Has western style socialism broken people's spirits?

[oldtime]

Quote from logic_man:

Those are not "socialism", they are "public goods".

It is an entirely different class of good. Going from "the government provides policing" to "the government should provide a basic retirement income, even if it means taking from some and redistributing to others" is a logical leap across the friggin Grand Canyon.

The first kind of good, e.g. police provision, is available to everyone (obviously, not all at the same time) whereas the second type of good is the taking from one to give to another, thus making the good (in this case, money) unavailable to the first person (i.e. the one who actually labored for it).

Are you capable of understanding that? If not, why are you even interested in politics at all, since that distinction is about a billion years old and part of any introduction to political economy pre-reading. Not even the introductory course, just the pre-reading to the course.

getting back to the mafia, they had their own privately paid for police (some actually had real uniforms) and their own fire department (only they didn't put fires out, they started them.)

If you're big, you don't need public police and fire departments.

I'm pretty sure Don Corleone could make Assad "an offer he couldn't refuse."

Police (if you can find one not on the take) are for the weak.

I can take care of my own investments, and I can take care of my own police matters.

And when one of my soldiers stops by your business, I would recommend you pay them for their "advice" and I will take care of you.

Either way, I will take care of you.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from oldtime:

getting back to the mafia, they had their own privately paid for police (some actually had real uniforms) and their own fire department (only they didn't put fires out, they started them.)

If you're big, you don't need public police and fire departments.

I'm pretty sure Don Corleone could make Assad "an offer he couldn't refuse."

Police (if you can find one not on the take) are for the weak.

I can take care of my own investments, and I can take care of my own police matters.

And when one of my soldiers stops by your business, I would recommend you pay them for their "advice" and I will take care of you.

Either way, I will take care of you.

In "Guns, Germs and Steel", the author argues that every government is a kleptocracy, to one degree or another. David Hume said that the strangest thing in human affairs was the ease with which the many were ruled by the few.

History is full of "states" which were originally simply areas taken over by gangs who then settled in for the long haul.

George Washington said that government was like fire, useful, but dangerous. My problem with a lot of people today is that they see the "useful" part, but not the "dangerous" part. That makes them naive fools and useful idiots. Obviously, not everyone is going to have the intellect of a Washington, but people can at least read his words and think about the fact that even though he was the President, and the nominal and legal head of the government, he thought government was dangerous. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be taken aback by that statement. Yet, once again we see the truth that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

 

[Random.Capital]

One person's mob rule is another person's democracy.

Self-rightiousness is an addictive feeling. Which is pretty much the only thing this thread has successfully demonstrated.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from logic_man:

All of your points boil down to "I decree that the Federal government shall take from some to give to others". It's mob rule.

Can't you just admit that rather than resort to ludicrous rationalizations?

Yes! Yes that's it. I admit it!!! The thrust of your first sentence is correct, if not the detail -- I did not decree anything. The second sentence is incorrect. I's not Mob rule. But I know you put that in to introduce a little intentional overstatement. That's OK.

So, yes the government takes from some to give to others, same as when you buy an insurance policy from a private company, by the way. I know, i know, it's OK for Liberty mutual, or worse yet Geico!, to do this to you, but it's not OK for the government to do it because they did not ask you if it was OK, they just did it. Right?

Interestingly, we usually don't know until much later whether we are one of the ones being taken from or one of the ones being given to. If we only knew how long we would live, we could know,

You took a chance when you bought that private corporation's insurance policy that you might die without ever having made a claim; thus pouring hundreds or thousands of dollars down a rat hole, so to speak.

Well it's exactly the same with Social Security. You take a chance that you yourself will never see a dime of the money you contributed. But as with insurance, for taking that chance, you get something valuable in return.

I would guess that you have a real problem with the government telling you that you must participate in Social Security, not giving you any choice. I understand that. Sadly, the government can't give you that choice without adversely affecting the efficacy of Social Security. Social Security needs a large cohort of workers at all income levels to best achieve its goals.

Though you don't realize it now, you someday will realize how valuable social security is to you, even if you have millions, and then you'll be glad you had no choice, because you would have been one of those who foolishly opted out!

 

[WilliamV]

The one thing America needs to learn: when you put the party who doesn't like government and doesn't know how to govern efficiently into power, then you have a broken system.

It's hard for the other party to correct the ship, because austerity needs to happen in the booming years and govt investment needs to take place in recessions and when capital is not flowing because of corporate moral strucuture, and lack of public assurance regulations.

Just honor the social safety net that families have paid into for years like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Maintain a strong military, and give incentive and invest in the overall public good.

Concern yourself with what's going on OUTSIDE your gated communities.

 

[oldtime]

Quote from Random.Capital:

One person's mob rule is another person's democracy.

Self-rightiousness is an addictive feeling. Which is pretty much the only thing this thread has successfully demonstrated.

when is a true democracy never mob rule? If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a true democracy. Granted, I don't know of any true democracy, but that's how in theory it is supposed to work.

 

[logic_man]

Quote from Random.Capital:

One person's mob rule is another person's democracy.

Self-rightiousness is an addictive feeling. Which is pretty much the only thing this thread has successfully demonstrated.

It's "self-righteous" to want the rule of law, not the rule of the whims of the crowd? In what universe? Since homo sapiens emerged from the primal forest, he has striven to escape from the passions of the moment and the crowd. You idiots want to jump right on in and embrace them for momentary gain. For what, a couple hundred dollars a month in retirement? Fools.

Also addicting, hiding behind relativism.

Do you deny that the US is a republic? Yes, a "democratic republic", but the qualifier is on the "republic", not the other way around.

It's right there in the Pledge of Allegiance "and to the republic, for which it stands...". It's there in Ben Franklin's quote "A republic, if you can keep it".

How is it "self-righteous" to say that rules ought to be made in accord with the guidelines set out in the founding documents and not changed on the fly? You throw around words but what do you actually specifically mean by them? Saying something trite like "one man's mob rule is another man's democracy" brings nothing insightful to the discussion at all. Sounds like a teenager who thinks he's clever but hasn't a clue.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from morganist:

Has western style socialism broken people's spirits?

A discussion on the above topic. What do you think? Has the socialist style of government or wealth distribution system through the confiscation of goods made people feel like it is not worth working or at least it is harder than the alternative?

Yes

 

[logic_man]

Quote from piezoe:



Though you don't realize it now, you someday will realize how valuable social security is to you, even if you have millions, and then you'll be glad you had no choice, because you would have been one of those who foolishly opted out!

Christ on a cracker, what are you talking about? You think I came to my position by waking up one day and saying "I oppose Social Security"?

In this thread alone I've quoted Nietzsche, David Hume, Jared Diamond, Ben Franklin, the Roman system of dual executives wielding veto powers, the Greek selection of legislators by random lot et al. You think a fart in the wind like you is going to tell me something about the world that I don't already know?

If you had a clue, you'd be wondering to yourself why it is you don't agree with me and where you went wrong to reach such a fallacious conclusion. But subjectivism and the decline of objective standards of intellect and discourse are killing the West, so it doesn't surprise me to see some of the casualties here.

 

[Eight]

Porter Stansbury has a very interesting audio report out about what's wrong with the US of A... It's way too long like all his stuff and I couldn't stay with it to the end, my stomach was churning, but he's saying that the white middle class have given up their ideals. I agree.. I recall during the Reagan years that a law, amendment, whatever it was, was passed requiring a balanced budget for the Federal government. Democrats took it to the supremes and got it tossed out. My outlook sure changed at that point and I think that maybe a lot of people said the same thing I did: "f%^k it then, I'm going to get all I can and use the ship for a bonfire". It's pretty obvious that Democrat and Republican leaders have that attitude and that attitude trickles down... Having a Pagan-Atheist school system certainly adds to the confusion. Before about 1890 the school system was private largely and McGuffy readers taught God's wisdom, life lessons and morality along with reading.. that's been outlawed, no?