Yes, a government-created monopoly (patent) does not force people to pay outrageous prices for drugs. It simply protects the intellectual property rights of those who have been innovative and productive against those who would steal those ideas, research, and development. It has multiple layers of benefits to individuals and society as a whole. It incentives and rewards productivity and advancement.

Would you sink millions into researching a product if there is a substantial risk that you will be undercut by someone who steals your work and gets YOUR invention to market before you? We would still be riding around in wagons without patent protections.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I disagree. Furthermore, it's at least worth trying. Government should be whittled down until we can drown it in a bathtub.