1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - F

 
 
 

Drugs in society. Force as integral aspect of socialism. Social Security and Medicare, socialism or capitalism? Do freedom and liberty exist in the collective mindset? Are they necessary? Should altruism be forced or completely voluntary?        

 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - F

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi these are very broad topics and it’s easy to get lost in the weeds discussing things as overall concepts. In the spirit of good faith allow me to present a specific example upon which these broader concepts can be tested.

Alcohol is incredibly damaging when misused. It is destructive on so many levels, arguably far worse than most other drugs. I do think it is just and proper to require of those who misuse alcohol which puts others at risk or to demand of those who have impacted the lives of others negatively by their actions, am thinking of drunk driving for example.

Now I do believe that cocaine may not be something that advances a person’s well-being in the long run. Yet, I do not believe my personal belief system warrants me to use the force of government to prevent others from using cocaine simply because they may, may harm others. I would advocate for my freedom to convince them to not become addicts but my morality and principles led me to believe so long as they are only potentially harming themselves I cannot nor should not by the use of force prevent them from partaking in the use of cocaine.

I adamantly believe cocaine should be legal to those who can consent to the use, children are a special case as they can’t consent.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I agree in the aspect that alcohol may in fact be worse for the individual than cocaine, but we may be comparing a large Macintosh apple with a small one. The issue of the use of force is something else. Either can affect your ability to drive, as per your example. Any drug as well as any form of alcohol. I would have to ask for clarification as to the dangers of alcohol and cocaine. It would seem that you are a user of cocaine but not an imbiber of alcohol with your comments. I have experience with both, and if you think there is an intrinsic difference between them, and a myriad of other alternatives, I find your position to be an extremely weak one. So, if the driver of a fatal accident is on cocaine, we what, give them a warning or a misdemeanor? Your perspective is highly suspect.

It seems that you allow different uses of force to that effect. If force is to be used at all, it is for the legislatures to determine the threat and act accordingly. In the interim, they should be treated equally. In my own personal opinion, I believe that we have to hold people accountable, as far as punishment is concerned, based on actual events and not possible outcomes. People’s lives have been impacted and destroyed due to this ‘use of force’ for non-existing events. Careers have been destroyed, and families have been torn apart, not just from accidents, but from convictions for the simple use, and possible but unrealized actions, due to a thought process such as your own.

Be that as it may be, millions of people, on a daily basis, do things that ‘might’ impact another in some negative fashion, and are never held accountable in any way. I think that the use of force needs be consistent across the board. Under your scenario, every person that owns a gun, a knife, a hammer, or a car, with or without any intoxicants should possibly be arrested, fined, and possibly jailed. How many people die in car accidents every year? They estimate 40,000. How many are because of illegal activity, or incompetence, or an inability to react to a panic situation, or even simply neglected to maintain their vehicle? Is this not an accident that could have been avoided if our ‘privilege’ to drive was more stringent?

How many of those that kill or maim others are held to the same standard as those that are drunk? Is alcoholism not a disease in this society? Do we not treat them under insurance, and do not those that attempt to help them tell us that they are not ‘responsible’ for their actions? Which is it? This is a singling out of specific individuals, for political and ideological reasons, for the use of force against them. It may be warranted, that is not for me to say, but it is certainly not consistent, not equitable, and not reasonable.

*************************************************************************

Do we agree that in order to be consistent in the application of principles that cocaine, weed, mushrooms, etc. demands that we treat these substances similarly to how we treat alcohol?

Same with prostitution. It’s absurd to me that sex for money is illegal but sex for money provided there is a film crew present that sells that product, pornography, is legal. So long as there is no coercion, so long as the individuals involved in trading sex for money both freely consented to the interaction it’s none of my business.

Someone may hold moral objections to the act, perhaps they see it as a corrupting interaction, but so long as it doesn’t interfere with their own ability to engage and exercise their own liberty they should refrain from using the force of law, the state, to impose on those engaged in the voluntary interaction and exchange of sex for money. Do you object to this view?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Good points on the sexual aspects and I would agree. We need consistency here as well. An adult should be treated as an adult, in all cases, and be judged for their actions in relation to that ‘consent’ you mention. That should be the determining aspect of any action deemed inappropriate. Consent and intent. An adult should be able to do the most irrational acts, no matter my own personal perspectives or beliefs, as long as no coercion of any kind, or harm of any sort, is contained in the actions or the ramifications of said actions.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi well you’re not offering a counter point that to first do good with other people's money or resources you first must take it away. Socialism does not lay on consent but force. I keep repeating it because it’s true and you don’t argue otherwise.

Socialized medicine. The goal is great, the application is immoral. In order to provide it you must use force.

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 Not at all. I am also quite supportive of legalizing drugs like cocaine or LSD. That this example is your rebuttal to me shows me again, that we do not talk about the same socialism. What socialist theories call for the criminalization of drugs?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   As always, you are avoiding the larger picture. I believe bcshu is speaking of nothing but the use of force, and his examples happen to be drugs or sexuality. There is no intent to link socialism to the issue. That is a major difference between his illustrations and your own. You take everything personally, and his perspective is more of an objective one. It is disingenuous to continually keep picking and choosing those things that appear to lend some credibility to your somewhat incomprehensible philosophy.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi and no I do not think you truly grasp the concept of capitalism as you argue it is based upon coercion, it is not.
Can we find examples of coercion within societies that include elements of capitalism, yep. This does not mean it’s capitalism that is responsible for said coercion.

I absolutely can describe instances of coercion. The military is a prime example. Unfortunately, it is necessary for a state to provide for the general defense of all its inhabitants. There are no other productivity manners in which to provide for said defense but at the federal level. Thus, the state reaches into the pockets of everyone and takes their money by the use of force to provide for the well-being and protection of all its citizens.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Just for the record, most if not all opposing philosophies to socialism acknowledge the need for security, and by extension the police and the military. Capitalists understand their freedom to engage in trade is dependent on the confidence of all involved that the act will be voluntary and without interference, so they accept the reality of that force. The Objectivists are quite vocal about the necessity of police and military as well and point to them as one of the ‘only’ legitimate reasons for government itself.

*************************************************************************

This is socialism in many ways. It’s unfortunate but necessary. And it is a reasonable function for people to demand an appropriate and reasonable approach in how that defense is secured. Is it really necessary to have 19 carrier battle groups for example? Maybe, maybe not.

There are very real intrusions by force into the lives of individuals and these should be as minimal and as few as possible.
So I don’t accept the federal government reaching into my pockets or anyone else to protect me or others from the dangers of cocaine or prostitution for example. I don’t think it’s moral, I don’t think it’s productive and I don’t think it is effective.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I question whether these things really approach socialism, as you present it. Since the issue of defense is integral to the security of either capitalism or Objectivism, and the participants have already agreed to the validity and necessity of said defensive measures, that is not a matter of the socialistic ‘for the greater good’ but simply a reluctant but voluntary ‘agreement’ by the players for the unfortunate need of that security, hence it is not anything socialistic, but demonstrably a capitalistic component of the system itself.

Unfortunately, if one’s political opposition in the world has 19 battle groups, it may indeed be necessary to address that. I don’t like it, I don’t personally agree with it, but I am intelligent enough to know that a bully will probably pay attention and be wary of those adversaries that are as strong or stronger, and yet prey on those that are obviously not.

The cocaine and prostitution comments are reasonable, but without full legalization, the seedy underbelly of the gangs and ‘families’ that control these things are a real danger. If legal, I cannot be sure, but the opportunity for those individuals to make a profit from it will be reduced, and logically, the threat will be reduced as well.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

I object to the drug war because you don’t make a sin a virtue simply because your cause is just. Using force to take my money to prevent my neighbour from enjoying in the privacy of his own home a joint is immoral. It is moral to use my money to provide for the police force and courts of law to hold that person accountable for their actions if they go crazy while high on LSD and harm others.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   That is succinct and valid and reasonable, but again, I see no intrinsic difference between any drug or alcohol. One is not ‘better’ than the other if someone dies or is harmed by its use and the results thereof. ‘When’ someone does something inappropriate, only then should the government become involved. I realize that allows many events to happen that may have been able to be prevented, but it is not fair to hold someone accountable when they have not done anything specifically wrong. Except under extreme circumstances, we cannot hold people culpable for intent, but only for premeditated action.

As an aside, it also has to be understood that socialism has a component of that 'greater good', and if we believe that all of these drugs, and even sexual addictions can be 'harmful' to the individual, and cause the need for therapy and medical treatments, does that give the 'state' the ability to use force to minimize that 'disease', whatever it may be, since the 'greater good' supplies that universal healthcare that the socialist is obsessed with, therefore inflicting increased costs on the system that could be controlled by use of that same coercion? Something to think about.

If we deny people the right to drive a car, it is inarguable that we will save lives. The same with prohibition, and we know how the first attempt at that fared. So too if we remove meat and eggs and sugar from the diet of every citizen. It will irrefutable result in the saving of lives, but it will be a use of force that I cannot accept.

For all the gun nuts out there, the removal of guns will also result in saving lives but will be responsible for the forfeit of lives as well, with the removal of a means of self-defense, not to mention defense of country. But that is what freedom and choice are all about. The individual makes decisions, based on experience and philosophy. Any system that does not acknowledge that, and allows the freedom to do that, is completely unacceptable and illegitimate from my perspective, as well as immoral.

We have created, I think, much too much legislation that infringes on rights in the ‘expectation’ that efforts made will ‘possibly’ do something to prevent future events. Not the proper use of force, or we then give a varied segment of the government the illegitimate opportunity the use of unwarranted force to prevent something that is not imminent.

*************************************************************************

It is an unfortunate intrusion into my private life which needs to be very limited in scope in order to protect my liberties and freedoms, which is the proper role of the state, from others.

Socialism on the other hand is not that. It justifies the use of force into the lives of others not to protect my liberties and freedoms but to do good by others without my consent and therein lies the difference.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi yes I understand that you think socialism is not using force but capitalism is. I wholeheartedly disagree and think you’ve wildly gotten that wrong. Socialism is force, capitalism is voluntary cooperation.

Take socialized medicine. In order to do good by it the state must, it MUST use force to later do good. It reaches into everyone’s pocket in order to do good. The intention may be noble but in order to do that good, it requires the use of force.

Social security, a socialized means of helping others out, requires force. Again, the goal is noble, the application to do good requires the use of force. This goes against my principles in which force is never justified but in self-defense and protection of life and liberties.

I will absolutely help my family, my friends, my neighbours, and community consensually and voluntarily of the circumstances warrant it is based upon my personal and private moral considerations. So my brother has fallen ill and is unable to work. I may even knock on your door to plead upon your own personal moral underpinnings and request of you to consensual aid my brother in his time of need. I would never be justified in using force to obtain your assistance. That to me is the act of immorality even if the intention is noble. Therefore, I cannot ignore the noble cause for helping others is first corrupted by the immoral act of using force to do good for others.

What I think you see in socialism is a value system aligned with yours as I pointed out in the stellar work of the moral psychologist Johnathan Haidt, specifically the noble and just value of fairness and equality. Where we differ is that in that pursuit of those values, through socialism, in order to achieve those values you have to justify the original sin of socialism of abandoning the necessity of consent and cooperation and relying on force to thrust upon others your version of fairness and equality.

I aim to apply the principle equality across the board. I object to force unless in self-defense. I cannot justify the state using force to take from me to help others. It’s not consensual, it’s coercion and simply because the cause is noble does not make the use of force justified. I have offered the acknowledgment that unfortunately, we cannot escape certain circumstances where we have to hold our nose and accept some invasion of force. I strongly believe we should limit these circumstances to those areas where the effort is in the protection of our lives and liberties, such as providing courts of law to settle disputes, police to protect us from coercion and force of individuals upon others (drinking and driving, robbery, theft) and defense of the nation from foreign aggressors.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I have a minor, or possibly not so minor, issue with your comment. It is inarguable that robbery and theft are a cause for the use of force. This drinking and driving is more emotional than anything else. It is the use of force in advance of any action taken that is definably illegal. I know, if the laws are passed, it is illegal, but the fundamentals of such legislation are on very shaky ground. As horrible as impacting others while driving drunk is a harsh reality, there is a very real aspect to this, and that is that millions drive while intoxicated, to widely varying levels, and only a small percentage of those actually have accidents and cause harm.

I have never ascribed to the ‘if it saves but a single child’ mantra, since it opens the door to irreparable harm to those that have done nothing wrong except having a drink, even if in excess. I know people that cannot drive after a single beer, but they are still legally allowed to drive. While it is indeed not going to help them if they are stumbling around after an accident, the fact remains that every individual has a different tolerance to drugs and alcohol, and is often capable of driving.

Again, this may not hold up in the case of an actual accident, and I do not have hard statistics but almost two million people are arrested for driving under the influence every year, and yet only 10,000 fatalities are reported. I realize there are more harmed than killed, and I do not condone drunk driving, I am attempting to make a point. That comes out to less than one-half of a single percent of those charged, and millions of other people that will be impacted to a huge extent over the remainder of their lives. Those that harm others deserve to be held accountable, but those others are again, singled out well out of proportion to other infractions that cause harm.

*************************************************************************

An example. We all need food to survive. Without we die. It is essential to life. Is it the state’s role to be the producer of all food items, to provide for the transportation and delivery of said items, to provide for the stores that distribute said necessary items, and to provide each individual with the means in order to pay for said items? I argue no.

We do not require the state to use massive amounts of force, to restrict liberty and freedom in order for me, you or others to secure this essential item necessary for survival. Instead, we erect a system based upon voluntary cooperation absent of force to provide for this, and it works wonderfully so. But on the reverse, we believe it’s necessary for the state to provide everyone with healthcare. It is equally as important as food, which is merely a product and service but I think the only manner in which to ensure everyone has access so that the quality is present and the prices are reasonable, can only be achieved by using massive amounts of force upon all of us. It is not.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   It is easy to argue that everyone that receives healthcare will not die if they don’t have it, while the argument that everyone needs food or they ‘will’ die is irrefutable. While there is an equivalency here, it is not anything near an absolute.

The question needs to be asked, in this context, if the state has the ability and legitimacy to the use of force for healthcare, does it not also have the legitimacy to use that same force to make sure that they do not engage in self-harm by using drugs, alcohol, eat meat and eggs and cheese which are all purported to be instrumental in a whole host of medical conditions that then demand that very same healthcare?

Is it not in the interest of the ‘greater good’ that these individuals be coerced to live a healthier life so as to not over-burden that same greater good? This is a dangerous and slippery slope and one that is never mentioned in relation to the conversation. The issue is coercion and undue use of force, and the flip side is if the individual has any rights at all in a socialist environment where they are not allowed to decide, for themselves, exactly what is necessary to achieve some semblance of peace and harmony within self.

*************************************************************************

LASIK eye surgery is a vital procedure on a vital organ. It is not provided by socialist policies but remains in the free market. Early on, as it was new technology, it was very expensive and thus access was not equal. However, because of the forces of competition, because it remained in the open marketplace where the only way to secure the procedure was based upon voluntary cooperation and not force, prices dramatically dropped, quality skyrocketed and access exploded. Businesses that engaged in this practice flourished and tried to out-compete each other based upon superior customer service. This is how capitalism improves quality, lowers costs, and generates greater access.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The ability to see, while highly desirable, is not necessary to the reality of life, and many have lived full and rich lives without sight. It should not have been another inalienable right, although I am sure many would disagree. The illustration of how capitalism works is evident in your commentary and is an excellent example.

*************************************************************************

We see this effect with regards to smartphones. Once limited in access and high in cost, through the forces of capitalism and open markets, costs plummeted, access increased and quality exploded. Today nearly everyone can acquire a device that grants them more computing power and access to information that President Bill Clinton in his position of immense access to information could not compare.

Medical tourism is another example of capitalism, the application of voluntary cooperation and exchange in action. Today, many highly qualified and skilled doctors, dentists, and nurses are relocating to jurisdictions that allow for freer practices such as Mexico. And people are flocking to these destinations as they exercise their free choice to decide, for themselves, which set of values are important to them.

Billions of dollars are being spent by those that see value in securing dental work in Mexico, a few hundred miles often from where they live in California where the same procedure is much more expensive. This is capitalism in action, people voting with their pocketbooks and feet while deciding which values are important for them. No force, no coercion, no exercise of one person forcing upon others their own personal set of morals but instead the ability for millions, maybe billions of people engaging in economic transactions they freely, willingly consent to as they believe they are getting their own personal set of values advanced.

Coercion is force, socialism is not based upon consent but by securing compliance by force. I object to it similarly when the government wants to use force to prevent a private citizen from drinking a glass of wine in their own home or smoking a joint or engaging in voluntary consensual sex and I object to it to do good by others where it’s not in self-defense.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   To be fair and balanced, I have to question the prevention of a private citizen from drinking a glass of wine in their own home. Is this a question of underage participation within families, or something else? A bit confusing. The home should be somewhat sacrosanct, and only when in public should the determination of ‘adulthood’ be of any concern.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi it’s entirely cognitive dissonance to suggest that socialism and communism provide greater freedom as socialism and communism require the use of force at every turn whereas capitalism is the absence of force and coercion but relies upon voluntary exchange. Pointing to areas of force or coercion in society has not demonstrated capitalism is responsible if even we agree upon the fact that yea, action A is coercion.

You said if you don’t engage in capitalism you die and this is an example of capitalism using force and coercion. It’s absurd.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I would counter that if you refuse to eat food, irrespective of the participation in any capitalism, that you will die as well. Is this an aspect of capitalism that I am not aware of?

*************************************************************************

Okay you don’t want to trade with me your time and labour in order to secure food. That’s your choice. You can grow your own food if you want, you can avail yourself of the kindness of friends, family, and strangers if you so desire, but in the end, if you starve and die because you couldn’t source out a steady supply of food where is this the fault of capitalism, again a system of voluntary cooperation or exchange? I didn’t steal your chickens, I didn’t burn your garden, and I didn’t prevent you from starting a business to secure money to buy food. You are ignoring personal agency and responsibility and suggesting capitalism is to blame if you starve. How about your decisions being at play, is there no personal responsibility involved at all?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The question then begs to be asked, and I have done so repeatedly, is there any personal responsibility integral within the philosophy of socialism? As a member is it not only implied but demanded that you work for the good of all, which would seem to include yourself. What happens when a member refuses to pull his fair share of the load? Are they the first to be sacrificed? How does that work exactly?

*************************************************************************

It’s true many people do fall on hard times through no fault of their own. It is true that they do not have the right to use the threat of force to secure food. Is it really true voluntary exchange absent force is responsible for this fact? Hardly. So what is to be done in these circumstances? I believe that most people are moral, compassionate, willing to aid those in need absent force. I believe that help is available that doesn’t require the use of force against some to help others.

I don’t believe Americans are without compassion and concern. I believe we have upended the proper role of society in regards to how we help people. For most of the time it used to be that when someone fell on hard times they would first avail themselves upon their family, then their friends, then the immediate community, then organizations like the church or voluntary organizations of noble people like Knights of Columbus or Salvation Army and only after then the state. Today we’ve upended this and instead made the federal government the first place to seek help.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The point to be made here is that the state, as you say, is being used to provide this assistance, when socialism, again, is supposed to be all the members working together, so that paradigm, with all those organizations and individuals helping those in need, would seem to be the socialist imperative, even before bringing in the state to help. That would decrease the cost to the state, which would reduce any need for government to confiscate even more resources from the members.

This would be in the best interests, not only of those in need but for the ‘greater good’ as well. Assuming, or even demanding, that the state take this responsibility when all of these loving and co-operating individuals can accomplish the same thing without the inefficiency and shortcomings that we should all agree come with the reality of any state, sounds more than a bit selfish, in the worst definition of the word. Is socialism the thought that ‘don’t bother me, let the state take care of it’? If so, I find it a bit repulsive.

*************************************************************************

The issue here is that it distorts and corrupts the most effective and productive means to aid those in need and further distorted the values and beliefs most of us have to be individually responsible for the mutual aid and well-being of those around us. It strips away personal responsibility and agency to care and look out for one another and makes the Federal government the sole body of good intention, a body that is incompetent, unproductive, and unresponsive compared to one’s family, one’s friends, one’s community, church or local organization and worse yet, it is based upon force at its core as the federal government cannot do good without first taking away from others first. It’s rooted in force whereas the others are consensual voluntary.

You want to see more government aid which means more force, whereas I seek less force and more responsibility, responsiveness and accountability through voluntary consent and assistance by those closest to the issues.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Not to mention a certain degree of satisfaction with one’s own actions, and the ability to help those quicker and in more specific ways. I realize that there are few socialists that wish to hear this, but the Objectivist would say this is a legitimate illustration of the concept of rational self-interest, doing things because you want to, because it is the right thing to do, and deriving pleasure for those same reasons. A self-perpetuating positive action that can be repeated over and over again. And all done voluntarily and without the need for any force whatsoever. A win-win if ever I saw one.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi last kick at the can. I assume you prefer universal Healthcare. A noble pursuit to be sure. Who objects to the notion of ensuring everyone has access to quality healthcare at a reasonable cost? We both agree with that mission statement. We differ on how to achieve that.

Serious question, is universal healthcare in your opinion a form of socialism? The means of production, in this case, the goods and services of health care, are owned by the commons, in this case, being provided by through the state collecting resources from taxpayers. I argue universal healthcare is a form of socialism.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   A couple of points. First, I think that universal healthcare and socialized medicine can be interpreted as two completely different entities. I am somewhat at a loss with the release during this debate that socialists wish to make a socialist/capitalist hybrid, where the best of capitalism is used to validate and support the collective/socialist ideology.

My understanding was always that if the socialists confiscate the means of production to the use of the ‘greater good’, that negates the existence of capitalism itself, and whatever remains is now in the total control of the socialist authorities. How can capitalism even exist in this environment, when it is founded on liberty and freedom if basically every aspect of these attributes has been removed from the equation? If I am convinced in some way as to the efficacy and appropriateness of the philosophy, then there is no capitalism remaining, due to my newfound revelation of the legitimacy of socialism, and if I do not come to these same conclusions, then my existence becomes one of slavery and oppression.

Universal healthcare is something that is a component of capitalism, which, as you say, is access to healthcare at a reasonable cost. I would tend to believe that healthcare in socialism is not at a reasonable cost, but donated by those that work in that industry. Should there even be a cost involved at all? I build something in a factory for the greater good, the doctors and nurses give their time and knowledge for the same reason. Why is there even the suggestion of payment? It is only the ability and the need that are of consequence. Is that not the essence of the ideology? There is no ‘private’ property, so there is no need to purchase anything, and ‘personal’ property would be what everyone deserves and receives, so no need for choice, only need. I see a lack of consistency in the stated intent over decades. The evolution of the lack of that consistency is fascinating to someone that is trying to understand exactly what it is that they are offering in the philosophy. Healthcare is simply one confusing aspect of many.

*************************************************************************

In order to provide this service, the state must use force. You are dying of lung cancer, you secure treatment because the state reaches into my pocket to take my money, which is merely a representation of my time having been used in productive capacities. If I don’t pay my taxes what will happen? Will the government give me a pass? Will I not face consequences which limit my freedoms and liberties? I may very well go to jail. The only way to provide for the healthcare of all people by universal healthcare force MUST first be put into action.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Once again, I have to ask why there are even taxes. Everyone is tasked with responsibilities within the whole, and taxes are an ‘unequal’ way to collect monies necessary to purchase goods or services, but since technically all goods and services are already owned by the state, and the workers, of course, there is no need to tax or to purchase. It is the obligation of each member of the greater good to provide what is required by each member. Taxes, in principle, if not in practice, are supposed to be a way to support initiatives that the majority have determined are necessary.

Expanding that concept, the socialist government is not ‘taking’ anything from the individual. Since they are the ‘means of production’ the government, in essence, owns the individual. I know that sounds like slavery but that is what it is. There is no need to pay for that lung, or that new heart. The doctors and nurses ‘donate’ their ‘ability’ for the ‘need’ of others. There is no salary or compensation. This of course makes healthcare much cheaper for the state. On the other hand, most professionals will flee to other countries, and our neurosurgeons will end up being recycled veterinarians.

Unless, of course, we coerce the entire planet into a socialistic mother state, which I believe has also been promoted by the socialist elite over the years. I fail to see that they are saying anything other than such a scenario. A hybrid perhaps does not promote such a reality, but the socialism that has existed over the past fifty years certainly does.

*************************************************************************

The pursuit is noble, just, and good but it is based upon an immoral action, the use of force.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I must disagree. How can something be noble, just, and good be justified in any way if it is based, primarily, on an immoral action? I can offer no credit or appreciation of something that the essence is evil and contra-indicated for the benefit of all.

*************************************************************************

The common retort is that in a democracy we justify this use of force because 51% voted in favour of it. This cannot nor does not magically turn an immoral action into a moral one all it does is make it legal. What is legal and what is moral is not always the same.

Slavery, the use of coercion and force upon others to deny their freedoms and liberty is a stain on humanity. It is utterly immoral and unjust. It did not magically become moral because the majority of people throughout the majority of humanity supported it.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And previous to that, the majority, if not actually supporting it, allowed it to happen at all. Democracy is indeed a tyranny of the mob. Without parameters restricting inappropriate behaviour, it is especially intrusive and illegitimate, except, as you say, in some legal sense, which in no way denotes a moral or legitimate action.

*************************************************************************

There are better, more productive, and efficient manners upon which to ensure our fellow men are cared for and aided which do not require the original and immoral action of using force. Socialism is force.

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 It’s not cognitive dissonance. It is just that you do not acknowledge the value of positive freedom. But because you simply repeat the same neo-liberal talking points instead of engaging with my arguments, I don't think this debate really makes sense.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And you have yet to define or explain positive freedom. Anyone reading this can find a definitive explanation in a matter of seconds if they so wish. Since you ‘refuse’ to do so, one of many definitions on the net, all being very much in agreement says that:

“Positive liberty is the possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will, as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint on one's actions. A concept of positive liberty may also include freedom from internal constraints.”

It is more than a bit disingenuous to insinuate that socialism is the model of positive freedom, with the existence of coercion that you have admitted, exists as a fundamental of socialism, and try to make the point that capitalism has all of these hidden ‘negatives’ while socialism, from your point of view, seems to acknowledge none at all. Your position seems to be less than an opinion, and the legitimacy is highly questionable.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi I offer the same link as before as I know you never watched it. A more eloquent and informed speaker than I speaking decades back detailing in the very brief excerpt upon the notion that socialism is force.

https://youtu.be/DYeYPcougmA

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 Let me guess you are American. Only in America, people would equate universal healthcare with socialism. In Europe, most countries have universal healthcare, yet no country is socialist. How do you explain that if "honest and truthful people" would say otherwise? This misconception was produced by the red scare and poisons the political discourse.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Let me guess, and you must be an alien, since you have no control of the language and keep making unsubstantiated statements, accusing others of not ‘engaging’ with your ‘arguments’ when you make none at all. Giving an opinion is not an argument, and with no evidence is less than relevant.

You are very interesting. Almost all of the socialists are offering the opinion that all the successful countries in Europe are socialist, and you refute even them with the position that there are ‘no’ socialist countries. If they are capitalist, then all the successes used as evidence today, are only a justification of the ideology of capitalism. If there are no socialist countries in Europe, then on what do your base your positons that socialism has any significance or relevance at all?

Where does this ‘honest and truthful’ comment come from? The subjectiveness of the concepts is pretty much impossible to define, as our conversation clearly indicates. What possible value does such a comment present?

*************************************************************************

streiner boi

@bcshu2 You can't even talk about taxes in a society without markets. That is why I said, that universal healthcare is not socialist. It is a system that works around a market.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   But it does not have to, as I have already said. It only works in an environment of a market for people that believe and have confidence in a market-based system. Since socialists do not believe in such, there is no need for a market, only donation or confiscation of the means of production, in this case, the production of healthcare.

*************************************************************************

In a socialist system, production is determined by the needs of the people. These needs are determined through data analysis. When production = needs, distribution is trivial. All this happens without markets and currency, but based on voluntary cooperation, entirely democratic.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You make many assumptions without citation or evidence, not to mention reason. Who analyzes this data? You arbitrarily determined that distribution is trivial? Does this imply that once enough of a commodity is produced it will deliver itself? Not at all. It still needs to be delivered to those that ‘need’ the product. Your comment is vacuous. No clarity at all.

If it happens without markets, then, as I said, the healthcare aspect is not responsive or determined by the markets, so it is straight socialism and provided by whoever and whatever is required by the members as far as need is concerned. You add that this is a voluntary cooperation, but that has not as yet been confirmed as a component of socialism at any level, or in any way. Your only out is that this ‘democracy’ only needs to be 50.1% to be valid, and that does not denote ‘voluntary’ in any real sense. In fact, it is easy to prove otherwise.

Voluntary can be defined as freedom. That 50.1% is free to do with its resources as it so chooses, but the other 49.9% is not free unless they can do the same. It would do you well to read up on the concepts of checks and balances, and the reality that, at least in America, there is, perhaps imperfectly, the concept of protection of the minority ‘from’ the tyranny of the majority, and is a determining factor in the legitimacy of any vote taken. Not an easy concept in theory, and so much more complicated in practice, but a fundamental difference between a democracy and a democratic republic. From my perspective, a ‘democratic’ socialism is a contraction in terms.

*************************************************************************

In contrast there is capitalism. The relationship between proletariat and bourgeoisie is not democratic.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I love when you speak communist to me.

*************************************************************************

The bourgeoisie sits on the means of production and uses them to pressure the proletariat. We have to bow to their will in order to gain access to the means of productions. And their will is to expropriate us from the product of our work. This is the Marxist concept of alienation. Very central to the ideas of socialism.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   This is true. Collectivism alienates me as well.

*************************************************************************

What does that mean in reality: Well it means that in order to exist in a capitalist society, one needs to give up all your workforce to the bourgeoisie because they hold real power. The worker is stripped of all his autonomy, of all his productive capacity, because it is used up to the benefit of the bourgeoisie. And the more capital agglomerates under the capitalists, the tighter their iron grip becomes. The worker is forced to dig his own grave.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   While some of what you say has some crumbs of truth to them, they are invalid on so many levels, and disingenuous as well, but that goes without saying.

Capitalism exists in America especially, but around the world as well, and while the ‘bourgeoisie’ does exist, as well as these ‘agglomerates’ of which you speak, but they are a vile and unwanted symbiosis between unscrupulous individuals and corrupt politicians. A real distinction to be made is that they also represent a small and specific segment of what we call illegitimate capitalism.

If you want to portray all of capitalism as representing this paradigm, it shows a real lack of knowledge of capitalism in any real respect. The vast majority of business, not ‘big business’, mind you, but the actual majority of businesses, are not this representation at all. Most are small businesses and have as little relation with this bourgeoisie as possible. They are not particularly wealthy, although some do better than others. There is no exploitation and no expropriation, which only happens with the corrupt paradigm between government and a very small, but influential segment of business.

What you depict as the essence of capitalism is anything but. If you would simply recognize and articulate that, we might actually have something to talk about. Without that, your positions are completely illegitimate, and there is no reason to consider them significant in any way. Your ignorance of what constitutes actual capitalism is unfortunate.

*************************************************************************

But that is not all. Capitalism also incentivizes short term gains, without regard to the long term effects.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   While it does allow it, it does ‘not’ incentivize it. The same way that banks that hold great sums of money ‘incentivize’ criminals to come and ‘expropriate’ it? Like wearing a Rolex and flashing wads of money around while ‘on the town’ will also incentivize the criminal element to do something that is not expected or appropriate, but quite the opposite. To equate these things is to show a lack of understanding of the pressures at play.

Most of those ‘small’ businesses that I referenced? They do everything with a long-term intent, since that is their livelihood, their futures, and the security of their families, and yet they are the real capitalists in our culture, and for you not to see that only reflects badly on your own abilities and insight.

These others are not capitalists, but vultures and parasites, and if I could, they would disappear in a puff of smoke, much the same as their corrupt political counterparts. If you take the time to think about it, we dislike the same things. The problem is that you can neither see nor comprehend these differences.

*************************************************************************

First and foremost this is visible in climate change. But it also shows in other areas. For example, companies drain weaker communities of their resources to satisfy their own hunger. This reduces opportunities for development. Underdeveloped communities negatively impact society as a whole. Long-term values are not accurately modeled in a market economy. The result would be, that under unfettered capitalism, society would see a massive boost in wealth short term, followed by stagnation and decay.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You really are amusing. All of your comments are so incomprehensively vague as to become completely irrelevant. Unfettered capitalism would do nothing of the sort. Unfettered capitalism, consisting of unethical, immoral and individuals devoid of character and integrity may well result in those things, but we have safeguards for that, and those individuals that are personally responsible for these same safeguards are not being held to their own sworn duties, but it is once again, not capitalism that has failed us, but our representation, and those individuals that were put in their positions for this reason alone, to secure the protection of the citizens, especially in the realm of economic and criminal activity, which in this case constitute the same behaviour.

When capitalism is practiced by individuals of impeccable character and integrity, none of this is a consideration. How is socialism going to work with the same unsavory characters in positions of power? Do you really think that these parasites will just go away and disappear? They will not. They will remain until there is nothing left to feast upon. The answer is not socialism, but philosophy, and the ability and intent to act accordingly.

Your presentation of what capitalism really is, is illegitimate and of little value or substance.

*************************************************************************

It is the irony of human society that absolute negative freedom leads to zero positive freedom. In the long run, it even destroys itself. Therefore socialism seeks to strike a balance where positive and negative freedom is maximized.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You really should be looking for a religion, since you have no interest in reality. It is inarguable that ‘absolute’ negative freedom would result in zero positive freedom. What else could result”? But to say that socialism in any way balances positive and negative freedoms is irrational and incomprehensible. Where is your evidence? I see no legitimate reasoned argument whatsoever.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi I love how you deny a worker any personal agency or freedom in order to paint the horrible picture of voluntary cooperative exchange.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   It seems that socialism backs him up on that. Personal agency and freedom seem to be anathema to the socialist paradigm. Socialism, in practice, tends to exist without any real level of freedom or personal agency. Socialism despises the individual. The collective can suffer no existence of choice and freedom since that would only demand more and more intrusion of force to control the whole ideology. People who believe in choice believe in evolution and change, as necessary. I see nothing similar contained within socialism. Change is the first step in the dissolution of any socialist paradigm.

*************************************************************************

I own a pizza shop. I got the capital to do this after working for a large company for three decades. That capital represents me exchanging one resource of mine, my time, for another, capital. I earned that capital and now used it to research the business I wanted to organize, develop the business model, hire the accountants to establish the company, ensure compliance with all regulator laws and guidelines, develop the brand, secure the equipment needed, hire the contractors to install it all and so much more.

I solely carry the risk of the business failing or succeeding. If it does fail I am on the hook to pay back the money I borrowed. I hire two teenagers to aid in this business. We negotiate a wage and they agree. No force, voluntary, and no coercion. If they don’t like it they are free not to accept the terms. Tell me how they are being exploited here? I was not responsible for them not using specialized skills that may have increased their likelihood of being able to negotiate a higher wage. I didn’t prevent them from going to trade school to become the electrician who wired my shop and earned a higher wage?

Now my business is ready to grow. If I add a delivery service I may increase my customer base and profits. But I need an investment of capital in order to do this, I have to buy a new vehicle, I have to advertise, buy new equipment, and hire another employee. So I ask my family. My uncle decides to lend me the 125,000 to do this and we agree that in return for his original investment he will become a minority shareholder of the business. Is the employee getting screwed here? He’s not taking the risk, if I am unable to pay back the investor I may lose my business and the time, effort, capital, and resources I put into it. He may lose his job but nothing else. So again, I feel to see the worker in this example as a victim because of anything I have personally done as an entrepreneur, owner.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   An undeniably excellent illustration of many of the aspects of the fundamentals of creating a capitalistic reality, while arguably many other aspects exist that were not even mentioned. I hear no whining about deserving the unearned, and nothing about losing value on the labour invested in the endeavor, not even mentioning the time and effort and wealth that is integral to the attempt.

The employee who loses his job can conceivably be working the very next day, while the owner, the ‘producer’ now has an enormous responsibility for picking up the pieces after the failure. One has to make note that it took him thirty years to accumulate the ‘capital’ to initiate this venture, and there was no denigration of the capital in any sense. He will also now have to spend years in fulfilling his obligations and responsibilities made during the whole scenario. When does socialism speak of these kinds of obligations within the socialist paradigm? The answer you hear is silence.

Excellent points. We all need to remind ourselves of what actually goes into the production of a single item, such as a pizza. The pizza itself is actually of much less significance than the business structure itself. One can only imagine the logistics of items such as smartphones, cars, appliances, not to mention perishable items such as food, and the insecurity and complexities in accomplishing a successful business.

And the socialist believes that it is only a matter of confiscation, and some mystical value of labour will make everything work swimmingly? That is not the way things work in the real world, and the best examples are the attempts of the collectivist to circumvent reality to reach some Utopian fantasy.

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 As to why you only argue against the revolution: You say, it is immoral to seize the means of production. This step is only required because the current socio-economic order allows private property over means of production. But the morality of the system itself does not depend on the current system. Your argument only criticizes a certain way of transitioning into socialism, instead of socialism itself.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Why do we even try? If it is necessary to ever hope to implement and realize the concept, then it is actually a fundamental aspect of the philosophy so, unfortunately for you, it ‘is’ socialism. So, to you, this violence, this ‘revolution’ will be used to ‘transition’ and implement the philosophy, but discarded afterward when there is dissent and possible protest, even violent protest? Are you truly that naïve? This will be the sword of justice for socialist leadership until they too are overthrown. How ignorant. It has always been that way. What has changed to make you think it will be any different this time?

*************************************************************************

I will not argue about universal healthcare. The concept as you describe it can only exist when markets exist. It can therefore not coexist with socialism in the Marxist definition. In that sense it is based on force, because market relations largely are.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You almost make me want to cry, and you almost have me rolling on the floor in laughter. I may need some healthcare here. You have been arguing about healthcare for hours, and now you refuse to continue. Tired of being disagreed with, or maybe you are starting to agree? It’s ok, we won’t ‘force’ you to do anything you don’t want to do. We are the capitalists, we don’t do that, but you would if you could because you said so, and it seems you would like to ‘transition’ to another subject, and force in conjunction with transitions seem to be an acceptable aspect to a socialist.

You will not argue, and yet you continue to ramble on. If you keep talking you may not get that last word that you seem to desire.

*************************************************************************

Your definition of freedom only includes negative freedom. This is the single reason we even disagree because you close your eyes to the concept of positive freedom.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I am not sure I do, but I certainly close my eyes to irrationality and the absence of explanation or evidence. But please, continue, by all means.

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 No we do not agree on what constitutes socialism. I was very clear on that from the beginning. Also, positive freedom is not a tangent. It is the precise reason why we disagree. I will explain it using an example:

Assume you are working in a Bakery. But your job is not fulfilling for you. You would much rather compose music. In capitalism, this is most likely not an option.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Are you telling me that the socialist has no compelling pressure to contribute to the greater good, and can be cared for, forever, if they wish to become a musician? I guess a case could be made if they were an accomplished musician at some point, but what if they simply do not have any talent, but only a ‘wish’ to do so? I was under the impression that the greater good was the determining factor in what you were ‘allowed’ to do, it certainly is not a matter of freedom of choice, or we immediately have chaos within the ranks, with another instance where force will be the determining factor. Are you ever going to confront and defend this incessant use of force?

In capitalism, we work one job and practice another, and if one is more successful, we can ‘transition’ to the other, without violence or even the need to request anyone for permission. What if my job, within socialism, is termed ‘essential’? Do I have the ‘freedom’ to make this kind of decision? Can I change my mind as to the job I was assigned? Am I even allowed to change responsibilities if I am not content or it is not ‘fulfilling’ for me, as you present within capitalism? Do real alternatives even exist within the socialistic paradigm? I have never before heard of a socialist speak of fulfillment in connection with the ‘from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs’.

Nope, trying to remember. Nothing is ever about fulfillment, and yet, with capitalism, it is a fundamental component in the process.

It’s always an option. People go back to school, get trained in other disciplines, and move to another state or even another country. Is this the reality within socialism? Do you even listen to yourself or read what you have written? This is not a rhetorical question.

*************************************************************************

You probably do not have time besides your daytime job, and you probably also do not have access to the required equipment. While you are of course free to try (negative freedom), there are a lot of barriers in the way. You lack the necessary positive freedom.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Actually, I would think there is more possibility for the socialist to have to work longer hours for no extra recognition, since the goal is for the greater good, whereas the capitalist may be able to find a second job or do some overtime to save and be able to take an additional interest in music or whatever they choose. How does a socialist get a second job? Does that not result in ‘extra’ wealth to do with as they please, or are both jobs completely done ‘gratis’, for the greater good? Is not that wealth under the control and ‘ownership’ of the collective?

If one individual has more than another, is this not ‘forfeit’ in some way to the greater good? You keep making statements that only elicit more questions, but that is, unfortunately never answered.

Does the socialist have to ‘purchase’ the equipment or is it bequeathed to them? I don’t understand how this stuff works. You call the ability to buy the equipment, and the ability to try and learn another skill, as well as work extra time to pay for all this, all the while still working at another job, or getting a single job that pays as well as two, and the freedom to choose any of this, you call that ‘negative’ freedom? And positive freedom is when people you don’t know force you to do things that you don’t want to, will not let you get equipment and wealth to pursue your dreams, and dictate what is appropriate, you call that ‘positive’ freedom? It must be really frustrating and confusing to be you, because it sure is just listening to you.

*************************************************************************

As long as society cannot afford such decisions, it makes complete sense to limit them as capitalism does. But here is the thing. Through technological advancements, the average worker has become way more productive during the last century. However, this is not properly reflected in working hours or salary.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   ow is that again? People used to come to America, less than a hundred years ago, and work two and three jobs to provide for their families. They made pennies per hour. They worked 80 hours a week. Do ‘you’ work 80 hours a week? Have you ever worked 80 hours a week? My first job was for $1.60 per hour, and today getting $20 or $30 or more is commonplace. They had no cars, and could only dream of a house. While things cost much more today as well, the luxuries that we all enjoy, even many of those on welfare, are so far beyond what was available to middle and lower-class individuals then as to be science fiction at that time. They dreamed of what we have today. It is only those that have not paid the price over the decades that complain about their lot. Almost no one works 60 hours or more a week, and back then, they worked, in many cases, seven days a week, with no overtime, no vacations, and no holidays.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say, but it is invalid and irrational. They could not start their own companies, but today they can. They truly were economic slaves then, and even though we are today as well, to some extent, it is a matter of day and night. It is not the hardship that it once was, although the pressures that exist are just as prevalent and real to the workers today. Whatever point that you are attempting to make is lost in the reality of our actual existence that we are able to enjoy today.

*************************************************************************

The positive freedom granted by technology was not transferred to the workers that produced the advancement in the first place. While society has the production capacity to easily support your dream to become a musician, the inefficient distribution of wealth hinders you. This is a form of freedom I highly value, and that is insufficiently provided under capitalism.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   A distinction that begs to be known is that the workers were not directly for the responsibility of that same technology. I just realized that you just gave us a rational and justifiable reason why this ‘production’ that you talk of in relation to the worker today is actually not of his own making, so why does he have the right to claim any extra value when he has no involvement in the progress made. But I know what you mean. I see so many world-class musicians in those socialist countries that are doing so well. In fact, most of the most proficient individuals in almost any field come from those economies, don’t they? Could you provide a list for us?

*************************************************************************

Now, if you can give a direct comment on that, I will also answer one of your specific questions, if you provide one again. (Not healthcare. I already gave a statement on that)

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I’ve watched him make a hundred points and ask a truckload of questions, all of which you have chosen to dismiss out of hand. You have made more than a few statements, but none have actually been a response to any questions.

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi first I don’t like blackmail or extortion as a manner of civil discourse. You FIRST answer my question after I’ve avoided answering the one question I’ve repeated ten times now, is not kind.

If you would rather compose music, pursue that. Could there be barriers that make that difficult, absolutely? Life is unfair. How is that anyone’s fault? All should be free to pursue their own happiness. Those that limit that ability, construct barriers to achieve that, and use force to prevent that are the misguided ones.

You want to limit people’s ability to engage in voluntary consensual exchanges and interactions to right to wrong, that life is unfair. You can only achieve that by denying freedom and liberty.

A minor but significant point to make ... you said, society cannot make such decisions. Society cannot make decisions, people do. Society is the collection of people who organize to make decisions. Those representatives, people, make decisions based upon the supposed will of the people they represent. It’s people that make decisions not society. Minor matter but not an insignificant one to highlight. Concepts matter after all.

Now my question .... the Socialist Party of America of the early 1900s advocated for specific policy measures to be enacted. While they never were very successful in gaining elected offices it has been argued by many to have one of the most influential parties in regards to seeing the establishment of their parties’ policies. One of those policies was the adoption of socialized social security.

Do you part company with the ideological belief they favoured was not in alignment with the practice of socialism? If yes, why?

*************************************************************************

bcshu2

@astreiner boi as for an increase in productivity because of technology, this is not an unfamiliar fact. Hours worked and salary may reflect numerous realities, we can’t limit those to just one thing.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And thank you, astreiner, for acknowledging the fact that capitalism has increased that productivity through the capitalistic efforts of creativity and innovation through the system that is ‘not’ socialism. When has socialism ‘ever’ produced a ‘positive’ result through its policies? Everything you have presented as a positive value is a result of capitalism, even with all the inherent shortcomings that you also keep alluding to. What a great system that can create all these good things, and still have the bad.

If we could get rid of the unsavory aspects that are introduced into the system by those ‘not-capitalists’ we can only imagine the positive ramifications for all of us, socialists included, if we worked towards that mutual benefit envisioned through mutual agreement.

*************************************************************************

Americans have more free time and more ability to engage in leisure activities than for most of American history. Just consider the amount of entertainment Americans consume, or how many resources are spent by Americans of all income brackets spend on animals or pets.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Not to mention all that time, and disposable wealth, that is available to learn that instrument or pursue whatever desired results that you may envision. I find it difficult to see that happening within a socialist paradigm, on any level.
Capitalism is the driving force, in every instance of a positive evolution of the human experience.

And yet we spend that time with vacations, playing video games, even fully mature adults. Go figure. We spend so much time on leisure and travel, and clubbing and dining and shopping and gorging ourselves on the fruits of capitalism, not to mention sex and drugs and rock ‘n roll.

When we could be improving ourselves and climbing that ladder of self-improvement and financial security. Not that any of these things are bad in an intrinsic way, but those workers of a hundred years ago had no such opportunity and alternatives. They have chosen not to make the attempt, and at times, that turns into a direct correlation with the lives they end up with.

*************************************************************************

Socialized healthcare exists on the basis of markets. Introducing it does not further the cause of Marxist socialism. In the context of 1900 America, where markets definitely existed, it was of course a left-leaning proposal. They may not have been aligned with this kind of socialism and advocated for a social market economy instead. They also may have seen this proposal as a stepping stone, because it furthers the cause of the workers of course.

Also answering your point on increased wages/spare time. The increase in productivity is in no relation with the per hour pay since 1970.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

So yes maybe they spend more money or have more time. But that increase is significantly less than one would expect from such a drastic increase in productivity.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   While that may be true in some sense, that is not relevant in the relation to the arguments that you were just making as to the point of negative freedoms. Irrespective of the expectation that you reference, it is still a valid point that the means and the opportunity exists for virtually any individual that wishes to improve their situation in the workforce or desires to try something of a more artistic nature. There is always an excuse why your own comments are invalid and you prosecute some other issue, never resolving the initial position.

As for your reference to the EPI, also known as EcPI, the founder has been quoted as saying how proud he was that he has never been acknowledged by those such as Glenn Beck, which is in itself a political comment, and the initial founding of the non-partisan, non-profit ‘think-tank’ was with that same founder, Jeff Faux, and eight different labour groups. I am skeptical, to say the least. I have no idea as to the veracity of my information, as well as yours, and to be honest, it is somewhat irrelevant. We ask you to speak for socialism, or whatever it is that you believe, and the ramblings of politically self-interests ‘others’ are irrelevant.

*************************************************************************

From your answer to my question, I read that you do not value positive freedom at all. So we definitely do not agree there, but it is a valid stance to take. I do not think we can convince each other in this matter so I would like to turn to a different aspect.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And we again divert and digress and ‘would like to turn to a different aspect’. You have to understand, when ‘you’ bring up an issue, it is not settled until and only if both sides agree, not just you. Your gift of persuasion is a poor one. Positive freedom in a socialistic environment is simply not a real thing, especially in comparison to a capitalistic reality. I am not sure any of us can really disagree with your ‘positive freedom’ since you have repeatedly declined to explain or define the concept in any way. How does one argue with an aspect of your philosophy, which I might add does not exist in any other comment I have ever heard from a collectivist when we have yet to understand what this illusory concept even means?

*************************************************************************

What is ultimately the purpose of an economic system? In my opinion, it should satisfy the needs of its participants. Capitalism fails spectacularly in this regard.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And yet so many disagree with you, arguably more than agree. Are you the only arbiter in this matter? You have a very narrow vision in this matter, and you have yet to present a clear explanation.

*************************************************************************

Why? Because there is an entire industrial sector dedicated to the opposite. Marketing. Marketing abuses the evolutionary leftovers in our brains to create needs we did not have before. You probably wouldn't want people to be brainwashed into following socialist ideals. So what do you say about people being brainwashed to further the interest of capitalists?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I unequivocally reject both. How does that give your positions any validity? One has to accept it on some level whether you believe in regular freedom or some version of positive freedom. Still remain unclear on that, it certainly is not intuitive. Brainwashing is something else entirely and presupposes the inability of the individual to have the capacity to make up their own minds and control their own impulses.

Either you are an adult and responsible for your own decisions, or you are a child or incompetent to make adult decisions, for whatever reason. Only those that believe in violence against another would talk about brainwashing, and insinuate the necessity and inclusion of even more force in the rectification of such activity. How do you suggest addressing this intrusion into our lives? Can it be anything other than additional coercion?

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 Your paragraph following "If you would rather compose music, pursue that." is a statement on positive freedom. And it is one that I do not agree with. I think we will never agree on that issue, because we fundamentally value positive and negative freedom differently. That is why debating it is nonsensical. I tried to introduce new points to the discussion, but you don't seem willing to engage with them.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   If the debate is nonsensical and if we can never agree on what it means, and if you never make the attempt to explain it, I would have to agree there is a component of ‘nonsensical’ involved. I have to question what good these concepts are if they are unusable? I would be interested in ‘engagement’ but we have to have some fundamental comprehension, to begin with, and you are the one that has the obligation to provide it.

It is by no means nonsensical. When ‘debating’ someone, concepts must be identified and defined. At that point, if you wish to refute something, it is incumbent on you to accept and use the proffered explanation, in the context offered, in your argument. Anything else is disrespectful and impractical.

Your opposition, of course, is required to do the same, but it remains incumbent on you to not dismiss the opposition position, but argue with what is presented to you. You do not have the option to create your own rules as the debate continues. There is no reason or equity in that, and will not result in an exchange between perspectives, nothing learned, and nothing accomplished. It is for both sides to be clear and to the point. It is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of necessity.

*************************************************************************

Healthcare was definitely part of your question about the Socialist Party of America. You brought it up as one of their proposals. I gave an answer to what that means for their ideological alignment. What more do you want? Apart from that, the policies of a party one hundred years ago are largely irrelevant to socialism nowadays. The social, economic, and technological framework has shifted extremely.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I once more would like to commend you for the acknowledgment that policies of a party from a hundred years ago is largely irrelevant today. I realize that it was not by intent, but you have been undeniably helpful in the refutation of your scholars' presentation.

I find it refreshing to see a socialist completely reject the sum total of the two representatives for socialism on the stage today, since the entirety of their rebuttal of capitalism was from two and even three centuries ago, in places around the world, that I certainly concur are relevant to today’s discussion only in a peripheral way.

*************************************************************************

astreiner boi

@BigBoomOfDoom2 I am talking about the concept of worker alienation.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I understand that you are inserting yet another undefinable concept in the midst of many others yet waiting to be expanded and clarified. No one else was speaking of worker alienation, and you do so, once again, without the accompanying evidence as to your point. Just another vague assertion, without rhyme or reason, and which has little if anything to do with any other position already articulated.

We seem to need a scorecard here. To be fair, Hitchens referenced some comment by Marx on worker alienation, but again, hundreds of years ago, undefined, out of context, and irrelevant to a modern argument on the ideologies as they exist today.

*************************************************************************

There are different approaches to solving it. Syndicalists believe, that if workers owned their workplaces, it would not be a problem, because then they don't work for a stranger's benefit. I personally think we need something akin to techno-socialism/communism to achieve this:

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And no one is speaking of syndicalism either. What exactly is it that you desire to promote? And the addition of some techno-socialistic communism doesn't help at all either. How does this relate to the socialist philosophy and ideology? I don’t wish to speak of these irrelevant side issues until you address what this debate was all about, to begin with. I was attracted to this debate because it was about socialism and the morality directly involved with it. This is not happening, and it is a detriment to the whole concept of a ‘debate’.

If workers created and paid for, in time and effort and wealth, their own companies, then they would be in control of those companies. Socialism confiscates companies and then the workers run them as their own, even though they do not have the intelligence or capabilities of doing so, and this invariable ends in failure. If they did, most of the world would be a thriving socialistic metropolis by now, but it is not. Why is that?

And when you confiscate someone else’s vision for production and even give it to some workers to ‘realize’ some benefit from the theft, who says they understand how to do this particular task, or even want to? If they are not motivated and incentivized, not only to gain some unearned wealth but to be an integral part of any particular endeavor, what makes you think that they will put the same care and effort into the process?

There seems to be a complete intellectual disconnect as to why people pursue success. Farmers have neither the ability nor the drive to produce cars or iPhones. They like the land and appreciate the work they do to that end. When you confiscate the farm and give it to others to use in production, and they have no real love or interest in the earth or growing food, for themselves or for others, the effort is doomed from the onset. I am not sure the socialist understands that.

*************************************************************************

The market is basically a form of externalized intelligence. With a sufficiently intelligent agent, we can replace the market. Then we have more control over what we want to optimize. And I think we should optimize for minimum time spent working. In this planned economy, people will only work as much as is necessary to hold up society. This is a fraction of what people work for today because we optimize for something like shareholder value. Even less if worker productivity keeps growing as it is currently.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Externalized intelligence? Do you now suggest replacing the market itself? Optimization for time spent working? How about controlling it in any way at all, before trying to improve on something you have not yet provided evidence that you can control at all? This is completely absurd. You haven’t been able to create one single environment that is successful using socialistic imperatives, and you are already trying to reduce the time each member works? That is what you hold as important?

You first need to prove this works at all before you start handing out benefits to those that can’t produce anything on their own. This approaches insanity. This is probably the main reason that socialist experiments have not worked previously. They do not put in the effort required to ‘hold up’ society and it devolves into chaos. You need to understand what went into the construction and evolution of an industry before you can ever hope to manage it, much less improve it.

It’s never been done outside of capitalism, no matter what theories you throw up against the wall. Russia, after the revolution, is a prime example of what I am saying. The desire to control existed, but the ability by any relevant segment of the resulting society simply did not exist, and production, quality, and value fell exponentially. I know it was not the intent, but it was the reality. I have heard of no plan for rectifying such a demise again.

Worker productivity has only increased because of capitalistic attributes. I find it incomprehensible that you can, without corroborating evidence, expect it to continue without the fundamental reasons why it worked in the first place. I have to give you credit though, you will continue to chase that tail until you catch it. What you are going to accomplish when you do is anybody’s guess, but it will not be a success.

*************************************************************************

Under these circumstances, society only takes as much of your time as necessary. Unlike capitalism, where it takes as much of your time as possible.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Completely unsubstantiated. Vapid. I had to work less time than my father, and I realized a greater wealth, although only comparatively, having more leisure time, material goods, education, social benefits, and personal realization as well. He had the opportunity and time for none of this, raising a family, and doing what needed to be done at the time.

Capitalism is evolving, and while there remain issues that need to be addressed, is vastly superior to what existed three hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, a hundred years ago, or even less. Today's workers have challenges, but they do not put in the time and effort to resolve their issues. I am not saying there are no huge obstacles in place. I have repeatedly presented my observations, but I see no progress at all, and no ability of any version of socialism to provide a better outcome, besides the fantasy version.

*************************************************************************

Max James

@Curtis If you remove the incentive of personal gain, what makes you think the rich will continue producing?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   They won’t. It was just demonstrated only a couple of years ago when they were withholding trillions of dollars around the world due to liberal policies that wanted to ‘expropriate’ a huge segment of this wealth. With an administrative change, and a ‘reduction’ of that expropriation, much of that wealth made it back into circulation and an undeniable benefit was realized from that decision. Irrefutable. Not just for the rich, who irrefutably will share in any additional production, but every major minority group, from African Americans to women, saw an increase in multiple metrics.

With no expectation of any gain, do not presume that they will simply donate what they have. Force will be required, and the socialist mindset has no qualms about doing so. The capitalist will not go willingly. That is not to say that we cannot fix the shortcomings, only that it will not be done ‘voluntarily’, and that is what most of the discussions have been about.

*************************************************************************

Friend of Aristotle

@Curtis This is where you're wrong: socialists know that production is a necessary element for their survival as a nonproductive element. It's the "rich" and "wealthy" who must continue to produce and then relinquish the result of their production through guilt...or by force. Communism uses force, while religions (ancient socialism) use guilt.

Without the wealthy socialists would either starve to death, be killed by someone defending themselves, or be forced by their own nature and not by other people to produce for themselves. Socialism is cannibalism. Communism is slavery, which is one step up from cannibalism. Both are immoral.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Welcome, friend of Aristotle. How is he doing these days? Under attack, I would assume? Difficult to argue with any of your observations.

*************************************************************************

Curtis

@Friend of Aristotle Communism is not slavery at all. Communism is when the level of material abundance (how much stuff we can produce) is so great that there is no need for money, state, or class. The purpose of socialism is to raise the productive forces and develop the technology required to create the material abundance that is needed to support communism.

It isn't slavery because production is owned and controlled collectively - there is no exploitation of man to man.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   If you could illustrate where this ‘great’ material abundance is going to come from, perhaps we can discuss it further. Where in history are there any examples of either of these realities? Nowhere is the correct answer. It has yet to happen, but the collectivist hysterically grasps on to the concept, as the religious cling to their Gods.

When has the word abundance been connected with socialism, except maybe in the abundance of pain and suffering, and lack of freedom? When has a collective reality ever ‘raised’ any kind of productive forces? When has any collective ‘ism’ ever developed any technology of any note whatsoever? We agree that material abundance is certainly required by the communist ideology, but you fail to make a case that it is possible in any rational paradigm.

In a perfect scenario, for the sake of argument, you might be right, but since it has never happened that way, and very well might be impractical and impossible to implement, then it is a non-sequitur. Explaining how it might work, with so many requirements as to make the point moot, is not a legitimate reason to even consider this.

There will ‘never’ be an overabundance of a product if there is not a compelling reason to do so or a mistake in production, and probably because there was not a compelling ‘demand’ for the product, so we all might get two of whatever it was when we did not even want ‘one’.

The purpose of socialism may be to ‘raise’ the productive forces and develop technology, but they have never done either. Why is it going to be any different this time? Who will be those individuals that create this new paradigm if only capitalists were responsible in the past? This is why you need to get your own damn producers and make your own stuff.

You don’t need to exploit existing capitalistic ventures, you need to develop your own, but your identity is to take and use the effort and abilities of others, to gratify those that are not capable of doing it themselves. If not, why then do you need ‘everyone’ to be on board? Why can’t you do it with 50% of a willing society? Why? Because you will never have the innovation and creativity necessary. That innovation and creativity seem to exit when confiscation is the goal, but when production is the objective, there is nothing other socialists have to offer.

Once again, parasites need hosts, although they do tend to feast on their own when the opportunity arises, or the necessity confronts them.

*************************************************************************

antrim

@Curtis Socialism is the democratization of the economy. Put simply, it's recognizing that society is composed of economic classes with conflicting interests and restructuring the economy to benefit the many instead of the few.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Wow! I have never heard that before. I think I may have seen the light. Marx and Hitchens disagree with you or have you not been listening. Does that cause you any concern? Of course not. Marx wants no classes of any kind, and Hitchens agrees, at least at the time of this debate. Conflicting interest? I have been asking how that works in a collective environment where you are assigned jobs, and your ‘interests’ are of no consequence. It continues to be difficult to even refute your positions when they are not in agreement with all of the other socialists. are there any socialists that comprehend the socialist ideology consistently?

If I am mistaken, please point me to the tome and page where someone of socialistic note has commented otherwise. I find it amusing that you think they will be able to ‘reconstruct’ the economy when they have been completely unable to compete or even just exist in any already existing economy. They have no ability to compete, in fact, the concept is anathema to the collectivist since it is all about coerced cooperation. I don’t see how it can be summarized as anything else.

*************************************************************************

Reality Matters

@3resg3 3resg3 So, you think that a moral system means the benefits of the system should end up in fewer hands! That is the essence of Capitalism, you take the advantages you have, you use them to get more advantages, etc., etc.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   With very few exceptions, that is not the intent or even the result of capitalism. You continue to fail to see the distinction of corruption in contrast to ability and integrity.

Please share one scholarly perspective where this ‘advantages’ view is proffered in any way. You won’t because you can’t. It is not capitalism. It exists for other reasons than the existence of capitalism, like personal and political agendas and irrational self-interest.

*************************************************************************

This is a banal and obvious fact of the system you promote!

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The only real obviousness is the fact that you have difficulties in the comprehension of complex issues.

*************************************************************************

This means, that the system may be "equal" and does not discriminate in a theoretically nonexistent start of a society. But as soon as the first generation has produced the second, You will have a system that is unequal, and discriminates against the offspring of the people who failed in the first generation.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   That inequality will exist a week into the new society. Do we need to reset that inequality with each new generation, or perhaps every Monday morning? Individuals are not equal and they never will be. I may well be your equal on a number of issues, and you may well be superior to me as well in many more. We may be able to work together, and depending on the task at hand, one may be better than the other to lead, but we will rarely if ever, be what you call equal.

I find it to be a virtual impossibility. The system never proclaims equality on really any level. It promotes equality of opportunity, but not really any other. No two individuals are alike or have anything remotely equal as far as abilities is concerned. But we allow all who wish to participate to compete. If there is corruption and manufactured advantages to individuals and groups, they should be removed by our arbiters, our referees, our representatives, who, unfortunately, are a part of the problem, to begin with. While some of what you say may be true, it by no means validates any position that this inequality is caused by, or is an integral aspect of the system of capitalism.

We invite disparate individuals to compete in the Olympics, knowing full well that the result will not be a twenty-way tie. Someone is going to excel, and others will fail, seemingly to a great extent, and yet, they still remain the best the whole planet has to offer, just not today, and not in any other field of competitors.

Does this mean that the Olympics is an example of inequality? Ridiculous, but also true. Irrational, much like many of the positions held by socialists today. You have to practice, to get better, or you have to compete in some other event, or you have to stay home and watch with a beer in your hand. It is dishonest to think in terms of results.

You make the point of mentioning that the offspring of that ‘failed’ first generation will pay the price. Yes, that is true to some degree. Maybe that will be the incentive to pick the right event and to ‘not’ fail by the next generation. If you want equality of result, then it is not even interesting to engage with such a position. It is impossible.

*************************************************************************

This is the law of the jungle, and it may be good for the winners, but the losers of this system, have zero interest in keeping a system, that will set them and their children up to fail. Your system has no mechanism built in to ensure that every generation has equal opportunity to succeed, it is, in fact, set up to make that possibility unlikely.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   How and why is this the law of the jungle? Do you know the real law of the jungle? Kill or be killed. Eaten raw. That is ‘not’ what capitalism is. You lose, but you get to play another day. You can compete for big gains, and lose large as well. Or you can achieve smaller gains by getting involved at another level of the game. Manager, supplier, distributor, line worker.

What is wrong with that? You continue to have the ‘opportunity’ to make an attempt, voluntarily and of your own free will, to do whatever it is that, realistically, you can do. If you are unrealistic, you will continue to fail, and be unsuccessful. Can you die? Absolutely, but it is not etched in stone.

It depends on your own brand of acceptance and ability to evolve, and be reasonable and make good decisions, or you can become a socialist and demand that you deserve the fruits of that unearned labor and effort, of others, that you were unwilling or unable to produce yourself. It seems to be a repetitive expectation that you will achieve, at some point, an equality that just cannot exist. You really expect that everyone can achieve an equal result, which is irrational and delusional.

At some point, there must be some comprehension of reality. Does this concept of reality exist anywhere in the paradigm of socialism and collectivism? I am not sure it does.

*************************************************************************

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I have to take a small break at this point. Our conversation has been scratching and clawing for a quote that I find to be relevant, at least for me, on a point of morality, and since our collectivist friends do not seem to be overly interested in the concept, I feel compelled to offer something that does nothing to solve the issues at hand but does address the whole idea of these workers being ‘exploited’, as it were, or not.

I think these words make a point as to what it is we do with our lives, and our labour, and what actually gives ‘value’ to that labour. Our socialists tend to look at the value of the individual as something mercenary, and this somehow conflicts in my mind with the stated objectives of the ideology, if you can in some way discern exactly what they are.

In any case, I thought it relevant and the essence of working in a system such as capitalism, with all its faults and shortcomings. Actually, you could call it a fundamental of life itself, not only in the sense of an economic reality but a philosophical and deeply moral one as well.

“If a man says: “But I realize that my natural endowments are mediocre—shall I then suffer, be ashamed, have an inferiority complex?” The answer is: “In the basic, crucial sphere, the sphere of morality and action, it is not your endowments that matter, but what you do with them.

It is here that all men are free and equal, regardless of natural gifts. You can be, in your own modest sphere, as good morally as the genius is in his—if you live by the same rules. Find your goal within yourself, in whatever work you are honestly capable of performing.

Never make others your prime goal. Demand nothing from others as an unearned gift and grant them nothing unearned. Live by your own rational judgments. Be independent in whatever judgments you hold or actions you undertake, and do not venture beyond your own capacity, into spheres where you’ll have to become a parasite and a second-hander.

You’ll be surprised how decent and wonderful a human being you’ll become, and how much honest, legitimate human affection and appreciation you’ll get from others.”


- Ayn Rand, The Journals of Ayn Rand

*************************************************************************

*************************************************************************

It is an inherently wasteful system, it creates losers on an industrial scale, and ensures that the winners hoard ever more power and wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And yet has proven time and again that it is a vastly superior system to socialism, and has been shown to be so in every historical instance, so I am not sure what point it is that you attempt to make.

Any system that allows mistakes to be made to create progress and improve the system will have inherent waste. Who was it, Edison, that was asked;

"How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?"
Edison replied,
"I didn't fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Needless to say, Edison was not a socialist. I think it ironic that the system that has been the biggest failure, historically, continues to profess some concept of perfection that will never be a reality.

*************************************************************************

The practical solution to this psychopathic system is to balance the destructive element of Capitalism out with a strong welfare state, which ensures that part of the wealth created is used to feed, educate the children of the losers of the system, and give them an opportunity to become part of the winning side of Capitalism. ie. social mobility!

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   But I want what you want. I want those parents that failed miserably, to devote their lives to the betterment of their children, the way the immigrants did in America over decades and decades of the 20th century. Why does the responsibility devolve to those that have shown ability and insight? We lament the ‘bailing out’ of the banks, and yet what you propose seems to be the bailing out of bad decisions on the part of those whose obligation it is to protect those same children, much as the incompetency displayed by our political representation in the dereliction of their duties to protect their citizens.

The children of those immigrants, who were never successful themselves, grew up to be almost anything they had the desire to be. The real American Dream, and it was real for a while. This is not a one-sided equation. One has to invest and put in the effort if one wishes to enjoy the benefits. Those that think otherwise have really missed the point.

As for the failures of our system, they exist, and I want to rectify them. We could do it together, and if you ‘co-operated’ with others it might still happen. If your perspective says the only way is your way or the highway, I fear that it will be the highway, because you have nothing to offer me but force and oppression, and that is something that will never be acceptable to myself and so many others.

The failures of capitalism are able to be fixed, and with a will and motivation, and incentive, could be realized in the future. Socialism is an empty promise of nothing, at a time to be determined. There is no reason to expect anything but what they have delivered to this point, which is pain and suffering, frustration, confusion, and chaos. Not an American Dream but an American nightmare. A socialist delusion.

*************************************************************************

Your idiotic ramblings about Socialism I will not comment on, except to say, you have no idea what Socialism is, and I suggest you take time to read up on what it has meant at various times. Socialism in general parlance is a meaningless term at this point.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   We finally agree. Meaningless. I’ve read up on it quite a bit. There have been multiple instances of socialism over time, but I see no consensus within the socialistic community as to what that vision is today. Refrain from telling me to 'read up on it'. As mentioned, I already have, find nothing that makes sense to me and I continue to ask the socialist to help me.

You are the one that needs to define it and explain it, otherwise we have no recourse but to make assumptions that you put your efforts into degrading, while never presenting any clarity or legitimacy on what it is that you really believe. I would have to agree, that without that clarity, from individuals such as yourself, the concept of socialism is meaningless.

Knowing what was meant in the past may be helpful, but knowing what is meant today is of paramount importance if we are to have a reasoned argument. I have been waiting for what seems like forever. I think we all thank you for not commenting on the ‘idiotic ramblings’ about socialism. It was instrumental in our deliberations. If you could possibly stop 'rambling' perhaps we could make some progress.

*************************************************************************

In short, saying that Capitalism is a system that does not discriminate, is an utterly retorted thing to say, even if you believe that is the best system!

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Such an ignorant comment. Discrimination, as with many words and concepts being used in our discussion today, has multiple meanings. It does not mean exploitation and prejudice, which certainly can be a possibility, but not what was a part of this discussion in this forum.

When I choose a blue shirt instead of a red one, that is discrimination, and quite benign, and closer to the truth of this conversation. It is so dishonest to insinuate otherwise. If you are trying to say that discrimination is an integral aspect of capitalism, I don’t see any evidence in your comments to that end.

If any exists, it is in the behaviour of the parasitic underbelly of capitalism that we have referenced an inordinate amount of times in trying to explain that these actions are outside of the ideology, while being a part and parcel of lack of character and integrity of the inappropriate players within the system.

*************************************************************************

3resg3 3resg3

@Reality Matters this is probably a waste of my time, but let me try to answer briefly. In your system 'justice' is absent. Morality is based on the outcome, even though history tells us that the best outcome is created by capitalism and every socialist intervention is a setback for economic progress for everyone.

Your idea of discrimination is flawed. Discrimination between individuals shouldn't be regarded as discrimination. An example of this could be that you probably wouldn't be this aggressive in your communication towards your mother as you are with me. That's per definition 'discrimination'. When I'm talking about discrimination it's discrimination with force. Force is non-choice. If an innocent individual is forced to abide by the whim of the masses, this is evil. There's no difference between a mass-dictatorship and a dictatorship except the quantity, the quality is dependent upon the acting entity.

Socialism is the ideology bred by the altruist and collectivist ethics. It's evil because it's pro force and anti-individual freedom. To hold the masses above the individual is a fallacy in itself because a group is simply a group of individuals.

It's going to be a really tiresome discussion if you are to keep your aggressive attitude, foul language, strawmaning, non-sequiturs, and floating abstractions.

So, if you are to say something ambiguous or even something self-contradicting, please don't. Since YouTube comment section is an unfortunate format to have such discussions, I'll invite you to discuss this on discord, speech, or writing, I don't mind either.    Rask#8616

*************************************************************************

Reality Matters
@3resg3 3resg3 You clearly are a believer. That means that nothing I say do or write will persuade you in any way. Let me demonstrate!

*************************************************************************

(LCW) Without the use of reason, you are inarguable correct.

*************************************************************************

Fact, the most successful system in the world today, are Social Democratic, essentially Capitalist light, they produce the best outcomes in terms of productivity, social mobility, freedom, and education.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   First of all, what you point to is not an economic system, and you are wrong in every respect. It is not capitalist light, but socialist light. They have neither the best outcomes of productivity, absolutely false on the social mobility point, as well as freedom and education. Where do you get your information, the socialist central committee?

Considering that these are the ‘social’ safety nets, and these countries have the highest divorce rates, alcoholism, abuse, etc., it is rather strange that you deem these destinations as successful. When you cherry-pick your positive freedoms, it does nothing to validate your credibility. Quite the opposite.

Not to mention that the size of the experiments referenced are so small as to be almost insignificant. You need a lot more information if you wish to exhibit any legitimacy to your positions. And your representatives on stage, as well as many of those posting comments here today, have unequivocally agreed and admitted that there are no socialist countries that even exist, so which ones are you talking about? Venezuela? Chile?

*************************************************************************

Your denial of reality will make you just as morally deficient as the psychos in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Love being called a psycho. The morally deficient is just icing on the cake. It always makes me open to the concept of giving the benefit of the doubt to the mentally challenged among us.

*************************************************************************

Outcome of a system, is the only relevant measure of success. That means free markets have their place in emergent markets, and then have to be curbed in order for them not to eat their own creations.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   If the outcome is the ‘only’ measure of success, socialism has a long way to go before having any legitimacy. And on what is your theory based that free markets do what you say, or need ‘curbing’ at some point in time? Is this a demonstrable conclusion, or one realized through divine revelation?

*************************************************************************

Your system is not moral, it is just considered the best, no matter the outcome, and it is in essence a moral vacuum. It is the same mental cancer that pervades religion, it is defined as good, no matter the results, simply by virtue of belief.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   There is that divine revelation I just mentioned. Who was speaking of religion? Does that usually help your positions when you bring them into the discussion, even though I have not heard from a single one today? How childish.

You say that outcome is the only measure of success, and yet you admit that capitalism is considered the best. Does this not mean you concede the point? On what do you build your concept of morality? I am delighted to hear someone speak the word, but no one has had the audacity to actually describe what this ‘morality’ is in connection with socialism.

You really cannot just call something a moral vacuum without legitimate and credible evidence. Well, actually you can, and you are proving that as we speak, but it would be nice to see some reasoned argument as well. And again, we end with that ol’ good-time religion. Who is talking about that?

*************************************************************************

Reality Matters, I took that name to remind myself how little my opinions actually matter. Your opinion matters not at all, reality does.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   And neither does yours, notwithstanding such a cool name. Opinions do matter, as a matter of fact, if they just have some reason and a little ‘juice’. I would really enjoy hearing what constitutes reality for someone who thinks collectivism is a legitimate alternative.

*************************************************************************

The jury is in, the evidence has been seen and considered.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)    That’s a good one, the jury. Unfortunately, is it a jury of ‘your’ peers, or the most convenient jury of 'one', and we can’t seem to get them to focus on the issues at hand. It’s an extremely interesting comment since registered socialists in the U.S. only constitute like 10 percent or so of the voting public. How does that translate into any kind of ‘verdict’ or mandate? Sounds more like wishful thinking, or non-thinking as the case may be.

*************************************************************************

Your preferred system has zero merits, my preferred system has little evidentiary merit. Reality has spoken, I choose to try and correct my thinking accordingly. You will not correct anything, just double down on your mental delusions!

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I am a bit confused. So, my system sucks, your system sucks, reality has spoken, but you didn’t tell us what it said, and you’re going to try and correct your (assumedly invalid) thinking. I find your thinking process is provocative and intriguing. I may be falling in love.

*************************************************************************

Slade Grey

@Juvenal Catullus - NO, actually they DON'T. That's the great LIE socialists like to tell. Again......you want to talk Norway or Scandinavia? Let's DO THAT! Let's talk about the fact that BOTH countries get pissed off whenever you say what you just said. Those countries are CAPITALIST, balls to the bone, and always HAVE been. Having a social welfare net is NOT "socialism." Either you dumbass morons have NO idea what socialism is, or you're LYING and trying to Trojan horse it in.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I agree in essence, but please, try to keep a lid on it. But I have to admit, I have seen many Scandinavians, in many venues say exactly that. They don’t really like being called socialists. They are individualists, and may not be Objectivists, but they certainly consider themselves capitalists.

In fact, they normally don’t like the U.S. much either, so they don’t like people telling them what they are, and it is probably inappropriate to ‘expropriate’ and ‘exploit’ their identity as the socialists are wont to do. But then again, you can’t blame the socialists much, since there are virtually no examples of socialism ever working, anywhere, so what can you do? If they continue to speak of only theoretical scenarios and really arbitrary instances of historical interest, then everyone is just going to fall asleep or go home.

*************************************************************************

Alan Pickett

@Tuco Bakunin capitalism has been the driving force in poverty reduction around the world. We live in a world where the UN goals for poverty reduction for 2015 were met 5 years early. Where more than half of people in the world are middle class. Where we don't live on $1/day in today's money as Americans did in 1850. Where more people are obese than starving. Where the child mortality rate in Africa is plummeting. Thank capitalism for that. Wealth is generated by capitalism; money isn't just an abstract representation of physical goods.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Thank you for that. May I point out that these are numbers from the UN, not known for its support of capitalism, or the U.S. for that matter? No one disputes that poverty still exists, but a system cannot be simultaneously responsible for the reduction and increase of something at the same time. It is being worked on. You can be a part of the problem, or you can engage and cooperate and be a part of the solution.

*************************************************************************

You can find the continuation of this conversation in page G of audience comments