Whats so bad about socialism?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

Very true. In major industries which require a lot of infrastructure and little innovation: subways, airports, power plants etc. There really isn't any "competition" because it's too risky to mess up, the market/space is already taken and hard to switch if your a customer("go ahead and use another power plant with new power lines... HA!")
and inertia is the determining factor.

In fact I'd rather not have competition in some of these cases, multiple airports, multiple plants with differing power lines etc.

Perhaps the profit motive keeps them more efficient then a government institute but they can just get around that by fixing prices.

Perhaps I'm not sure Ford should be nationalized, as in the car business there still is competition. But I do believe we should spend more rescouces on public transportation. (Buses and such which should not be competitive.) And that there airlines should be slowly nationalized.

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Good point. Becoming a self-made millionare is like getting hit by lightning.

Sure it can happen, likewise you can go to hollywood, quite your job and become a celebrity.

But it is unlikely. For every success there are a hundred failures. For every one person that gets ahead of the economic station to which he or she was born, there are probably many more who simply stay there.

That is inpart because there is little equal oppurtunity in some ways.

A rich kid all things being equal will always be ahead of a poor kid: he has better schooling, better access to college, more free time to devote to school, better medical care, lives in a better neighborhood/enviroment with less distractions, may have more encouragement, has better connections/friends of the family etc.

A poor kid by contrast has poorer schooling, has to probably get a job while going to school(giving him or her less time to devote to school, putting him or her at a disadtantage to those who have more time), has to worry about more distractions like gangsters and bullies, has to worry about his/her health problems more, may actually be discouraged by family and peers and has no connections with the business world with which to work with.

The only way a poor kid thus has a chance of entering the rich kids positions is: if he does extraordinarily well, and the rich kid does extraordinarily poorly. Or if the market opens up and someone, one notch below the "richer" kid likewise does extraordinarily poorly.

I'm not saying this is a case for egalitarianism or full socialism. Ultimately we may have to deal with some economic injustice and unfairness for the greater good, that being capitalism does produce a lot more in some areas(helping all by generating so much wealth and innovations).

But this is a case for programs which help increase equal oppurtunity and more socialism.(A mixed economy)

A poor kid will probably always be at a disadvantage, but with better schooling and some government aid perhaps not as much at a disadvantage. He may not be able to be a CEO, but being a respected doctor is probable given he is smart and hard working.

 

[corplinx]

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Yes, when a new "gold ruch" happens then oppertunity is creates, however that oppertunity depends on some new area opening up that existing wealthy people fail to understand.

That's hardly something to build an economy on, and no way to plan for the future. Let;s see, our plan for the future is that some new thing will happen that people can take advanatge of, maybe, but we have no idea what it is or will be.

The computer revolution was a kind of fluke. It was born out of the conservatisim of the 1950s, in such a way that those people were not ready to take advantage of new oppertunity because they were conservatives, so when oppertunity came it was liberals ad revolutionary thinkers that took advantage.

IBM failed to capatilize on their position which left the door open for others. Had more compotent people been at IBM there would be no Bill Gates or Michael Dell.

Let's look at Wal-Mart. and all the chains that have sprug up in America creating new wealth. That oppertunity was created out of the liberal economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s that kept big business down. Now that big business have taken over oppertunity is quickly disappearing again. Once Wal-Mart is installed in every city the oppertunity to repeat that type to thing will be gone.

Now, if you want to keep living in a fantasy and believing that our generation (I'm 28) has the same kinds of oppertunities available to it that previous generations had then keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, we don't. The cost of entry into business is getting higher. The computer revolution DID create a brief period of low entry cost, but of course you had to be inot computers, no other fields really had that kind of oppertunity.

There is only one thing you have proven. You don't know ◊◊◊◊ from shinola when it comes to business. Please shut up because its really embarassing.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Waiting Lists

In Ontario there has been a minor (often exagerated) health care crisis. But a lot of that was caused by a misuse of funs across the government board. With the over spending in the past all areas, including education and health had their funding reduced. The health care and education budgets were not unsustainable on their own, it was waste in all facets of federal and provincial spending that was cost us.

Ontario health care is still extremely good from what I see, but it is not what it use to be. And I and most canadians still prefer our system to that in the U.S. However, if you have lots of money, getting an operation done in the states is a good way to reduce your waiting period regardless of urgency.

One problem the socialist system runs into is the need to be perceived as underfunded. In a private company divisions often make sure to use up their entire budget since having funding left over will surely mean a big cut next year. Same thing in government. If schools say we are getting the exact or more money than we need, and other branches say they are under funded, guess who is getting screwed next year. This is one case where being honest is only beneficial if everybody is.
Edit to add: This is a problem in less socialist regions as well, their are just less branches lying to the government.


Walt

 

[Malachi151]

I agreee DM. In fact I don't see the way econmic entrenchment works as a bad thing, I mean its fine that some big business takes control and becomes dominate. I'm okay with that and it creates stability, we don't want major companies coming and going all the time.

Why would a want a world where Ford get's challenged by upstarts, and goes out of business, etc and turnover is high? We don't want that.

The issue is that people have to RECOGNIZE this fact. So many people today just ignore it and act like oppertunity is infinate, when in fact it is not, its finite.

Secondly people also so that if you don't like it you should start your own business. Well fist of all, just assuming that is was easy to start a business that you wanted to, why would we have all these people going out trying to start their own buisiness ONLY BECAUSE they NEED TO in order to get economic justice?

In this case we are sayign that you have to start your own business in order to be successful. Why should that be? Then the purpose of starting a business is not to contribute to society, but in an attempt to keep yorself from getting screwed by society.

The fact is that large companies and such can be very beneficial and the corporate system and big business is a force that can be used for great good and is being used for great good. The problem is when those in control don't let that good be shared by enough people.

Why have a bunch of people being ineffencient trying to make it on their own when we can create so much more with cooperation? The biggest barrier to that has been corporate greed, where they coporations don't share enough of the wealth with people responsible for creating it, so people become unhappy and try to go out on their own.

I mean with as much Marxist rhetoric as I spout, my ideas of solutions are quite reasonable and not really very radical IMO.

The issue is in understanding the flaws in the free-market system, and then simply addressing them. The problem come from people that don't acknowledge the flaws at all, or people that go too far in trying to counteract them.

To me its all about ensureing the oppertunity exists for everyone, and that the fruits of production shared by everyone in society.

When I said that there is no such thing as a self made millionaire I mean there there is NO such thing at all.

Think about it. No person can become wealthy single handedly. It requires a society. If Bill Gates' wealth was soly HIS construction then he could have become equally wealthy in Afganistan or China or the Bahamas. The fact is that he could only do what he did in America though, because the American society was the main thing that built Gate's wealth, not Gates, same goes every every person everywhere that makes money. All wealthy and money is a social construct and a product of society. Individuals contribute to that wealth but its all interdependant. Bill Gates could not sit on some isladn by himself and become the richest man on earth, it was a social process that was dependant on virtualy all of American society to create his wealth, and all our wealth.

Part of the money I make, I make because the police force keeps crime low in my neighborhood, part is because there are roads that have been built that allow travel and commerce, etc, etc. Its all interconnected and inner dependant. I can't make money unless millions of Americans are doing their jobs, and the same goes for everyone, and really its global. That's why there is no self-made millioniare.

 

[Segnosaur]

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

First of all, I'm not assuming that some new, upstart company is going to be established that will immediately challenge Exxon or Ford. However, that does not mean that opportunities do not exist... Small resource companies, if they are wise with there searches, can 'strike it big'. A company may not compete with Ford right away, but they can set themselves up as a retailer, or parts manufacturer (something requiring less capital), and expand when opportunities arise.

Or, a company with interests in one area can 'expand' into related fields. Look at the Canadian company Nortel Networks; originally a 'manufacturing' arm of Bell Canada; at one point it actually manufactured sleigh bells...

Even if it isn't easy to start a new automotive company, there are dozens of areas where opportunities do exist, where a company can start small and expand if/when they are successful... retail, software, construction, etc.

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire,

Tell that to Forbes.

Have you ever looked at their list of richest Americans? Yes there are some who inherited their money (many of those are active in business and are actively growing their fortunes), but In the top 25 you have Gates, Buffett, Dell, Kluge, Soros... And guess what? Not all of these got rich from the computer industry.

and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

Yes, when a new "gold ruch" happens then oppertunity is creates, however that oppertunity depends on some new area opening up that existing wealthy people fail to understand.

If you were born 100 years ago, you'd probably be complaining that "There aren't any chances for new buggy whip manufacturers to enter the market".

Guess what? New "gold rushes" happen very frequently... probably every generation gets their own opportunity, some area that did not exist before which becomes available. 100 years ago, it was the automobile. 50 years ago, I'd say it was TV/media. 20 years ago, it was the computer. What the next 'gold rush' will be I don't know (could be biotech)... But I'm 100% sure that SOME unexploited area will come along.

The computer revolution was a kind of fluke. It was born out of the conservatisim of the 1950s, in such a way that those people were not ready to take advantage of new oppertunity because they were conservatives, so when oppertunity came it was liberals ad revolutionary thinkers that took advantage.

IBM failed to capatilize on their position which left the door open for others. Had more compotent people been at IBM there would be no Bill Gates or Michael Dell.

Nope, the computer revolution was not a 'fluke'... it was the result of human advancements in technology making processors fast and cheap enough that they could be used in many products. And as for the 'liberals' taking advantage... remember, IBM (that conservative company) sold a whole mess of PCs back in the 1980s. (The 'revolutionary thinkers' didn't control everything.)

Now, I agree... IBM failed to capitalize on their position... but guess what? It just goes to show... opportunities are available. Or are you assuming that no existing company, anywhere, will ever make a mistake again?

Let's look at Wal-Mart. and all the chains that have sprug up in America creating new wealth. That oppertunity was created out of the liberal economic policy of the 1950s and 1960s that kept big business down. Now that big business have taken over oppertunity is quickly disappearing again. Once Wal-Mart is installed in every city the oppertunity to repeat that type to thing will be gone.

You, ah, do realize that there WERE other department stores before Walmart was ever founded? Walmart was founded in 1962; Sears (for example) existed before it; however, Walmart was able to build its empire from a single store.

Walmart is big, they are everwhere; but that does not make them invincible. They can make mitakes. And it does not mean that some other chain cannot grow from a single store (now) to challenge them in 10 or 20 years.

Now, if you want to keep living in a fantasy and believing that our generation (I'm 28) has the same kinds of oppertunities available to it that previous generations had then keep telling yourself that, but the fact is, we don't.

Well, if you're typical of your generation, then yes, you have fewer opportunities... because you've shown yourself to be a whiny self-important slouch wanting to blame others for their problems.

Frankly, I'm 35 (a "Gen Xer") and I find my generation to be the biggest load of whiners that ever came down the turnpike.

The computer revolution DID create a brief period of low entry cost, but of course you had to be inot computers, no other fields really had that kind of oppertunity.

Rather broad statement... "no other fields"... be careful with absolutes like that... they can come back and bite you.

Lets see.. what other fields... Retail (An uncle of mine started with a single store and ended up with a small chain), construction (my brother in law has basically started his own construction company from scratch; he ain't rich, but he's taken over much of the concrete business in the town he's in), media (friends of my family have created an advertising company from scratch). All successful businesses, all created 'from the ground up'.

(Note... those examples are all Canadian based, but I'm sure others can come up with other examples for the US.)

 

[BillyTK]

In healthcare, minimal services are also provided to virtually everybody. 911 dispatches ambulances regardless of who's calling. Emergency rooms still treat people without insurance. The costs of this is simply passed on to the people who *do* pay, hence it is a form of socialism.

Not strictly true. Under your system, the people who *do* pay, pay through medical insurance; the minimal medical system (incl. medicaid) is paid for through taxation, which is the "socialised" aspect. But bear in mind that if you have medical insurance, you are paying for the treatment of others anyway--those have policies with the same company; insurance companies work on the basis that claims for individual treatment costs will never exceed a particular margin of income frm insurance contributions.

Compare this with the British system in which everybody over a certain tax threshold (apart from those who duck taxes with off-shore accounts for instance) pays National Insurance contributions towards the running of the NHS, and have the option to increase their cover with private insurance, which brings me nicely onto my next point; no one system of funding for healthcare works; for instance, the UK uses a system of mostly public funded with a combination of some private- and charitably-funded, and out-of-pocket expenses; the US uses mostly privately funded with some public and charitably-funded with out-of-pocket expenses. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages; for instance, when it comes to terminal care, I'd take the British system any day.

My opposition to nationalized health care is the result of my suspicion that making it a "free" gov't service will destroy it's quality. (Just in the same way that the quality of "free" public education is, on the whole, abysmal.) The NHS in the UK, from what I'm told, has suffered this type of degeneration in quality.

Actually, this is a myth. Bear in mind that prior to the implementation of the NHS in 1942 affordable health care was of poor quality for most people anyway, and it was this situation that led the government of the day to implement a public health care system as the best way to address this. The NHS has been suffering from funding problems practically since its inception, but most of these can be attributed to government idiocy (could we have a state health system but without government interference please?). One of the biggest funding problems is that the NHS is the victim of its own success; the people who benefitted most from its creation have grown old and are now a drain on its resources. But even this is not insurmountable, even without a "soylent green"-style solution

Need should not trump ownership. Just because someone "needs" something should not dissolve the provider of the good or service from their right to charge for it.

But this is problematic wrt to health care; should treatment be withheld simply because the patient is unable to pay for it? What about communicable diseases, or immunisation programmes for instance? Surely it's to everyone's benefit that the individual receives treatment? But let's not forget that the provider is not being denied payment for their services, they're simply not collecting it form the point of delivery of that service.

 

[Cain]

The original issue was someone saying that a small businessman can make no headway against a corporate heavyweight. Its an assertion that is pure nonsense and you can find business case after business case refuting that.

Just because it is not likely, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And its certainly no miracle when it does.

Oh sure, the media reminds us of all the "hits" while the "misses" go unmentioned. The fact is ( if I remember correctly), that over 80% of small businesses fail within 5 years.

I'm not even sure how or why you can so glibly invoke the Internet as some kind of great leveler that crashes down the traditional barriers. Even more conventional conservatives ( Dinesh D'Souza, for example) lightly challenging the "casino-economy" (or the perception of a casino-economy). Or we can use Malachi's apropos term "gold rush."

The fact of the matter is that you'll probably fall into the same bracket as your parents in terms of wealth. Most of the mobility, unsurprisingly, takes place for those who are already on the border. Even then, I'm not entirely sure how or why income/wealth mobility compensates for inequality, or has anything to do with healthcare. "Oh, you're supposed to die because you're not rich. You could've been rich -- just like anyone else -- but essentially chose not to. You chose not to work hard."

 

[RedCoat]

Okay, tell me this. How many new oil companies start up to compete with Exxon, and such? How many new American car companies start up to comepte with Ford and such?

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

I agree - you're not going to make it trying to start another Enron or another Ford. Starting a new company that does the same thing as an existing company, only at higher cost, is a crappy business plan.

Finding a way to deliver a good or service that no one else does, or delivering an existing good or service at a lower price, IS a good business plan.

To take Ford, for example - there are literally thousands of parts in a car. Ford purchases the vast majority of them from suppliers. Finding a way to make one - just one - window switch, or spark plug, or trim screw at a lower cost and then selling it to Ford is an EXCELLENT business plan. Stuff like this happens every day. (I say this based on my experience in the auto industry, so I'm not just making this up.)

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I strongly believe that an entrpeneurial spirit, hard work, and a good business plan will make you successful 99.99% of the time. Complaining about how impossible it is to start a company is a self fulfilling prophecy that never produces anything.

America is great because anybody who has a good idea can make it into a business and make money off of it. I for one would like to keep it that way. Socialism may be great for Europe, and I'm not going to ask them to change, but I'd prefer to keep our system the way it is.

Peace.

 

[Tmy]

The statistic that I'm thinking of (and this may be a few years old) is that the top 5% of earners provide 50% of the federal gov't tax income. The lower 50% of earners provide 5% of the tax income.

Assuming that this is still true, then everyone should be thankful that "Richy Rich" (your term) pays his or her taxes.

As a side thought - aren't Richy Rich's trucks providing truck driving jobs for Joe Worker? If Joe Worker doesn't want to drive trucks, why doesn't he start a company to compete with Richy Rich?

Peace.

My post was not meant to begrudge the Rich guy, I just wanted to challenge this accepted notion that Mr. Rich gets little return for his tax dollars while his poor counterpart is supposably rolling in government services.


Another thing, I dont think the wealthy are all business owners. many of them are well paid employees. Starting your own business is not always the best or feasible idea.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Actually, in attributing a particular characteristic to socialism, I'm not claiming that everything that shares that characteristic is socialist. But if it makes you feel better to call him one, you won't get much of an argument from me.

Originally posted by Tricky
Your implication above was that asking people to pay for something they didn't want is a socialist trait. I am showing that such exhibiting such a trait does not imply socialism.

But that wasn't necessary. I never claimed that exhibiting such a trait always implies socialism, I only said that socialism is something that tends to exhibit that trait. Do you agree or not?

No, I am not implying GWB is socialist, but rather that your characterization of socialist "traits" does not distinguish socialists from non-socialists.

I didn't say it does. You're responding to arguments I haven't made.

Technically, no one has a "right" to anything, not even life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Speak for yourself.

So you think that we have rights, but right to education is not one of them. Who then defines what are "rights"? The government? God? You?

From what I've seen, my assessment of such things is as sound as anyone else's. If you've got some ideas that you think are better, feel free to put'em on the table for discussion. But if all you can come up with is that they are defined by government, it's going to reflect about as much critical analysis as someone saying "because the Bible says so".

If we were living under anarchy, a stronger person (or group) could take any of those things away at any time.

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

My argument is that rights are defined by the law.

Well, legal rights certainly are. Do you simply reject the idea of rights in any broader sense?

If it against the law to rape, then the rapist had no "right" to do so.

Putting that qualifier on it like that is a bit scary. I would argue the rapist had no right to do so, period. Still, I wasn't asking about the rights of the rapist. I was asking about the rights of the victim. Can I take it that, to you, she only has a right not to be raped if the law says so?

We elect people to decide on these "rights" based on how closely they match our own moral codes.

Again, speak for yourself. Some of us vote for people to defend rights, not "decide" them.

And by the way, if what you're talking about is "rights" matching individual moral codes, then doesn't that mean those moral codes must have something to say about "rights" in the first place?

Without law, there are no rights.

Sounds to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog. Some of us are able to conceive of rights independently of what anyone tells us they are, and to formulate opinions about what laws should be, based on those rights, not the other way around. Incidentally, if there are no rights without law, then why bother with law at all?

The US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", and it has set up a system to protect them.

I don't know what your source is for this, but I don't recall the word "should" being used in conjunction with those rights. In any case, I don't look to the US government for my opinions on such things.

No, I put the word "should" in there. This is my opinion, so I get to use the words I like.

But you were expressing your "opinion" about what the US government is based on. Do you have anything to support the "opinion" that the US government is based on the notion that people should have those "rights", rather than being based on a recognition that they do have them?

And while you may not look to the US government for your opinions, you assuredly do look to them for your "rights" (assuming you are a citizen of the US).

I may look to them to protect my rights, but not to define them. And sadly, they often end up violating them. That raises an interesting question though. Is it your position that there can be no such thing as a law that violates rights?

I don't think that you would argue that one of the marks of civilization is education. There seems to be a very strong correlation between the level of education in a country and their standards of living. Education appears to be the best way to prevent poverty.

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

People are forced to do things (including paying for things) all the time that are deemed (by our laws) to be good for the country.

Thanks for providing that insightful observation about how things are. I never cease to be amazed at the people (particularly in this forum) who seem to think this has any weight as an argument about how things should be.

You apparently agree with some of them.

Not the part about being forced to pay for things. And if you want to cite any examples of anything I have expressed agreement with, I'll be happy to defend them.

Where you differ from me (and the government) is which things are good for the country (or area, since most of a school's funding comes from local taxes).

No, it's more specific than that. Where I differ from you (and the government) is in the legitimacy of forcing people to pay for things they did not agree to pay for.

So it is in the interest of the government to provide education for its citizens.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

I reiterate: Your rights are defined by the laws.

And I reiterate: Legal rights are, but once again, some of us are able to conceive of "rights" in a broader sense.

Just curious, do you really think we'd be better off if, in all the debate that leads to evolving policy, nobody had ever been able to argue for a "right" that was in conflict with whatever the laws had to say at the time? Specifically, if you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?

And while we're at it, do you have a clear position on the legalization of abortion?

A similar (but IMO not as strong) case could be made for health care.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I suppose that is a matter of opinion. Do you want to take it to a vote?

If it'll make you feel more secure in your opinions, go right ahead. Those of us who have put a lot of thought into our views don't need that kind of validation.

Whether you call it a "right" or not is inconsequential. Ask only if it is better for the country as a whole.

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

Total individual sovereignty is anarchy.

How so?

There must be rules.

I'm pretty sure I haven't argued against having rules.

Governments make the rules, hopefully based on the input of the governed.

And sadly, both the government, and the governed, can get things wrong. Do you agree?

You don't have the "right" to go against those rules when you disagree with them, or if you do, expect to be punished.

Sorry, but the threat of punishment does not mean one does not have the right to violate an unjust law. In keeping with the attempt to pin you down, I'm guessing you don't think a slave had a right to run away, back when there were laws against doing so, right?

If you don't believe that having a healthy population is beneficial to you personally, then perhaps you should read Poe's The Masque of Red Death.

Since I haven't said it's not beneficial to me personally, what's the relevance?

You have certainly implied that you do not wish to pay for it.

Actually, my position has consistently been that nobody should be forced to pay for anything they did not agree to pay for. It helps to understand the difference.

Are you asking to have those benefits for free?

No. If I am to be part of a healthy population, I'm certainly prepared to pay for any medical services I seek. But beyond that, any perceived "benefits" associated with something as general as a "healthy population" are not something that any one entity has any business claiming credit for, let alone sending anyone a bill for.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Calling for indivual responsibility as a means of not having social responsibility is just tending towards anarchy and might makes right. Its "whatever I can get away with, then I can do".

Originally posted by WMT1
Damn, you do post some incoherent nonsense at times.

Originally posted by Malachi151
The wealthy elite in this country have a long history of campaigning to promote their own interests and subvert the will of the people.

Originally posted by WMT1
Um ... I'm not one of the "wealthy elite", and I don't consider them to be subverting my will. Do I still count as one of "the people"?

Originally posted by Malachi151
Sorry it was over your head

Sorry, but your lack of clarity does not equate to something being over my head. If anyone else can decipher the sentence of yours that is the first one quoted above, I invite them to do so.

No, you are one of the people who has been duped by the wealthy elite into supporting an agenda that isn't even in your own best interest.

Yeah, and I'm sure you're going to be able to back this up as well as you've backed up some of your other claims.

Attention everyone, I think we've found our Jedi Knight for the left.

Speak for yourself.

Actually what he said was correct.

Rights are a social construct. They are a product of society.

And who makes up "society"? If no individual opinion about "rights" has any validity, where does this "product" come from?

Society grants rights.

"Society" is just a collection of individuals. Since there isn't unanimity of opinion on much of anything, which of these individuals are you talking about, and where did they get the authority to determine rights for everyone else?

Rights are not intrinsic, despite what the founders may have claimed in order ot sound high and mighty.

Then you should have no problem understanding that nobody has the "right" to make anyone pay for anything they have not agreed to pay for. Thanks for the help.

And by the way, I couldn't care less about the "founders". You and others I've argued with about stuff like this are the ones who seem to have to rely on the opinions of others to form your own.

A right is not a part of you, a right is not like you eye color, or yoru hiar, etc.

I'm pretty sure I never said it was.

All rights are granted to you by society, which is why your rights can change from place to place and day to day.

Once again, you seem to be confusing the ability to exercise rights with the rights themselves.

If we burn the piece of paper that says we all have teh right to free speech then, guess what, we no longer have that right.

Okay, so let me get this straight. Are you capable of formulating any opinion about anything anyone is entitled to, or deserving of, without it being written down somewhere? If so, please provide an example.

Even if we dont', if people don't agree to let people excercise free speech, thne there is no free speech.

And are you capable of formulating any opinion about anything that anyone might be entitled to, or deserving of, even while they are not allowed to have it?

You have no rights at all naturally, just like every other animals on earth. Rights are a human creation based on our social structure, they are not "god given", they are not natural, they are not intrinsic.

Then let me get your answer to the same thing I'm asking Tricky. If you had been alive when people were trying to bring an end to slavery, would you have been involved in the debate? And if so, would have been your position, and what would your strongest arguments have been?

So, just to pin you down a bit, are you saying that a right does not exist if the ability to exercise it can be abridged? If a woman is raped, and the perpetrator gets away with it, does that mean she didn't have a right not to be raped?

What IS a right?

A just or rightful claim.

Incidentally, why did you bother to post the questions I asked Tricky if you weren't going to answer them?

What good is a right if it is not upheld?

Probably not much. That's why it's a good idea to uphold them.

If a woman has the "right" not to get raped, but she does anyway and nothing is done about it, then what good did the "right" do her?

None. The existence of a right isn't contingent on its being respected in any particular situation. You might want to write that down. If you don't, something tells me it's going to come up again.

Please define "rights". What are rights?

Rightful claims. Didn't we just cover this?

I've always said that rights aren't even real and have little meaning in the first place.

Then you agree that nobody has a "right" to have anything provided for them by government, or anyone else?

All rights are is a social contract that states what other peple are expected to do or not do to you. Its just an expectation and other memebers of society are supposed to honor and attempt to uphold when other people have their "rights" violated.

And when did all the "other members of society" agree to the terms of that "social contract"?

That may be a good reason to get an education, and maybe even a good argument to use in persuading someone to contribute to the education of others. It's hardly a justification for forcing them to.

Oh well, too bad. That's part of living in a SOCIETY.

So, can I take it that this is your way of countering any potential criticism of society, or just the particular criticisms you don't agree with, and for which you can't come up with anything better?

Its that whole SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

If there are no rights, where do you get the idea that there is any actual "social responsibility"? You just seem to be making up the rules as you go along.

If you don't want to contribute to the education of others then leave society, its that simple, go live in a cave.

Wow, great argument. It seems awfully close to "support socialism, or you don't belong in a society". Come to think of it, it's not that far removed from "love it or leave it" either. It's obvious you've put a lot of thought into this.

Incidentally, would you feel differently if my opinion on this point happened to be the prevailing view of society? If the majority felt that such contributions should be completely voluntary, should that majority still have to go live in caves? And if not, should those who support making people pay for the education of others have to do so?

YOU benefit from the educated existance of others. Why should you reap the benefit of such things w/o contributing to it?

I do contribute to it. I do so when I go to work every day, to earn money to pay for the goods and services from which I "benefit".

And if I were not being taxed, I would be more than happy to contract with the government to pay for services from which I believe I would benefit. But that should be my call, not yours, and not the government's.

Its just you trying to weasel out of responsibility and take advantge of others.

First, just to remind you, you haven't established any such "responsibility" in the first place.

Moreover, regardless of what I might be willing to pay for, what I will not do is support forcing payment from my neighbor without his consent. If you do support such force, well, that would be one of the things wrong with socialism. And in case you were wondering, it's also what makes my position the superior one.

Whether that's true or not, the government having an "interest" in doing something hardly equates to a right to do it.

No, there are some things that every memebr of society benefits from no matter what. As such every member of society that is capable has to pay for those things, otherwise your really stealing from society.

First, you seem to be responding to something other than the comment I was making.

Moreover, stealing what? "Benefit" is a purely subjective assessment, not a specific product or service. Sorry, but such characterizations as the "stealing" thing are particularly laughable, coming from someone who supports taxation.

Let's say that you want to opena buusiness and hire a worker that knows how to read and write. If you do that w/o paying taxes then you are stealing from those who have paid to educate our workforce.

Nonsense. I wasn't the one who made them do so in the first place. As soon as you identify who did, that's where you're going to find that the actual stealing took place. Again, you seem quite confused when it comes to the area of assessing responsibility.

You're just trying to welch on everyone else's hard work.

Actually, no, I'm paying someone for their skills. They can charge me whatever they like, and if I don't like the price, I'll either look elsewhere, or do without.

I hate to break it to you, but you didn't make your case, let alone a "strong" one.

I hate to break to you that he did, you just didn't get it.

What a surprise that you'd think so. So, what do you think was his strongest argument?

No thanks. You could probably defend some form of institutionalized slavery if that's your only question. Some of us aren't quite so dismissive of the importance of respecting individual sovereignty.

No, see this is what you don't get. Where are the lines to individual sovereignty? The founders of America saw that the right to own slaves was a part of the individual sovereignty.

That's nice, but again, I don't much care what they thought. But since you brought it up, were they right? And if not, why not?

The right for me to make demands of others is my individual soverengnty?

Uh, no. It would be something more along the lines of the right not to submit to the demands of others. If you're this confused, you should probably refrain from comments like "No, see this is what you don't get".

Total individuality, as Tricky says, is anarchy, and then no one has any rights at all, its just kill or be killed.

I didn't argue for "individuality", I'm arguing for respect for individual sovereignty. And with regard to that, your characterization would be flawed, because it involves clear violations of someone's sovereignty, so whatever you're talking about, it's clearly not total individual sovereignty. Bringing things like "anarchy" into the conversation only further demonstrates your confusion.

Full "individual soveregnty" is just sayig that its okay for any individual to impose their will on anyone else.

Wow, you're even more confused than I thought. It would be just the opposite - that is, it is not okay to impose your will on anyone else, because that would be violating their sovereignty. Did you think this through at all before posting?

Social contracts so no, you can't so whatever you want,

I'm not sure what this means, but if you're saying people can't do whatever they want, I'm pretty sure I've never said otherwise.

WE, and a group restrict your actions to prevent YOU from doing things to US that WE don't want.

And where have I argued for doing anything to you that you don't want? As usual, you're not making much sense.

And trust me, as much as you complain and moan,

Is this just your way of trying to make legitimate criticisms that you can't refute seem less valid than they are?

if we were to be more complacent with "individual liberty" you would not benefit.

You might just be right about that. Not everyone bases their politics on self-interest.

Those that would benefit are the economically powerful and the expence of the economically weak.

Well, duh. If people have been having their property and earnings confiscated, and then such a practice comes to an end, it kinda figures that those who have been having the most taken from them would benefit the most, and those who have been accustomed to benefitting from that practice would benefit the least if it stops. Did you really think you had a point here?

If you are not a billionaire or a multi-millionair, you would be hurt horribly by moving towards more individul liberty.

Since I am neither, I guess it would be too much to hope for to expect you to explain the foundation for this conclusion, clearly and concisely?

The social contract of government keeps powerful individuals from imposing their will on others.

And here it is again. The good old "social contract" can always be counted on when you've got nothing else, right? Of course, your characterization doesn't exactly tell the whole story. That particular "social contract" doesn't keep a powerful majority from imposing its will on others, does it?

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
You don't have a "right" to education. But thanks for demonstrating one of the problems with setting bad precedents. Fostering the belief that you do have a right to these things is one of the unfortunate effects of those socialist traits you're asking about.

Originally posted by jj
Ok, taking it at face value there, tell me...

Do you think that there is any value for a 60 year old person in paying taxes to educate college students?

Do you think there is any value in a 20 year old mean-young-conservative paying for heathcare for the 60 year old person?

There might be, but what is important is that it's not my call to make for them, in either case. In a free society, the value of something is a determination that belongs with whoever is footing the bill, and the choice should be theirs.

Whatever value someone might find in paying for the education of a complete stranger may be insignificant compared to applying their resources to the education of their own kids. It should be up to them to decide who benefits from what they have earned. Similarly, if they think their best "health care" value is to apply all such resources to the health care of their own parents, or to anyone else in their own life, that should be their call as well. And the imposition of a different choice on them is the moral equivalent of stealing from them.

Let's leave rights out of it, which, if either, of the above, are good long-term investments?

Again, what matters is whether the person doing the investing thinks they are the best investment. It's not my place to decide that for anyone else. Nor is it yours. This is one of those things that tends to get overlooked among people who favor socialism, and confusion over where the decision rightfully belongs is one of the problems with it.

 

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Cain
Fine, the same arguments can apply to police protection.

Sounds good to me.

Why should the wealthy subsidize a police force disproportionately sent out to impoverished districts that pay much lower taxes (and hardly any by comparison).

You might want to ask someone who's wealthy. Speaking for myself, I would probably have no objection to paying for the services of a reliable police force that charged people based on income or something. And if I became wealthy, I can't imagine that I would suddenly have a problem with doing so.

Ideally though, everyone pays for their own police protection, and if you can't afford it, well, tough luck. Purchase a gun maybe?

Well, I don't know that I'd consider that to be the ideal situation, but if you can't afford it, and can't get someone else to pay for it, a gun might be a good temporary measure until you can.

What makes ownership so special and morally off-limits?

I don't know if this question is directed to me (you quoted me in your post), but you might want to ask someone who has claimed that ownership is "morally off-limits", whatever that means.

In other threads I've brought up the issue of legitimate ownership (how it comes to being), especially land ownership, but no one has yet to offer a substantive answer.

I'm open to suggestion. Whaddaya got?

We've setup a system where rich people get multiple cosmetic surgeries, and poor people needlessly suffer because they didn't catch an physical condition soon enough.

Sounds like a good reason to try not to be poor. Incidentally, would you prefer a system in which rich people could not get "multiple cosmetic surgeries"?

 

[no one in particular]

Attention everyone, I think we've found our Jedi Knight for the left.

Hey! I called dibs on this claim in this thread!

 

[Tmy]

Sounds like a good reason to try not to be poor. Incidentally, would you prefer a system in which rich people could not get "multiple cosmetic surgeries"?

I know Im goingto sound like some treehugger hippee but reading these posts I get the feeling that lots of people believe that the poor simply choose to be poor. That they would be well off if they werent so lazy. All theyhave to do is work hard, start a business and they'll be OK.

I find that rather simplistic and unfair. Thats like saying "Gee If the rich dont like the amount they pay in taxes, just give all your money away and become poor. Then you wont be paying those taxes you complain about."

True some people embrace poverty but for the most part people are "poor" for a variety of reasons that may not be so controlable.

 

[Ed]

There is no such thing as a self made millionaire, first of all, and secondly those are examples of people taking advantage of new "gold rushes".

.

I am and I know several and it is not and you have no idea what you are talking about. You sound a bit like a bitter wage slave.

 

[KelvinG]

What I'm learning in this thread is that the US is much more a socialist country than I originally thought.
Interesting.

 

[KelvinG]

Maybe we don't have a universal healthcare system, and maybe we spend a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than our cowardly neighbors to the north, but goddamn, at least we have the greatest, biggest, most fantastical military in the history of the world.

Just out of curiosity Cain, why does having universal healthcare make Canada cowardly?
I'm not understanding your reasoning here.

 

[BillyTK]

Just out of curiosity Cain, why does having universal healthcare make Canada cowardly?
I'm not understanding your reasoning here.

Clue: irony

 

[Kodiak]

First of all socialism does not require that the government do anything other that regulate wages, all work can stay in the private sector.

Are you saying socialism doesn't call for government ownership, management, and control of the means of production and the distribution and exchange of goods?!?